Sitting of 15 July 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DERWENT VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 20 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Inflation
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the average annual rate of inflation for 1979 to 1982 compared with 1974 to 1977.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): The average annual rate of inflation between May 1979 and May 1982 was 14·2 per cent. From February 1974 to February 1977 the averge annual rate of inflation was 19·6 per cent.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures speak volumes for the value of a Conservative Government as against a Socialist Government? What effects will that have on Britain's future and its position in the world?
    Mr. Brittan: The continued fall in inflation is the biggest single contribution that we can make towards sustained recovery. It will improve our competitiveness and the prospect of lower interest rates.
    Mr. Egger: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, but will he confirm that if we are to sustain the fall, not only in inflation but in interest rates, it is essential that the Government do everything in their power to limit increases in public sector wages?
    Mr. Brittan: I readily confirm that.
    Mr. Flannery: In his last answer the Chief Secretary mentioned the continued fall in inflation, but he neglected to mention the catastrophic rise in unemployment. Will he tell us something about that?
    Mr. Brittan: When I am asked I will—
    Mr. Flannery: I am asking.
    Mr. Brittan: There is no shortage of questions on unemployment on the Order Paper. This question is about inflation.

    Recession (Economic Indications)
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indicators now lead him to believe that the recession is ending.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Industrial production in the three months to May was about 3 per cent. higher than in the spring of last year. The prospect is for further gradual recovery. This is supported, for example, by the central statistical office's index of leading cyclical indicators, and by most recent independent forecasts.
    Mr. Deakins: Are there any signs of increased job opportunities in British industry to combat the present disastrous levels of unemployment?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are two foundations upon which the prospects of improved employment are to be built. One is the continued success against inflation, and the second is the improvement in output that is likely to follow that. All our policies are directed to that end.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Chancellor aware that his own central statistical office states that the figures to May are incomplete until we have the June figures, partly because of this year's exceptional incidence of the spring bank holiday and, secondly, because of the frenzied industrial activity due to the Falklands crisis?
    With regard to the ending of the recession, what is the Chancellor's reaction to the recent surge in imports due to the sabotaging of the home industrial sector?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree that the surge in imports is to be regretted. That is a consequence of the continued lack of competitiveness of Britain's economy, which has nevertheless made substantial improvements in recent months. It is also aggravated by continued examples of industrial unrest.
    It is because the figures for one month are not representative that. I founded my answer on industrial production in the three months to May, which was 3 per cent. higher than it was in the spring of last year.
    Mr. Rippon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the record number of bankruptcies in the first six months of this year, mostly among small businesses and largely due to high interest rates, suggests that the recession is ending?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's anxiety about the record level of bankruptcies, which is not confined to this country. He rightly draws attention to the importance of lower interest rates in improving prospects for small businesses as well as others. As a result of the Government's economic policies interest rates are now 4 per cent. lower than at the end of last year.
    Mr. Straw: On 30 July 1981 the Chancellor of the Exchequer told an incredulous House that the recession was at an end. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the past 12 months—not three months—manufacturing production slumped still further and has only recently returned to the level of last July? With the right hon. and learned Gentleman's track record of predictions, the House and the country would do far better to take notice of people such as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI, who last Saturday said that the economy was as dead as a dodo.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right to take that view of the economy. Economic growth in Britain, as in every country, is still slow and hesitant. Economic growth in some European countries is static or negative. However, the OECD, which is an international observer of the scene, stated in its most recent forecast that output growth in Britain is likely to be about 1¼ per cent. this year and slightly higher than that next year. That is close to our forecast, and it is one that is confirmed by the majority of independent outside forecasts. What is more important is that the OECD's forecast represents an upward revision of its earlier forecast at the end of last year.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Parryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects his policies to result in a fall in unemployment.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of his policies on unemployment.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Employment prospects should improve as inflation comes down and our competitiveness improves. The Government have done much to alleviate the impact of unemployment on particularly vulnerable groups such as school leavers. As is usual, I make no forecast about future employment levels.
    Mr. Parry: Does the Minister agree that the real level of unemployment is more than 4 million and that the Government's policies are not working, despite their attacks on trade unions, the unemployed, the sick and disabled and others? When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduce measures drastically to reduce unemployment?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Our policies are working. Inflation is falling and competitiveness is improving. These two factors together provide the best hopes of improvement.
    Mr. Canavan: When will Ministers stop spreading the rubbish that high wage demands cause high unemployment when the truth is that we have one of the lowest wage economies combined with the highest rate of unemployment in Western Europe? Surely it is about time that the Government started to take action against unscrupulous employers such as Murdoch and Co. in Kilsyth in my constituency, which seems to be involved in some shady sort of asset stripping while making redundant the entire work force, the average take-home pay of which is less than £50 a week?
    Mr. Hayhoe: When high wage rises lead to decreased competitiveness in British industry, fewer people buy British goods and that leads to a loss of jobs. Higher wage increases this year will lead to the export of jobs rather than the export of goods.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons for high unemployment lies in past excessive wages claims without increased productivity, leading consequently to a loss of competitiveness in export markets and in the home market? Does he accept that a second main reason lies in the irresponsible strikes that we have suffered in the past and especially the one that we are suffering now with ASLEF, which will lead to even higher unemployment because of the irresponsible attitude of the leaders of ASLEF?
    Mr. William Hamilton: Pompous man.
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I hope that all who can bring some influence to bear will bring it to bear upon ASLEF leaders in asking them to call off a damaging and unnecessary strike.
    Mr. Shore: The Minister was asked the simple question "When does he expect the level of unemployment to fall?". The simple and obvious answer is that he has no such expectation. Not one forecast available to the Government, or others outside, predicts any fall in unemployment over the next three years. Are we not faced with a stubborn, instransigent and insensitive Government who are planning on the basis of at least 3 million unemployed from now until the next election and beyond?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I said—this was customary with the Government of which he was a member as well as with this Administration—that I do not make estimates of future levels of employment.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce unemployment would be to remove the discriminatory hire purchase restrictions on motor cars? The motor industry forecasts that if that were done another 70,000 or 80,000 cars would be sold, which would obviously help to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I know that this matter is being actively promoted and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken note of my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that the honest answer is that, with the range of current policies, there is no way in which the level of unemployment will be less than 3 million in the foreseeable future? Do the Government accept that? If not, what do they intend to do about it?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The honest assessment is that we shall succeed only by reducing inflation and by making industry more competitive. If there are to be more jobs, more people at home and abroad must buy British goods and use British services, and these will have to be of the right price and the right quality.

    Overseas Investment
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the increase in overseas investment since the abolition of exchange controls has had any effect upon the level of (a) industrial and (b) other investment in the United Kingdom.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): I know of no evidence to show that the abolition of exchange controls has had a quantifiable effect on investment in the United Kingdom. But, if anything, it might have led to an increase in investment, particularly in sectors exposed to international trade, by keeping the sterling exchange rate from rising in 1980–81 as much as it would otherwise have done.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that since the Government took office £10 billion worth of valuable capital has gone overseas, that the rate is now £4 billion a year and that since exchange controls were abolished industrial investment in the United Kingdom has slumped by 20 per cent? Is the hon. Gentleman not the slightest bit worried about these figures?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has watched what has been happening to business investment in the United Kingdom, which has held up remarkably well to output. The latest Department of Industry investment intentions survey foresees a modest rise in investment in 1982, which will increase in 1983. I remind the House that much investment overseas helps to build links between companies in the United Kingdom and overseas and thereby helps United Kingdom exports.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If we continue to have a large surplus on our current payments, is it not inevitable that we must have a corresponding outward investment?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The alternative to the outflow of productive investment overseas would be the accumulation of reserves, which would reflect official investment in under-pinning the PSBRs of other countries. I doubt whether that would be a more sensible use of our resources.
    Sir Albert Costain: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the Public Accounts Committee's examination of the heavy losses incurred by Rolls-Royce, witnesses observed that the losses would not have been suffered and the company would not have found itself in financial trouble were it not for exchange controls, which stopped the company buying dollars forward? Surely that is a good example of how exchange controls have caused unemployment?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend is right. There is no doubt that exchange controls were ineffective in insulating the United Kingdom from the judgment of the market place on the performance of successive Governments. Among other things, they implied distortions of trade and payments, such as those to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mr. Cook: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that since the Government came into power capital has been flooding out of Britain, for whatever reason, at twice the previous rate? Is he aware that in the first year after the abolition of exchange controls, 22 per cent. of direct British investment went abroad, compared with 4 per cent. in the United States, 2·5 per cent., in Germany and 0·6 per cent. in Japan? Can he not see that those figures show one of the reasons for the decline in British manufacturing industry? Can he not grasp the fact that unless we check the flight of capital from Britain we shall not arrest the decline of our manufacturing base?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Britain was entering a period of substantial oil surpluses when the Government took office. As I have already explained to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the alternative to the outflow of capital and private investment account that occurred would have been a build-up of Government holdings of overseas gilt-edged securities, which might have helped the borrowing requirements of other Governments, but it would have been of no long-term benefit to Britain.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why our industrial companies have invested overseas is that they are able to exploit their technological advantages and inventions there and that they are able to supply firms abroad which are not content to rely on one United Kingdom source of supply? Does he agree that that investment protects British jobs and British design?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

    Incomes
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he foresees a further period of reduction in real incomes.
    Mr. Hayhoe: As the Budget forecast showed, a small fall in after-tax real incomes is likely this year. Continued moderation in pay settlements is essential to improve the competitiveness and profitability of industry and so create more jobs for the future.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister realise that that cut in spending power can only lead to more company closures and therfore much more unemployment? Does he agree that the cut in spending power means that areas such as Warrington, which were prosperous until the advent of this Government, will be turned into industrial wildernesses?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That is why it is necessary to improve the competitiveness of British industry. We shall then be able to sell more goods and services.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the contributory factors to the problem of real incomes in the past 10 or 15 years has been that most people, whether they are good or bad performers, expect and demand an annual wage increase?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Widespread expectations of increases in income that are not linked to increases in productivity are a recipe for increased inflation and a fall in real income.

    United States Treasury (Meetings)
    Mr. Newensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regular meetings take place between Ministers in his Department and Ministers in the United States Treasury; and in what context they occur.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I meet my American opposite number at the regular meetings in the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank; and at the annual economic summits. We also meet on an ad hoc basis from time to time.
    Mr. Newens: What representations has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made at those meetings against the disastrous effects of President Reagan's monetarist madness, high interest rates and now the President's ban on the take-up of contracts for the German-Soviet pipeline? Does he agree that those factors bode ill for economic recovery in Europe, especially in Britain, which is afflicted by the same madness?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Contracts for the Soviet pipeline are a separate issue. It is appropriate to put further questions about it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. With regard to American economic policies, it is important that the American Administration should succeed in their battle against inflation. Firm control of monetary growth, there as here, is an essential part of that. However, it must be supported, there as here, by firm and effective control of the Budget deficit. It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman, who belongs to the party that frequently urges me to expand the Budget deficit in Britain, acknowledges the consequence of a Budget deficit in the United States—that it is too high and that it is one of the main causes of high American interest rates.
    Mr. Budgen: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets his colleagues abroad, does he explain to them, as he sometimes does not explain to us, whether he is now controlling the prospective rate of inflation by reference to the money supply or by reference to the sterling exchange rate?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have said often, the Government have no covert or overt target for the sterling exchange rate. Our policies are determined by attention to the rate of monetary growth, exactly as I explained in my last Budget Statement.
    Mr. Shore: We agree that the United States, as well as other industrial countries, is suffering, to a greater or lesser extent, from many of the problems that face Britain—especially unemployment and the lack of adequate industrial growth. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the forums in which the principal countries of the Western world discuss matters of major and mutual interest are adequate? Does he agree that the summit of the Seven could be reinforced, in spite of the incredibly disappointing series of recent meetings, including the Versailles summit? Does he agree that that could be done by having meetings of Finance Ministers before the summits take place?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take the importance of the right hon. Gentleman's point. It is important that Britain should play an important part in international discussions of that type. The summit of the Seven at Versailles addressed itself to that point. As a result of it, discussions are now taking place on those international matters. They follow up a suggestion that I made in a speech to the IMF last year. Perhaps I might respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question by asking him another—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Does he believe that the Budget deficits that are high and rising in the United States are to be deplored, but that those in Britain should not be?

    Economic Upturn
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he sees any evidence of an upturn in the economy.
    Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the momentum of recovery in the real economy since the second quarter of 1981 to date.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The turning point was reached in the spring of last year. A gradual recovery has begun and is expected to continue.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Cambridge economic policy group recently forecast that by 1990 there would be 4¼ million unemployed in Britain? Is he further aware that the same group forecast that by the end of this year—I understand that Sir Terence Beckett agrees—there will be 4 million unemployed? If that is so, does he agree that his economic policies have failed and that he should therefore resign?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that unemployment has been rising steadily for many years under successive Governments. That is happening at the same time as unemployment rates elsewhere are rising even faster. The solution is to be found only in the continued determination to fight inflation, to correct the
    1160
    balance of the economy, to restore competitiveness and in the economy's capacity to improve its output performance.
    Mr. Cormack: How does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage the economy developing in the West Midlands in the next year?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The economy in each region has its own components. That means that patterns will not be identical. However, if the economy as a whole continues to improve as we believe is likely, and if those concerned with production on both sides of industry in the West Midlands apply themselves to improving their own performance, which is the most important factor, I see no reason why the West Midlands should not share the improvement.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Bearing in mind the size of the upturn that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sees taking place all about us, will the Chancellor undertake to ensure that at the end of his period of office manufacturing output will be higher than it was at the beginning?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—for anyone in any circumstances to give absolute assurances of that type. The hon. Gentleman is better placed than many hon. Members to appreciate that the extent to which we can succeed in improving economic performance depends on the performance of people in industrial units and companies. If we were able, for example, to improve the performance of the motor industry, a huge demand for motor cars in Britain would be satisfied by British working people.
    Mr. Cadbury: Did my right hon. and learned Friend see the recent article by Samuel Brittan arguing that some fiscal stimulus could be given to the economy now without prejudicing the Government's monetary policy? Does the Chancellor agree that the least inflationary way to help British industry out of the recession would be to abolish the national insurance surcharge, which is a tax on employment and was imposed by the Labour Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I read the observations of one brother Brittan with almost as much attention as I listen to the observations of the other. We have made clear our dislike of the national insurance surcharge in the changes that will shortly come into effect reducing the burden of that tax, which, the House will recall, was introduced with acclamation by the Labour Party.

    Unemployment Estimates
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the assumption of 2·9 million unemployed in 1982–83 contained in his White Paper, Cmnd. 8494-II is still valid.
    Mr. Brittan: The assumption, which relates to the unemployed in Great Britain excluding school leavers, is still valid.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister confirm that, in re-examining his estimates and assumptions, the Chancellor will talk not only to Sir Terence Beckett, director general of the CBI, but to Mr. Denny, chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI, who said last week that the economy

    1161
    is as dead as the dodo and that we are into another recession before we are out of the last? Will he do that before he revises his estimates?
    Mr. Brittan: Before any revision of the estimates, there will be a trawl of discussions far wider than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: As almost all the questions today involve problems of fundamental structural readjustment of the Western economies, all of which were predicted in an OECD report before the election of most of the present Administrations of major Western democracies, is it not time that we addressed our questions and concern to those fundamental structural readjustments and tried to deal with them rather than constantly seeking to apportion blame as between this Administration and the last?
    Mr. Brittan: I could not agree more. The fact that under successive Governments there has been a steady upward trend in unemployment that is matched in many other countries shows that fundamental structural problems are involved and that no useful purpose is served by the apportionment of blame, which is a substitute for serious thought about serious issues.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: As all serious commentators agree that unemployment will be higher than the forecasts and assumptions in the White Paper, and as we know that the figures used in the White Paper are provided by the Treasury, is it not clear that the position, disastrous though it is, has been understated, with consequent understatement of Government economic policies generally?
    Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the assumptions to which he refers are working assumptions and not forecasts. Therefore, it is far more useful to ask what can be done about levels of unemployment which, whatever forecast or assumption one takes, are far too high. The answer to that has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Unemployment will not be reduced in any substantial, serious or lasting way by reflation of demand, which would merely lead to a short-term boost, an increase in inflation and lack of confidence, resulting in levels of unemployment higher than they would otherwise be.

    Value Added Tax
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors are taken into account when determining which items are zero rated for the purposes of value added tax.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: VAT is a broadly based tax which, of its nature, covers a wide range of goods and services in the domestic economy. Zero rating is applied as an exception to a number of essential items in family budgets, such as most food, heating and light, public transport and young children's clothing.
    Miss Lestor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one such exempted category has always been that of medical supplies, which would include articles of sanitary protection for women? Is he aware that following last week's radio phone-in on the subject and the petition now circulating thousands of women will be petitioning him about this? Will he consider removing the tax from those essential items?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am, of course, aware of the arguments advanced in support of that proposition. I must point out, however, that items of sanitary protection are one of a large list of articles involving what is described as personal hygiene—including toilet paper, soap, toothbrushes, razors and the like. I can see no logical reason to single out one item in the list for special treatment.
    Mr. Cormack: On another sanitary point, why does a person who builds a new lavatory receive better VAT treatment than the person who repairs an old one?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That has pulled the plug on my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The whole construction industry is an area in which the boundary between zero rating and standard rating is highly complex. The logical answer, which I do not envisage the Government pursuing at present, would be to apply standard rating to all forms of construction work.
    Mr. Pavitt: As items of sanitary protection are the only items on the list given by the Minister which, for biological reasons, are used exclusively by females, does he agree that their inclusion is discriminatory? Is it not time that the Government backed up their views on sexual equality by removing that item from tax?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am glad to say that, in my experience, most women have a tendency to use soap.
    Miss Joan Lestor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and the levity with which he treated the question, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is only consuming Question Time. Perhaps it could wait until afterwards.
    Mr. Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not a waste of time. That was a sexist remark and the Minister should apologise.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order and it was a waste of our time.

    Service Sector (Investment)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to seek to make investment in the service sector as attractive as investment in the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Government's economic policy aims at providing the right background for profitable investment by companies, whether in the manufacturing or the service sector. But the key to investment, as my hon. Friend will know, is profitability. That, in turn, depends substantially on productivity and sensible wage bargaining, which is not in the gift of this or any Government.
    Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend will know of my interest in the service sector. Will he confirm that the Government recognise that £1 of overseas earnings from, say, tourism or airlines, is just as valuable to the economy as £1 of

    1163
    overseas earnings from manufacturing industry? Are the Government convinced that the service sector is just as important as the manufacturing sector to the economy of this country?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes, the Government accept that. Our general policy has been to avoid introducing new measures that discriminate in favour of specific industrial sectors. The measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend in the 1982 Budget that were designed to help business—the NIS changes—and the measures designed to encourage enterprise and innovation, do not discriminate between specific sectors of industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no desire to have a pecking order in manufacturing and service industries.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister consider the problems of investment in the service industries, in particular those relating to shipping? Will he condemn Lord Matthews, Trafalgar House, Cunard and all others involved in refusing to place an order with British shipyards for the replacement of "Atlantic Conveyor", using British steel? What representations, investment encouragement or other assistance is the Minister giving to see that that takes place?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not entirely clear how that arises from the original question. The shipping industry must live in an international climate and if it is obliged, or persuaded, to purchase new equipment at a higher price than that which its overseas competitors pay, its ability to compete will be reduced and in the long term the industry and the country suffer.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I do not underestimate the importance of the service industries, will my hon. Friend reconsider his remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and admit that manufacturing industry is the real wealth creator? In an effort to slow down the increase in unemployment, and perhaps reduce it, will he ensure that our manufacturing industry does not suffer from unfair competition, not only from the developing countries, but from developed countries in the European Community?
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I agree that one of the duties of the Government is to ensure that our industries do not suffer from genuinely unfair competition. Where there is evidence of genuine unfair competition, it is the Government's duty to take countervailing action. That is accepted. However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's assumption that there is a wealth-creating aspect in manufacturing industry that does not apply to the service industries.

    Economic Output
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects output to obtain the level of May 1979.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I cannot give a firm date, but growth will be faster the quicker we are able to improve competitiveness and profitability.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the public believe that the Government can no longer hide behind allusions to the Labour Government's record? Does the hon. Gentleman also realise that the public feel
    1164
    that there is no hope under this Government? Does he agree that to stimulate greater output we must put the unemployed skilled workers into productive employment under the stimulus of policies that have now been set out publicly by the Labour Party? Does he further agree that we must give considerable State assistance through national enterprise? Is it not a wholesale indictment of the Government that there are 4 million people unemployed and that the Government can do nothing about it?
    Mr. Hayhoe: More jobs will be available to skilled men and women, as well as to the unskilled, when more people buy British goods.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend give that reply, and the others they have been giving this afternoon, to the workers of Ronson (UK) Ltd., who are now entering their second receivership this year, but who have been manufacturing a product for which there is world-wide demand?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I make no comment on that matter, as I do not know the details. However, providing goods and services at the right price and of the right quality will generate demand for those goods, which, in turn, will lead to more jobs in making them. If wage increases reduce our competitiveness, the jobs will be lost.
    Mr. Colvin: Further to the original question asked by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred, known as "Labour's Programme 1982", which contains massive plans for reflation? Will my hon. Friend say what impact those plans would have on our economy and on our international competitiveness if the Labour Party ever had the opportunity to implement them?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That is a hypothetical question, as that document will never be implemented. If a Government sought to implement such policies, it would lead to a massive increase in inflation and a consequent massive increase in unemployment.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further meetings later today. This afternoon I shall leave for a visit to Dorset.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically forthcoming and helpful reply. For the past 143 years, Rugby has been a prosperous railway centre. That prosperity is now threatened by the present ASLEF dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] The question will come in a moment.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would oblige me and bring it at once.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ASLEF dispute is not supported by the overwhelming majority of railwaymen and, according to the BBC, is not

    1165
    supported by the majority of the Shadow Cabinet? What advice does my right hon. Friend give to railwaymen in general and to Shadow Ministers in particular on how to get the railways back to normal working?
    The Prime Minister: May I in turn thank my hon. Friend for his typically helpful initial question? With regard to the future of the railways, there is no future unless working practices agreed in 1919 are updated. The problem could be quickly over if the ASLEF workers returned to work and accepted flexible rostering, in accordance with the British Rail offer.
    Mr. Foot: In view of the growing gravity of the crisis on the railways, will the right hon. Lady now—desperately late, but still not too late—instruct the Secretary of State for Transport to cease his inaction and take a positive step towards trying to find a solution to the crisis? Does not the right hon. Lady consider it high time that one of her Ministers discussed with the parties concerned the growing crisis that threatens the railways?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The board has made it quite clear that if the drivers are prepared in their own interests to accept flexible rostering and return to work in sufficient numbers to enable a timetable and reliable service to be operated the railways need not close. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me in an appeal to drivers to accept flexible rostering and return to work.
    Mr. Foot: The appeal that I made to the right hon. Lady a moment ago is exactly the appeal that has been addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport by Mr. Sidney Weighell, whom the right hon. Lady quoted a day or so ago. Mr. Weighell says:
    "It is the refusal of your Government to honour its commitments to the railway community which is responsible, above all, for that deeper crisis in the railway industry".
    He also says that he takes the greatest exception to the Prime Minister having the temerity to pray him in aid in defending her policies. Therefore, will the right hon. Lady apologise to Mr. Weighell, to the railway community and, at last, take action to stop this dispute getting even worse?
    The Prime Minister: I prayed Mr. Weighell in aid only in making a judgment on the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Weighell was right. The way to end the strike is for ASLEF to accept flexible rostering, as the NUR has, and for people individually to return to work. Then the railway strike will be over. That will be in the interests of the railway and of the whole working population. The Government, through the external financing limit, have given record assistance to the railways and there is a first-class investment programme now in progress.
    Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. lady think that it is an outrage that, on the eve of a major national crisis such as this, none of her Ministers has seen all the parties concerned?
    The Prime Minister: No, I think it is an outrage that the right hon. Gentleman will not appeal to the drivers to return to work.
    Mr. Leeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite her Government's criticism of the Israeli action in
    1166
    Lebanon, she remains a friend of the Israeli people and an admirer of Israel's domestic achievements and democracy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we have always admired Israel's democracy and her tremendous achievements in turning that land into a fertile and rich country. We are totally committed to the security of Israel. We believe that that security will be best achieved when Israel and the Palestinian people mutually accept and respect one another's rights.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself no good by an exhibition of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does the right hon. Lady agree that no formula that allows the ASLEF executive to continue with the equivocation of the past year, or to escape from its clear obligation to accept the McCarthy award, is tolerable? Does she also agree that to keep the support of the other rail unions it is necessary not only to point out the dark consequences of the strike but to make clear the Government's wholehearted commitment, when the present difficulties are overcome, to an efficient railway system with a secure long-term future?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree that we cannot make progress unless we have flexible rostering. The question has been considered for a long time. A few months earlier this year, after having considered it, Lord McCarthy said that
    "unless progress is made on this question, the future outlook for the railway system and railwaymen is bleak and unpromising".
    As I pointed out earlier, the external financing limit for this year is about £900 million, and last year it was about £930 million. The operating grant this year, included in that, is about £800 million. I have a list of many projects in which the British taxpayer is investing. They cannot give a return unless we improve the present practices.
    Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that in some parts of the country NALGO members are blacking the work that is necessary to inform National Health Service employees of the Government's improved pay offer? Will my right hon. Friend condemn that practice and take every possible step to ensure that the terms of the pay offer are widely known?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I understand that one of the regional health authorities wished to put details of the pay offer into the pay packets but NALGO blacked the necessary work. It is important that full details of the offer should be conveyed to the employees and we are considering how it can be done.
    I urge NHS ancillary workers to accept the 6 per cent., which is the same amount as has been offered to and accepted by the Armed Forces, by the teachers and by the doctors, and is rather more than has been accepted by the Civil Service. We deliberately made a special case of the nurses to give them 7½ per cent., and I believe that that was generally agreed in the House.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although the ASLEF strike cannot possibly be justified, nevertheless it would be wrong to let the railway network close down, because of what that would do to the employment prospects of thousands of railwaymen who

    1167
    are not involved in the dispute? Therefore, will the Prime Minister change tack and set up a court of inquiry on the understanding that ASLEF calls off the strike?
    The Prime Minister: No. There have been endless arbitrations and inquiries, finishing with that of Lord McCarthy, whom I have just quoted. He said that flexible rostering must be accepted.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the strike will be very damaging, particularly to those who work on the railways, and to many other people who work in other industries. The way to end the strike is for individual members to accept with all speed the terms of the new contract that the British Railways Board has offered, so that they can return to work and the railways be kept going.
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of constantly urging the Government to solve the rail dispute, people should urge the TUC to direct ASLEF to call off its strike, on the ground that it is detrimental to the trade union movement as well as being detrimental to the country as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: The ASLEF strike and the National Health Service strike are both detrimental to the trade union movement as a whole. If the ASLEF executive will not recommend a return to work, it is up to individual members to accept the BRB's offer.
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind that unemployment among women is now accelerating at twice the rate of unemployment among men and that certain Government measures, such as the work availability tests and other things, will make it even more difficult for women who have the opportunity of a job to take it, will the right hon. Lady state this afternoon that women have an equal right to work? Will she also dissociate herself from comments by some of her colleagues to the effect that married women
    1168
    should stay out of the labour market and leave it to men? In view of the exhibition that we had earlier from the Treasury Benches, will she take the opportunity to educate some of her male colleagues about the sexually discriminatory tax on articles of sanitary protection for women?
    The Prime Minister: This is not a Budget. If the hon. Lady wishes to make representations, doubtless she will do so in due time. With regard to jobs, the people best qualified should have them, regardless of whether they are men or women.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend regret the decision of many local councils not to take part in the civil defence exercise later this year? Does she agree with the Home Secretary when he says that local councils can no more declare a nuclear-free zone than they declare a snow-free zone?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, local councils cannot declare nuclear-free zones. Many of us wish that nuclear weapons had not been invented, but they have, and it is our duty to make preparations for civil defence to defend the population. It was very disappointing that out of the 54 local authorities that were scheduled to take part in exercise Hard Rock, only 34 were ready to do so. The 20 that were not prepared to do so were all Labour councils.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Lady, when considering all the proposals put to her on the railways dispute, recognise that the British Railways Board and the House have a duty to the nation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The railways have a duty of service to the nation. So have all those who work on the railways. The vast majority of those who work on the railways, including some ASLEF members, are still working. Those who are still working, especially the ASLEF drivers, have the great gratitude of the nation. The whole question can be sorted out if the remaining ASLEF members accept flexible rosters, which have been inquired into endlessly. I hope that by Tuesday they will have done so.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Aviation Security Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motions on Supply procedure.
TUESDAY 20 JULY—Until about 7 o'clock, motions on the up-rating orders on social security benefits, supplementary benefit, child benefit, family income supplements, pensioners' lump sum payments, and supplementary benefits (requirements and resources).
Motion relating to industrial training board orders.
Motion on the rate support grant reduction (Stirling district) 1982/83.
Motion on European Community document 6168/82 on revenue duty on traditional rum.
Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 21 JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on developments in the European Community July-December 1981, Command No. 8525.
Motion on the Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations.
THURSDAY 22 JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations.
FRIDAY 23 JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day] (second part): Debate on the preliminary draft general Community budget for 1983, and the supplementary budget No. 1 for 1982.
MONDAY 26 JULY—Remaining stages of the Civil Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
[Revenue duty on rum from French Overseas Departments, Document No. 6168/82.
Relevant Report from European Legislation Committee: 23rd Report of Session 1981–82 (HC 21-xxiii para. 2) Preliminary Draft General Budget for 1983, Document No. 7790/82.
Preliminary Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 to the General Budget for 1982, Document No. 7789/82.
Relevant Report from European Legislation Committee: 26th Report of Session 1981–82 (HC 21-xxvi paras. 1 and 2)].
The House will wish to know that subject to progress of business it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer adjournment on Friday 30 July.
Mr. Foot: I should like to put three matters to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him a week or so ago for a statement on the sale of BNOC assets and the steps to be taken to avoid a repetition of the fiasco of Amersham International. It was indicated that the Government were not yet ready to make a statement. The Opposition want a statement as speedily as possible. Even if the Secretary
1170
of State for Energy has not yet concluded his proposals, we feel that he must make a statement before the House adjourns for the recess. By one means or another, we must avoid the scandal that occurred over the Amersham sale.
The unemployment figures show every sign that they will be sustained at the same appalling rate when they are next announced. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will now respond to the request that I have made on several occasions that there should be a debate on unemployment in Government time before the recess.
On the issue of the railways, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have consultations with the Prime Minister about the letter sent by Mr. Sidney Weighell to the Secretary of State for Transport to which I referred a few minutes ago. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the letter makes a serious charge against the Secretary of State for Transport who should in any case come to the House to make a statement upon it. What the Opposition want is a response to the proposal that Mr. Weighell includes in the letter for an initiative by the Government to help to deal with the growing railway crisis.
Mr. Biffen: I shall take the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes in reverse order. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been most concerned to come to the House with statements as the crisis on the railways has developed. I am certain that he will maintain that reputation of attendance upon the House. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the letter of the general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on unemployment. I am sure lie recognises that the House debated unemployment last week. Of course it is a serious matter of continuing concern. It is relevant to all the economic debates undertaken in the House. I cannot guarantee, however, that time will be found in Government time for a debate on this topic if we are to maintain the programme of rising by 30 July.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the sale of Britoil, I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. My right hon. Friend will be the first to answer questions on 26 July and hopes to use that as an occasion to inform the House of the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Foot: What was debated a day or so ago in the House was the shameful manner in which the Government were treating the unemployed. We want a further debate upon the total number of unemployed and the fresh announcements that will be made in the next couple of weeks. I believe that the Government have an absolute responsibility to provide time for a full debate on the subject.
Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I was observing that the House last week debated a Liberal Supply day motion on unemployment. [Interruption.] Unemployment is a topic, even if it is raised by the Liberal Party. I shall of course bear in mind the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I have to observe that I believe there is a general will in the House that we should rise at a reasonable time. I should have thought that Friday week was a reasonable time. I have to bear that in mind as a consideration.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Is it not significant that in a week in which there are no fewer than three Supply days when the Opposition can choose the subject for debate, they have not chosen to have a debate on the railways? Is it not therefore apparent that while the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is prepared to indulge in exchanges at Question Time and following statements he is not prepared to see his views examined in detail in full debate?
Mr. Biffen: Yes. I think it is significant.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has so far failed to carry out his undertaking to investigate and report upon the conduct of an official in the Northern Ireland Office and the suspicion is growing that it is his intention to play out time until the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that his right hon. Friend will at least make an interim statement on this subject next week?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the request that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Leader of the House not accept that, while one can understand the reluctance of the Opposition to initiate a rail debate and expose their own embarrassment, there is none the less an obligation on the Government to ensure that this subject should be debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. An opportunity will of course arise upon the Consolidated Fund Bill for debating this matter. There might be a disposition on both sides of the House to take advantage of that facility.
Mr. Foot rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the Leader of the Opposition and follow that by calling two Conservative Members.
Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that it is grossly misleading for the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) to attempt to say that the Opposition have tried to avoid debates on the rail crisis? We are the only people who have provided time. The right hon. Member for Hillhead should not be so eager to pick up titbits from his Tory friends.
Mr. Biffen: I know that the Leader of the House has a time-honoured conciliatory role, but the prospect of trying effectively to effect a conciliation between the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) would tax anyone's energies.
Mr. John Farr: In view of the critical position in the negotiations on multi-fibre arrangement 3, may we have a debate in the House either next week or the week after, but before the Recess, about protecting the interests of British industry?
Mr. Biffen: That topic would be best pursued on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Sir Frederic Bennett: No one would suggest another debate on the Middle East, although the crisis is still serious. Will a statement be made next week, or at least before the Recess, on the dangerous position in the
1172
Middle East, with special reference to the suggestion now mooted in the media that a British military presence should be part of any settlement? The suggestion has worried many people.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the tragic and serious position in the Middle East. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend's anxiety that there should be a statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. So that we are fair to those who are deeply interested in the fisheries debate that will follow, I propose to allow questions to run until four o'clock by the digital clock, but for no longer.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do the Government believe that it is fair to ask a 78-year-old man faced with the appalling burden of going into hospital for a cateract operation to go through all the papers that will be needed in the Falklands inquiry? May we have a statement next week if it is necessary to find a successor to Lord Franks?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the membership and terms of reference of the committee were endorsed without a Division by the House, which was well aware of what it was doing. Should there be any reason for the withdrawal of Lord Franks from the committee of inquiry, no doubt my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider the best way in which to present the matter to the House.
Mr. John Stokes: May I refer my right hon. Friend to motion 38 on the Order Paper in his name under the heading "Periodic Adjournments". That motion would appear seriously to curtail the rights of Back Benchers to have a debate on an Adjournment motion for a specified period. Will this serious matter be debated soon?
Mr. Biffen: It will be debated on Monday.
Mr. David Alton: Given the controversial decision announced this morning by the chairman of the British Gas Corporation not to site the supply and operational base for the new Morecambe Bay gas field in Liverpool and the subsequent loss of 1,000 jobs, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy will tell the House soon why that decision was made?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the hon. Gentleman's point. However, there is still time to put down questions for 26 July, when my right hon. Friend will be answering.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Due to the importance of the debate on seat belt regulations on Thursday 22 July, may there be some juggling with this and other business so that the regulations may be debated on Tuesday or Wednesday, when hon. Members may find it more convenient to attend?
Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman knew how much juggling has gone into the present immaculate pattern, he would realise why I am most anxious not to disturb it.
Mr. Barry Henderson: In view of the increasing evidence of restrictive trade practices in the motor car industry, which result in British car prices being

1173
on average one-third higher than anywhere else, will my right hon. Friend arrange time for the Government's attitude to such matters to be clarified, perhaps next week? The cost to the British economy is now running into thousands of millions of pounds.
Mr. Biffen: The matter was aired in the House, but I am sure that the Consolidated Fund Bill would be the proper time to raise such a topic from the Back Benches.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Can the Leader of the House tell us now for how long the Recess will last and the date of resumption?
Mr. Biffen: I should be glad just to get to the date of the Recess. When we are nearer to that date I shall bear in mind the general anxiety to know when we must return.
Mr. Stanley Cohen: I refer again to the railway dispute and I shall be discreet and not tell the right hon. Gentleman what he can do with the Consolidated Fund Bill. Does he recollect that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to clear obligations? Does he accept that the obligations are the responsibility not only of the trade unions and the British Railways Board but of the Government? Is it not time that the Government tried to resolve the dispute?
Mr. Biffen: I know the strictures of the hon. Gentleman upon the merits of Government policy. I can best help the House by saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has come to the Dispatch Box frequently to explain the course of the dispute and the Government's attitude towards it. He will persist in that.
Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of the importance of achieving durable and sensible arrangements on Civil Service pay and conditions, when can the House debate the Megaw report before any Government decision?
Mr. Biffen: It would be prudent for the Government to engage in many consultations outside the House before having a debate, which will be of the utmost importance, on the Megaw report. I can give only the dispiriting reply that we cannot debate it next week.
Mr. James Lamond: As it must now be obvious to the Leader of the House that the debate on the defence Estimates was an inadequate vehicle in which to debate the special United Nations session on disarmament, and as the special session had an extremely disappointing outcome because of the negative approach of both the Prime Minister and President Reagan, may we debate this important subject before the recess?
Mr. Biffen: Arms levels and disarmament have been mentioned in previous defence debates and there are two days remaining when they may be debated. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism on the matter, but it is not likely that the Government can provide time during the next two weeks.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British Gas Corporation said from the beginning that its decision on the supply base would be based entirely on commercial criteria after the most careful investigation and that, therefore, we need no further questions on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend aims her observations not only at me, but I am glad to know that some hon. Members believe that the House does not need too many preoccupations.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call only those hon. Members who have already risen. The number that I can call will depend on the length of questions.
Mr. Christopher Price: The Leader of the House has juggled the Report stage of the Administration of Justice Bill into the small, or perhaps the larger, hours of Wednesday morning. When shall we see the new amendment on the qualification for jurors that the Attorney-General will put down. Is the Leader of the House aware that we are entitled to a little time to study the amendment before Report stage?
Mr. Biffen: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to see such an important amendment as early as possible. I shall draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to his point.
Dr. David Clark: In view of the statement earlier today by British Shipbuilders of the complete closure of the ship repair division on the River Tyne, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to explain to the House why the ship repair yards are being decimated, why the men who refitted HMS "Fearless" are now being cast aside and why they will bring my town to its knees in the same way as Consett?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point.
Mr. Don Dixon: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study early-day motions 541, 545 and 602, which have been signed by 219 right hon. and hon. Members, and which concern the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor"?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the news that, after the strong, warm and deserved congratulations expressed to the Forces and the many shipbuilding and dockyard workers for their unselfish efforts during the Falklands crisis together with the deep sorrow at the loss of many men and ships, including the 'Atlantic Conveyor', the Cunard Line are considering placing an order for the replacement of the 'Atlantic Conveyor' with a Japanese shipyard; believes that this is a strange and unpatriotic way of rewarding the workers of this country for their recent efforts and further notes with alarm the Minister's recent reply indicating that Her Majesty's Government who undoubtedly will be paying compensation for the loss of the 'Atlantic Conveyor', are not prepared to take any action to ensure that this order is placed in British shipyards but prefer instead to reward foreign shipyards with work when British workers' great efforts in getting HMS 'Illustrious' to sea in record time are to be rewarded by further redundancies.]
[That this House, recognising the outstanding contribution of British shipbuilding workers to the mobilization and support of the Royal and Merchant Navies during recent hostilities in the South Atlantic, deplores Ministerial statements in the House that the Government will refuse to take any steps to ensure that the order for a vessel to replace the 'Atlantic Conveyor' will be placed in British shipyards.]

1175
[That this House fully supports the joint shop stewards committee of British Steel Stocksbridge and Tinsley Park in their endeavours to make sure that the replacement for the 'Atlantic Conveyor' is built in a British shipyard and made from British steel, and requests the Government to pay compensation to the owners of 'Atlantic Conveyor' on these conditions.]
Will, the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to discuss this issue so that we can express our views on patriotism to Lord Matthews. During the Falklands war, he was keen to express his views on that subject to the people of Britain through his newspapers. In addition, a debate would allow us to discuss the serious event that has occurred today, which has just been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)?
Mr. Biffen: That topic was relevant to yesterday's debate on regional policy and was, indeed, touched on during that debate. However, I shall draw the Secretary of State's attention to that point.
Mr. Leo Abse: As the Rayner scrutiny report on museums has been published and contains a Philistine attack on the theatre museum and joins the commercial and other penetrating influences that will take away childhood from our little ones by closing the Museum of Childhood in the East End, may we have a debate on that issue before the recess, or, if that is impossible, may we be given a firm assurance that important decisions affecting the cultural life of our nation will not be taken until the House has reassembled?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has sought to be reassuring, but I shall certainly draw that point to his attention.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Leader of the House withdraw Tuesday night's order, which gives the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to reduce the rate support grant given to Stirling district council in my constituency? Is he aware that about two months ago the Secretary of State held discussions with the Tory-controlled Lothian regional council on the basis of a rate support grant reduction of £45 million yet has still not given any intimation of his views? Nevertheless, within a day and a half of meeting Stirling district council the order to reduce its rate support grant was printed and published. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not lend himself to the Secretary of State's political victimisation of Stirling district council.
Mr. Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having given a powerful trailer of the formidable speech that he will doubtless deploy on Tuesday night.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman refrain from hiding behind the Question Time of 26 July when it comes to the sale of Britoil? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy at least brings the prospectus for the sale to the House before that sale takes place? It would be inopportune and invalid to go through the mish-mash of the Amersham sale. The profits from that sale, which have been reported this week, show that the nation has been denuded of valuable assets because of the Government's doctrinaire policies.
Mr. Biffen: Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is most anxious to deal with
1176
the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes?"] Yes. He is most anxious to deal with a matter of such great general interest to the House. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to his attention so that he can take them into account when considering how best to handle the matter on 26 July.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the school closures that are taking place all over the country, including the deplorable decision to approve the closure of Westcotes school in my constituency and the threat to many primary schools? When can we fully debate what is happening to our schools, despite falling rolls?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very effective at using these occasions to remind us of the difficulties and problems in his constituency. That is a legitimate use of Parliament, but I fear that Government time is unlikely to be available next week. However, such issues can be debated on the Floor of the House during Adjournment debates.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As article 92 of the Treaty of Rome precludes the payment of State aids and subsidies to industries, such as the shipbuilding industry, in Europe, although those same subsidies are being paid to Japanese manufacturers to compete with us over the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor", should there not be a statement from the Dispatch Box on that point and on whether the order should be given to a yard outside the United Kingdom?
Mr. Biffen: I have already said that I shall notify the Secretary of State for Industry of the general interest and anxiety expressed on that subject. However, I should not like the hon. Gentleman's supposition that no subsidies are available to British Shipbuilders to go unchallenged.
Mr. Jim Craigen: The Leader of the House seems surprisingly reluctant to concede a debate on unemployment, as if such a debate would be a retread of previous debates. Given the recent publication of the Rayner report and the grim message of the "Manpower Review", which has been recently published by the Manpower Services Commission, is not there a need to hold a debate on employment services before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Biffen: I note that point. However, I have to share with the House the problem and anxiety of balancing the demands made on this week, next week and the week after if we are to rise by 30 July.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago I asked whether a statement would be made on the allocation of money to National Health Service hospitals in view of the announcement that the Royal Marsden hospital in London was to close about 33 cancer beds because it had a £750,000 deficit? The Government seem happy and prepared to make statements about the dispute between the Government and the nurses and ancillary workers, to blame them for the suffering that results from such action and to continue reducing the NHS's ability to provide the necessary cash to keep open those cancer beds and, thereby, to reduce the suffering of patients who are badly in need of help and assistance.
Mr. Biffen: I am not competent to answer a question on the specific circumstances of the Royal Marsden

1177
hospital and at least I am aware that I am not competent. However, I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the totally unsatisfactory answers on the railway crisis that we received from the Prime Minister at Question Time, is it not necessary to hold a debate on that subject, and to hold it in Government time? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in such a debate the Opposition could show that the Government, far from wishing to bring about any conciliation, are determined to use the dispute to declare war on the trade union movement?
Mr. Biffen: If there are such compelling reasons to the advantage of the Opposition, to hold a debate on the railways they could well use a Supply day to that end.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made as soon as possible—obviously, before the recess—on the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations. Given the right hon. Gentleman's background at the Department of Trade he must be aware of the great anxiety felt by the textile trade, which has been expressed by the president of the British Wool Textile Confederation, who believes that the Government are indifferent. Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman taking item 39 on the Order Paper on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which also reduces Back Bencher' rights, next Monday?
Mr. Biffen: I have nothing further to add on the subject of the MFA negotiations, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade well knows hon. Members' widespread interest in the textile industry. I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is yes, but I shall confirm my answer later.
Mr. Edward Lyons: Given the continued and terrifying increase in the number of closures and redundancies in the engineering and textile industries in West Yorkshire, and particularly in Bradford, will the
1178
right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on the industrial situation in West Yorkshire as quickly as possible so that we can go into the matter in much more detail?
Mr. Biffen: A debate was held on regional development only yesterday; and with that debate just behind us I cannot, in all conscience, hold out the promise of a repeat debate in the near future.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that the British Gas Corporation's decision on the Morecambe gas field development is another kick in the teeth for Merseyside? The people of Merseyside feel that the Prime Minister and the Tory Government do not give a damn about unemployment on Merseyside.
Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy knows of those sentiments.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week from the Minister responsible for sport about the breach of the Gleneagles agreement by the Tory Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) and that overpaid BBC hack, Jimmy Hill, who seem to be involved in a conspiracy to send a football team to South Africa to give more credibility to the racist regime there?
Mr. Biffen: I do not hold out much hope that such a statement will be made, but I shall ensure that the Minister knows of the request.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the expiry yesterday of the agreement between the British Aluminium Company and the Government to maintain the Invergordon aluminium smelter on a care and maintenance basis, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland to make an urgent statement saying that there is still a possibility of restoring the 900 jobs involved?
Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that the hon. Member's question is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [25TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  SUPPLY

    Common Fisheries Policy
    [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 7787/82, 7786/82, 7788/82, 7863/82 and 7954/82, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 7th July 1982, which amends the annexes to Documents Nos. 7863/82, 7786/82 and 7788/82 by revising certain total allowable catches and quotas for 1982, and the White Paper on Developments in the European Community January-June 1981 (Cmnd. 8365).]
    Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the debate, I wish to tell the House that all hon. Members except one who have said that they want to speak have strong constituency interests. They will be called only if their colleagues make brief speeches.
    I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4 pm
    Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move
    That this House reaffirms its commitment to a 12 mile exclusive limit, dominant preference in the 12 to 50 mile zone, effective conservation measures, and catch quotas for the United Kingdom which fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters as the essential requirements for the United Kingdom in any acceptable Common Fisheries Policy, and accordingly demands that the United Kingdom Government refuse to agree to any Common Fisheries Policy settlement that does not secure these essential requirements.
    The debate is about the approaching settlement of the common fisheries policy. Associated documents make clear what is likely to be in that settlement. I read the Government's amendment with astonishment. It refers to maintaining
    "the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, preference outside 12 miles"—
    there is nothing in the documents about that—and the need for
    "adequate quotas for the United Kingdom".
    The documents make it clear that on limits and quotas there has been a massive sell-out by the Government. It is no use tabling a motion with weasel words which suggest that the issue is still to be fought, because we know that the Minister has accepted the basis of the Commission documents on our protection limits and quotas.
    The Minister's bacon has been saved by the Danes. The last time the Minister was saved by the French. He is now saved by the Danes' retreat from coming to an agreement. After the previous occasion the Minister was involved in a series of surrenders to the French along certain sectors of the coast to secure their agreement. The Government amendment refers to
    "the search for a solution on the outstanding issues".
    There is only one outstanding issue—what danegeld will the Minister pay to achieve the Danes' agreement? He cannot now easily go back—although we shall urge him to do so—and reject the earlier agreement.
    1180
    The Government amendment is fearfully inadequate for the realities of the crisis. I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in Aberdeen. It is amazing what a visit to a fishing port can do for her. On 26 April 1979 she said:
    "We shall make fishing top priority in our EEC negotiations. The proposals we have so far received from the EEC have been totally unacceptable."
    Using the tough words to which we have become accustomed, she added:
    "Our European partners must accept three fundamental facts."
    One was that the move to a 200 miles limit since we joined the Community had changed the situation and, secondly,
    "that our waters contain more fish than the rest of the Community put together."
    If one considers what has happened to the industry since we entered the Common Market we can understand the strength of her words.
    When we examine the solutions we realise how much the Prime Minister has failed to fulfil her pledge. I should not use the word "pledge" because the Tory Party rarely gives such a thing. Tories proceed by nods, becks, hints and implications. But the Prime Minister's words were stronger than that.
    Since we entered the Common Market the deep and mid-water fleet has declined by 80 per cent. Humberside is especially affected. For every boat fishing today there were five before we joined. The inshore fleet in England and Wales has also deteriorated. Of the 969 vessels operating in 1980, half were over 25 years old and only 13 per cent. were under 10 years old. The decimation of the deep-water fleet and the ageing of the inshore fleet has had its impact.
    In Scotland the figures are better. Of the 1,000 vessels operating in 1980, 20 per cent. were over 25 years old and one-third under 10 years old. And, on top of this, there has been a loss of jobs in the processing factories and the docks, sometimes on a massive scale.
    The documents set out the proposals, not just for one year, but for the continuation of a derogation for the next 10 years, and the process for renegotiating for yet a further 10 years. We are considering the future of the industry and these proposals are inadequate.
    In her speech in Aberdeen the Prime Minister also said:
    "our negotiating aims will be for: 1. an adequate exclusive zone. 2. a further considerable area of preferential access."
    The Government amendment refers to
    "the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit"
    and
    "preference outside 12 miles."
    Over the years the House has stressed the importance of a 12-mile limit and a 50-mile dominant preference area. That 50 miles has gone and there is no mention in the documents of anything to substantiate that the Government will seek preference outside 12 miles.
    With the exception of Scottish waters—and not all of them—for the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland coasts we have achieved, not a 12-mile exclusive zone, but effectively a 6-mile exclusive zone. The exceptions and grants of fishing rights to other countries between the 6-mile and 12-mile limits make nonsense of the claim that we are establishing a 12-mile limit.
    We pressed the Government to provide maps. I telephoned the Ministry yesterday to see what was happening and I was told that it would not be helpful or suitable for such maps to be made available for public

    1181
    examination. We know why. It is that such maps would show that not a 12-mile exclusive zone, but a 6-mile zone has been established.
    Fishermen in the Irish Sea worry about over-fishing. They believe that their waters are being opened up and that there is a desperate need for protection and conservation. They have been partly helped because of the restrictions on beam trawling. However, even the 12-mile exception that they have been granted is insufficient. For example, although there is a 12-mile exception in Morecambe Bay, one can almost walk out for about six miles before starting on the so-called 12 miles of water.
    Without a major headland to headland demarcation, 12 miles do little to give real protection. All those who fish for the main fish, such as plaice, sole and haddock, are fearful of the results. We see the same thing, and perhaps even worse, along the entire East Coast and the South Coast. There is a real opening up of the waters, and, where the limit has been extended, the exceptions remain massive.
    The right hon. Gentleman will say that these were historic rights, but these were surely what the Minister, and the Prime Minister when she made her statement were thinking of. The Prime Minister spoke about special measures to deal with the loss of third country waters and the new 200-mile concept. Given that, it is nonsense to talk about a 12-miles exclusive zone. Right along the East Coast, with the only exception being the Wash, there are incursions of one kind or another by our Common Market partners in the 12-mile limit.
    From Berwick to Coquet the limit is 12 miles—except for Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany, who can fish for herring. From Coquet to Whitby there is the 12-mile limit—except for the Germans and the Dutch, who can fish for herring. From Flamborough Head to Spurn Head the limit is 12 miles—except for the French; and so it goes on right down to the south-east corner of England. Right across the South Coast to Lyme Regis, France has permission to fish for all fish and Belgium and Germany for some fish. The whole apparatus is almost designed to conceal—I do not blame our Common Market partners for that, I blame the Government—the fact that it is not a 12 mile exclusive limit but a 6-mile limit, with six miles dominant preference. This is presumably what the Minister means by some kind of preference outside the 12 miles. He has effectively shrunk it to the six miles. That is why the maps that would have shown the extent of the sell-out were not available.
    I remind the Prime Minister of what she said on quotas, when she said that we have to remind our Common Market partners of "three fundamental facts". Fact two was that
    "our waters contain more fish than the rest of the Community put together."
    Point four in negotiating aims was that
    "Britain must have a very substantial share of the total allowable catch which takes account of the fact that we are contributing most of the water and most of the fish."
    In practice, we have only had a small concession on the seven principal species of fish of another 0·5 per cent.—from 35·6 per cent. to 36·1 per cent. On the species for human consumption. The quota has gone up from 28·8 per cent. to 29·8 per cent. This is in the context of the fact that our waters contain two-thirds of the fish stock, yet of the fish for human consumption the quota is for less than
    1182
    a third. In other words, it is half the amount that would be any respectable response to the fact that we have two-thirds of the water and of the fish.
    This is against the tough words of the Prime Minister and her colleagues about what our EEC partners must expect and accept from her. The problem is that we are running against the clock. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) said in our debate last December that the time was half an hour to midnight. It is now five minutes to midnight. In a couple of weeks' time we shall be in recess, and by the end of the year we must have an agreement. We have the documents and the Governments have agreed, with the exception of the Danes and they have rejected the agreement not because they want less, but because they want more, which, by definition, means less for us.
    The EEC has come up with an astonishing solution. If we cannot have adequate quotas for everyone, it says, let us increase the size of the stock. They have created an extraordinary fish called a paper fish. It is not so much a Paul Daniels sleight of hand, but a Tommy Cooper sleight of hand—the trick has failed because the fishermen have seen through it. This paper fish has been created in a cynical way. Against the advice of the scientists and against the reckoning for the conservation of future stocks, they have pushed up the total catch available.
    There has been a 50 per cent. increase in North Sea and Irish Sea whiting. Most disturbing of all, and particularly disturbing to Scottish fishermen, is the pushing up of the mackerel allowable catch by one-third, a staggering 101,000 tonnes. No wonder Fishing News said "Fish now, pay later."
    That manoeuvre has angered and disturbed the fishermen who are concerned about the future of the industry, even if the Minister is not. The attempt to conceal this basic sell-out has been seen, and the sell-out continues. The most recent document, which I did not know was in front of us until I saw the italic additions to the Order Paper today, is concerned with third country waters. Even there, the unnumbered document of 7 July showed a reduction in Norway cod by 1,000 tonnes and a corresponding increase for the Germans. There has been a reduction in Norway haddock and an increase to the Germans. There has been a decrease in cod and haddock for us from the Faroes, with an increase for France.
    With this mixture of conjuring tricks, it is hoped to fulfil the promise of achieving an agreement with the industry. As it is now clearly understood by the fishermen, and as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that he will not come to an agreement without the assent of the industry, I hope that the Minister does not try to fob them off with this catch 22. I hope that they will understand that even though he is pointing a pistol to their heads, against the clock and with a background of the possible diversion of fishing up to our beaches, if the common fisheries policy is not agreed, the responsibility is not theirs but that of the Government. The Minister must not fob off the responsibility on the fishermen to force a shotgun wedding which he can use to ride to political safety.
    I wish to have some clarification on some of the workings of the common fisheries policy, as they have been virtually agreed with the Government. For example, document 7594 outlines the workings of the future common fisheries policy. In it, article 11 provides that conservation, regulation, the total allowable catch—

    1183
    "shall be adopted by Council acting by a qualified majority".
    Article 14 provides that the management committee can give an opinion "by a majority". If the matter goes to the Council, the Council can act by a qualified majority.
    This could be serious and I want clarification because, while this may not be applicable to the negotiated catches each year, it is applicable to a great deal of the workings of the common fisheries policy and, above all, of policing. Incidentally, the Prime Minister in her famous speech in a fishing port in an election year said that we must have
    "a control system which enables us to police our own waters."
    One of the aspects of the majority vote is the policing system. If there is one thing that is common in all the representations from the fishing industry, it is the inadequacy of the policing methods and the faulty inspections—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have a reaction from the Tory Benches. It is nothing to do with fish. "Police" is a trigger word for those people.
    I wish to have clarification about the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the veto in this respect. Is it the case that crucial questions such as policing and conservation, total allowable catch and methods of policing can be decided by a qualified majority? Where does this leave us?
    We are in a sorry state. We gave ample warning to the Government. It is hateful to say "I told you so", but many of us must say that. We were assured by the Minister in the other place, Lady Tweedsmuir, that if anything went wrong, we at least had a veto. We had no veto. All that a veto could do would be to allow fishing up to our beaches. We told the Government that, and they did not accept it.
    The Prime Minister said in Aberdeen at the general election:
    "Fishermen will find a true and determined friend in the next Conservative Government."
    She could have fooled me. She also said:
    "Further conservation measures will be taken by Britain acting on her own if we cannot get agreement upon these points."
    Let the Prime Minister act now. She has shown a good deal of boldness in the past. She has demonstrated it over the past two or three months. I remind the Prime Minister that many of the men who sailed to the waters of the South Atlantic were from fishing stock—I come from the same stock—which provides many of our sailors and merchant seamen. Let her act with the same resolution on the fisheries policy and we shall back her.
    The Government should tear up their silly amendment and accept our motion. Let the House be unanimous in the fight for dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile zone. Let the Minister act on his own, if need be, as the Prime Minister has instructed us to do on other occasions, and we shall give him our support.
    4.22 pm
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "this House welcomes the further progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised common fisheries policy, particularly in relation to conservation, marketing and control; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a community-wide system of enforcement as well
    1184
    as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues."
    The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) spoke as I expected. He has always been opposed to any European policy. Therefore, he is opposed to a European fisheries policy and so he puts his name to the motion on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend wants an honourable deal.
    Mr. Walker: I would be only too pleased to trace the history of this matter and the way in which it has been dealt with by successive Governments. I would be happy to compare our record in the fishing industry with that of our predecessors.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Compare it with the Government's promises.
    Mr. Walker: I remind the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West that the sad figures that he gave for the decline of the long-distance fleet also apply to the period when the hon. Gentleman's Government were in office. He was a member of that Government for a short period. The hon. Gentleman did not bother to mention this. The figures were also a result of the Icelandic war, which his Government fought and, perhaps sadly, lost. The hon. Gentleman thinks that, in anything, the European Community is the reason for all our ills.
    That remarkable bias came through in other parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He talked about access and said that six miles was no use in certain areas, as one could not reach the waters to fish, unless the limit extended from headland to headland. All the Commission proposals are headland to headland. He did not understand that basic fact, which shows his ignorance.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the reduction of our quotas off North Norway. He did not mention that that was more than compensated for by the proposals for Greenland cod and Rockall haddock. That was typical of the overall bias of the hon. Gentleman's presentation.
    Let us examine the background and what the Opposition are asking in their motion. The motion has been changed from the motion that was proposed in the debate in December. They have inserted words that seem to imply that what is acceptable to the Opposition, which is different from when they were in Government, is a total of all the fish that would be in our 200-mile territorial waters, if we had them, plus extra fish for the loss of Icelandic waters when its 200-mile limit was imposed. That would come from all our partners in Europe. They would be asked to agree to give up 40 per cent. of the fish that throughout history they have fished. They would be asked to give up all their historic rights. The other nine member countries would be asked to reduce their fishing industries on a massive scale. The Opposition would expect people such as their good Socialist comrades Herr Schmidt and Monsieur Mitterrand to say that they have decided that, because there is a possibility of taking advantage of a 200-mile limit, they will give up all their fishing industries to do so.
    The hon. Gentleman invited me to accept the motion. I could have done so. When negotiation was impossible, I could, as my predecessor did, have come constantly to

    1185
    the Dispatch Box saying that I had agreed to nothing and that I would allow the fishing industry to continue to decline, as it did under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Minister aware that, in the debate on 9 December, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that our motion meant exactly the same as the Government's motion?
    Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend amended the Opposition's motion and made it much more sensible. Every explanation was given why.
    Let us recognise that the tactics suggested by the Labour Party resulted in the decline of the fishing industry in port after port during its period of office. The Labour Government's record of aid to the industry does not compare with our record of aid. In addition, without any threat of any description, the Government, in every negotiation, have worked in harness and harmony with the industry.
    Yesterday, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West had talks with sections of the fishing industry. Those sections did not demand what is in the Opposition's motion. I had talks with all three sections of the fishing industry today. They are not asking for what is in the hon. Gentleman's motion. They are asking for what they consider to be a settlement that will be in the future interests of the industry and will give them better prosperity in the future than in the past. That is what they are seeking and that is what I am seeking. I shall make clear some of the background to that.
    Mr. Buchan: The fishermen have made it clear to me that they cannot allow themselves to be held responsible by the Government for any breakdown in negotiations. Therefore, they are seeking to get the best possible deal within the narrow parameters of the Commission documents.
    Mr. Walker: Any member of the fishing industry who has worked with me for the past three years can publicly deny this if it is not true: no part of any negotiation that I have conducted on any topic has been carried out without the agreement of the fishing industry. I have proceeded step by step with those people, discussed and agreed objectives with them. That will continue. That is different from the approach of the Labour Government, who delivered to the fishing industry nothing but rhetoric—years of rhetoric and no progress on fishing policy.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If what the Minister says is true, why does the NFFO state that its delegation was subjected to extremely heavy ministerial pressure following the NFFO's rejection of the quota and access proposal?
    Mr. Walker: The rest of the fishing industry was also present at that meeting. The NFFO sat with me and the rest of the industry on a Friday to discuss historic rights and access detail by detail, but on the Monday it said something different from what it had said to me on Friday. I asked for an explanation. I asked whether it would not go along with any negotiation unless there was an elimination of every historic right in the agreement. The NFFO replied to me, in the presence of the rest of the fishing industry, that at the end of the day it would want to decide the balance of the agreement on its total merits. It was not stuck on any one issue.
    1186
    As members of the NFFO caught less than 20 per cent. of the total catch I asked whether the NFFO wanted to veto the requirements of the rest of the industry when the rest of the industry wanted a particular agreement. The reply was "No". That is an accurate description of what took place. That is what the NFFO described to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West as pressure from a Minister. It was a clarification of the NFFO position.
    I return now to the vital question of access. It is important that the House puts on record once and for all—
    Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
    Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment. I have given way a great deal more than the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West did.
    Mr. John Prescott: That is a typical reply.
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) knows better than most, I do not have a bad record for giving way.
    I wish, however, doubtless to the deep embarrassment of the Opposition, to trace the history on access. First, I shall clarify the position. Until 1964, we had a three-mile limit and beyond that any ship from any country could fish. In 1964, with no disagreement in the House or elsewhere, we signed the London convention in which, in moving to a 12-mile limit, we agreed the historic rights of other countries within that 12-mile limit. With the negotiations to join the Community in 1973 and with the Treaty of Accession, we agreed further historic rights in our six to 12-mile limit.
    I wish to remind the Opposition that they decided when they renegotiated the terms of our entry they did not wish to renegotiate the terms on fishing. The Opposition, who are now so critical of the Treaty of Accession with regard to fishing, decided that fishing was not among the items for renegotiation. In fact, there is on record a splendid letter from the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which tells the fishing industry why he considered it was not necessary to renegotiate on fishing.
    The Opposition talk a great deal about the 200-mile limit and the fish in our waters. The most important and interesting moment came in 1976. A proposal came forward that we should extend the 200-mile limit for all European countries as a Community. That was the moment to discuss or decide what benefit or disadvantage we, the United Kingdom, would have if we decided to agree with our Community partners to extend to the 200-mile limit. It was the Labour Government in 1976 who decided to extend the 200-mile limit for this country within the context of it being part of European waters. That was not a Conservative Government but a Labour Government. What is interesting is that in those negotiations the Republic of Ireland said "Because there is a lot of fish in our sea, if we are going to extend our 200-mile limit we want an agreement to have perhaps double the fishing quotas of our historic fishing." That was granted to the Republic of Ireland.
    The Labour Government negotiating at that time asked for and obtained nothing. That is the position on access and I am glad to have this opportunity to put that on the record. The Opposition keep telling me how many fish we have within the 200-mile limit and how we should go for

    1187
    all of it. The time to have negotiated that was in 1976, but it was sold for nothing by the Opposition. That is the historic position.
    Mr. Buchan: I am completely free from that charge.
    Mr. Eric Heffer: So am I.
    Mr. Buchan: It should not be forgotten that I resigned from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman should, too. It might be helpful. When I was talking about the 200-mile limit, I was quoting the Prime Minister. She said that that essential factor had to be kept in mind by the Common Market when discussing the shift to the 200-mile limit. The right hon. Lady bowled that ball, not me.
    Mr. Walker: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman dissociates himself from the activities of the Government in 1976. I am sure that it was a great relief to everyone that he resigned at the time. The time to have negotiated—the fishing industry recognises it—on the benefits to Britain of the 200-mile limit was in 1976.
    The Hague agreements are now part of the legal position that I inherited in 1979. I inherited the London convention rights, 1964, agreed without any disagreement in the House. I inherited the Treaty of Accession rights, with further historic interest granted in the six to 12-mile limit. It is against that background that I had to begin negotiating improvements in our access provisions.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has twice appeared to suggest that rights conferred between six and 12-mile limits by the Treaty of Accession were historic rights. I challenge that. I do not believe that there is any evidence of a French historic right along the east coast of England, for example, in Northumberland and Yorkshire. That right was not contained in the London convention and when it was conceded in the Treaty of Accession in 1976 no one suggested then that it was a historic right.
    Mr. Walker: In terms of the Treaty of Accession rights there are a number of historic rights that we would dispute. The country concerned cannot perhaps show much evidence of historic tradition in that area.
    I turn now to the negotiations that have been carried out since. After the demise of the Labour Government and after their agreement to The Hague agreements and their decision not to renegotiate the Treaty of Accession, I inherited the position that in 2,000 miles of our coastline there were historic rights in the six to 12-mile area. Over the past three years, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have had detailed and prolonged negotiations. I am still not satisfied and I hope that further improvements will be obtained on the proposals, as outlined by the Commission, on the 73 per cent. of the coastline where there were legal, historic rights, and that there will either be an eradication or reduction in those historic rights. Therefore, I wish to make it clear to the Opposition that their desire to table motions whereby there will be no agreement will mean that if there is no agreement the Treaty of Accession rights and the London convention rights will continue unamended. Therefore, it is not in the interest of the British fishing industry to throw away for nothing a negotiation that has already
    1188
    substantially improved on a position that the Labour Government continued through their Hague agreements. They lost a marvellous opportunity to improve our position.
    In terms of access provisions, our objective is to continue to improve that position to the maximum. We shall do that in the negotiations that take place. We shall do the same on quotas. The only quota that the Labour Government obtained in their years of negotiation was given to them when the then Minister decided not to go, for whatever reason, to the meeting of Fisheries Ministers in Berlin. They did a deal in his absence and provided quotas, which in terms of the majority of species in which our fishermen are interested, were much worse than the quotas on offer today. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West referred to "paper" fish. Among the fish that were offered then were substantial quantities of an undesirable fish called the horse mackerel.
    With regard to quotas, we have examined with the industry stock by stock, area by area. The preference along our coastline is not just for access but for the proportion of the quotas that we are to obtain in the waters. In negotiation after negotiation we have steadily improved the quotas of the species that our fishermen consider the most financially rewarding.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: What is the improvement in our quota percentage of North Sea cod since 1978?
    Mr. Walker: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not mention the five species in which there is a major improvement.
    At this stage we do not know the figure that we shall end up with for North Sea cod. A major factor is the negotiation with Norway from which we expect a substantial extra volume of cod to be made available. We have told the Commission that we expect a major portion of that to become available to the United Kingdom. In his usual courteous and charming way I know that the hon. Gentleman will rejoice if we achieve that improvement.
    Mr. Gavin Strang: It is surprising that the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the increased TAC for mackerel. Our mackerel stocks are at risk. The catch in the past two years has provided ample evidence of that. Surely the Government are not prepared to accept the increased TAC for mackerel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) described as paper fish.
    Mr. Walker: I have expressed my anxiety to the Commission, and will do so again at the meeting next week, about quota, or TAC increases, not based on scientific evidence. One difficulty is that the figures proposed resemble the amount that British fishermen took out of the stock the previous year. Another factor is that in the absence of an agreement the uncontrolled overfishing of mackerel stocks is much greater than if an agreement were obtained. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's view. To build up future stocks we must have an arrangement toughly based on scientific evidence. But over the past year British as well as foreign fishermen have overfished the stocks.
    The future structure of the industry is of considerable importance. If we succeed in negotiating the common fishing agreement we can better decide its future structure. I have already talked with leaders of the industry, and shall

    1189
    continue to have official talks with the major organisations. One proposal in the structural part of the package is for European financial grants, two-thirds of which will be of substantial interest to our industry for modernisation and scrapping older vessels. There is an important potential for our industry.
    I come to the most basic point. It was dealt with in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West quoted and in the manifesto, which I am pleased that he did not quote this time after his inaccurate quote previously. The emphasis was on the urgency and importance of proper controls. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said that that is the most important aspect, too.
    Right from the beginning, 12 or 15 months ago, we made it clear that we shall not be satisfied with a common fisheries policy without enforcement; it would be meaningless. If, for instance, the Danes fished double their quota, the objective of the policy would be destroyed. We stated to the Commission that we would not agree to a common fisheries policy unless there was an effective inspection and policing system. We have attained the right to police our territorial waters. We shall see that the resources are made available to do that effectively and well. But we wish to see that other countries are forced to do the same. The suggested regulation was virtually drafted by the United Kingdom. For the first time it brings into operation the power of enforcement and inspection to make sure that quotas and TACs are abided by. That is the best growth potential for the fishing industry. Only by building up the stocks will real growth take place.
    I can in no way express optimism that agreement will be reached in the meeting next week. Much negotiation is still to take place on quotas, access and other details. As has been said, the Danish Government are expressing disapproval. The Danish fishermen have gained most from there being no agreement; they have overfished.
    I emphasise strongly that for three years I have worked with the industry to find an agreement that will be of benefit. It will be of immense importance if we succeed. If we fail it will not be for want of trying. Refusal and failure might reap immediate cheers from the Opposition at the Dispatch Box, as happened to my predecessor. But we must try to agree on policies to build up the stocks and to improve on what has existed over the past 10 years.
    4.46 pm
    Mr. Douglas Jay: The Minister's historical record would have been more truthful had he told us that, had we not joined the EEC, we should, like Norway, now be enjoying a 200-mile exclusive zone.
    We have retreated a long way on the common fisheries policy since the original surrender in December 1971 for which the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) were largely responsible. Even as recently as 7 August 1980 in a debate on the common fisheries policy the House voted unanimously that we should obtain
    "exclusive access within 12 miles, preferential access within 12 to 50 miles, and an overall share of fish for United Kindgom fishermen which reflects United Kingdom losses incurred in third country waters"—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 934.]
    We have now been reduced to a motion that merely reaffirms the exclusive 12-mile zone and preference
    1190
    outside that to protect particularly dependent fishing communities. There is no mention of the 50-mile preference zone.
    The House and the country should realise why we are in the hopeless negotiating position that the right hon. Gentleman described. He described the position accurately but did not tell us how we got there. The blame rests almost wholly with the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup, who, in their indecent hurry to force us into the EEC before the public understood what was happening, sold out the industry in December 1971 and January 1972 and deceived Parliament and the public.
    I will recount the hard facts. In 1971 we had already lost the Iceland fishing grounds because the world was moving from a 12 to a 200-mile limit. Before very long, not just Iceland, but Canada, Norway, the Soviet Union and other countries obtained a 200-mile exclusive zone as a basis upon which they could negotiate. If we had remained outside the Common Market, we would have obtained the same 200-mile zone, and our zone would have been particularly well stocked with fish.
    Realising that, in 1971 the French rather hurriedly cooked up a common fisheries policy in which every EEC member's zone would be open to all. The Norwegian Government, who were then seeking to join the EEC, together with ourselves demanded a continuing—not just temporary—exemption from that pooling of the whole area.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—he has not come to watch the result of his action today—promised in the House on 11 November 1971 that we would secure "comparable treatment to Norway". He also promised the House on the same day that
    "however long the initial period there must be arrangements on a continuing basis subject to review."—[Official Report, 11 November 1971; Vol. 825, c. 1239.]
    The crucial question was whether in that review, which is what we are having now, the promised veto in the EEC would be in the hands of the British who wanted to continue the concessions, or in the hands of the French who were determined to end them.
    In December 1971 the Norwegians refused to give way on the temporary nature of the concessions and demanded a permanent arrangement as a condition of joining the EEC. At that point—we should remember this today—the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup, as he had promised us comparable treatment with Norway, put urgent and secret pressure on Norway to surrender so that we could surrender too. Indeed, in that month he sent the notorious telegram to the Norwegian Prime Minister that was later leaked to the public and which contained the words:
    "It is very important for us that we present this question in a manner which will appear satisfactory to our fishing interests."
    That was the way in which the negotiations were conducted.
    To their lasting credit, the Norwegians refused to give way, insisted successfully on a continuing arrangement, and eventually, in the interests of their fishing industry, obtained a 200-mile exclusive zone by the simple expedient of staying out of the EEC altogether.
    But that was not quite the end of the negotiating performance of the right hon. Members for Hexham and Sidcup. They made statements that were designed to

    1191
    deceive the House and the public into believing that at the end of the 10-year period the veto would be in the hands of the British and not the rest of the EEC.
    On 13 December 1971 the right hon. Member for Hexham reported the agreement that he had reached and said that before the end of 1982 a committee would examine the arrangements—this is where we are now—that could follow those that were negotiated for the next 10 years. He then asserted flatly that
    "these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period."
    In reply to an Opposition question he again repeated that the Opposition were
    "quite wrong in saying that these are purely transitional arrangements".—[Official Report, 13 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 52–55.]
    The next day, 14 December, the Foreign Office representative in the House of Lords, Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has already mentioned today, no doubt speaking out of ignorance rather than malice, positively asserted that the veto would be in British hands. She said:
    "As to whether we have given up our rights to an automatic veto, that is not so, because we have declared that fisheries are of course a vital national interest, and that being so they attract the unanimity rule."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1971; Vol. 326, c. 1004.]
    Therefore, at that time the Government were not merely relying on the unanimity rule that we now find does not exist, but were also wrong about whose hands would hold the weapon. Those statements were direct falsehoods about the Treaty of Accession which had not then been published. The treaty was only published after the then Prime Minister had signed it on 22 January 1972. It said:
    "Before 31 December, 1982 … the Council, acting on a proposal of the Commission, shall examine the provisions which could follow the derogations in force until 31 December 1982."
    In Common Market jargon and law, a derogation ends automatically unless everybody agrees that it should continue.
    That is how we came to be placed in the hopeless bargaining position in which we are today and the full responsibility for that should be understood. That is how the British fishing industry has suffered the damage that it has in the 10 years since. Those were the deceptions on the basis of which the House was persuaded to agree, by a small majority, the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill only a week or two later.
    On 20 January 1972 a vote of censure was moved by the Opposition on the Government's negotiating methods. In that debate I predicted that in trying to achieve a reasonable long-term settlement when it came to 1982, the Government
    "would be negotiating … with all the legal cards stacked against them … any other Member of the EEC in this case can veto the continuance of this derogation after 1982 and we cannot, by veto, ensure its continuance".—[Official Report,20 January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 731.]
    That is where we are today and that is the story of surrender and deception that got us here.
    Mr. John Townend: I accept that mistakes were probably made at the time that we negotiated Britain's entry into the EEC, but would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the former Government, of which he was a supporter, should have dealt with the problem when the terms were renegotiated?
    Mr. Jay: If those terms had not been negotiated there would have been no need to renegotiate them. Once Britain got into that position it was exceedingly difficult to get out of it, other than by withdrawing from the EEC.
    The guilty men were the right hon. Member for Sidcup and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. To be fair—the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) wants me to be fair—the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be blamed for all this. He was one of those who opposed joining the EEC. How right he was. However, unhappily for him, he is not allowed to remind anybody that he was right. He can merely privately put on the fishing industry what it calls "heavy pressure" and tell it that he will do his best if only it will not criticise him in public.
    About two-thirds of our fishing industry has thus been virtually destroyed in recent years. It is worth remembering in passing that our industry used to be one source of recruitment and training for the Royal Navy. If we withdraw from the Common Market, we should regain the 200-mile zone and save our fishing industry. If we do not withdraw, we shall obtain, perhaps, a six-mile zone. I am still not clear even whether that will be for a limited period or, for example, for 20 years. That is the choice that faces us.
    There is no doubt that the rescue of the fishing industry would be one, though only one, of the major economic benefits of withdrawing from the EEC. Meanwhile, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you are proud that we have a Government whose Foreign Secretary was unable to protect British territory, whose Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was unable to protect the British fishing industry and whose Home Secretary was unable to protect the Queen.
    5.2 pm
    Sir Walter Clegg: We have had a historical review from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and I could almost have said it for him for he has been a consistent critic of our entry into the Common Market and a consistent critic of the terms of entry that applied to fishing. He took that stance at an early stage.
    I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman down that road because I have other things to talk about. I merely say that if we had not joined the Common Market and we now had a 200-mile limit, the issues would be much simpler and this Byzantine delay would not have occurred. But I do not think that all would necessarily have been smiles. The extension of the other fisheries limits and, for my own port, the loss of the fishing grounds around Iceland were the decisive factors rather than entry to the EEC. The middle water fleet was deprived of the waters to which I have referred and that was the greatest loss.
    When I made my first speech on fisheries in the House about 16 years ago this very month, the situation was completely different. At that time the limit was three miles. It was then increased to six miles and it was further increased to 50 miles and finally to 200 miles. For hundreds of years we had had a three-mile limit and a free-for-all beyond that. The deep sea industry—especially the large freezer boats—would have had a terrible problem even if we had not entered the Common Market.
    The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Buchan), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, said that on a previous occasion I said that it

    1193
    was half an hour to midnight. I agree with him that we are now considerably closer to midnight. My right hon. Friends have often seen delegations from Fleetwood representing the port and fishing interests and they have attended many meetings in Brussels. If we have a proper settlement, we shall have the prospect of a balance which will make Fleetwood a viable port. It will consist of about 10 middle water trawlers and about 70—I hope more—inshore vessels. I and the Fleetwood port generally are concerned that that there should be an increased quota in the Irish Sea for the inshore fleet and that the port should be able to send its trawlers to "sensitive waters", which is the term that is used in the somewhat Byzantine papers that are before us.
    A port such as Fleetwood has to have a proper balance. It has to have an inshore fleet and it has to have a deep sea fleet, or middle water fleet, to fish when the other vessels cannot bring fish ashore so as to maintain a constant supply of incoming fish. In my right hon. Friend's negotiations I hope that he will stress the importance of the Irish Sea quota and the availability of Scottish waters and Shetland waters to our middle water vessels.
    It is known generally that the fishing industry is crying out for cash. Last year it received £25 million but there has been nothing this year so far. One of the greatest drawbacks of EEC entry has been the long and tortuous negotiations which have taken place and the deep uncertainty which they have produced. I know that my right hon. Friends have done their best and have had to suffer disappointment after disappointment as others have before them. However, the inshore fleet is old because of the uncertainty. It has not been known what sort of vessels to build as there has been uncertainty about the seas in which they would fish. If we can get a settlement with honour and if we can achieve restructuring of the fleet, the result will be a tremendous benefit. I wish my right hon. Friend well when he renews the negotiations.
    It is not only the vessels that go to sea that have suffered. The port installations have suffered also because not enough fish have passed through them. I should like to see some help given in that direction. If that is possible, it will be of tremendous advantage to some of the ports that have suffered most. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind. I do not care whether the cash comes from Europe or from the Government as long as it is available and enables us to have a modern and restructured fishing industry.
    5.8 pm
    Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) made an eloquent plea on behalf of his fishing port. I recall the Fleetwood trawlers that I used to see alongside my home town of Stornoway when I was a boy. I remember also the trawlers from Hull. We hardly ever see those trawlers now. There is something in what the hon. Gentleman said about the long distance fleet having lost out through the loss of the Icelandic waters, but there have been far more damaging consequences as a result of our entry into the Common Market and the common fisheries policy than is covered by that explanation alone.
    I think that both sides of the House will agree with the following:
    "The fishing industry is an essential part of the British economy, particularly in Scotland. It is a vital source of food and
    1194
    provides jobs for thousands of people both at sea and on shore, often in small communities that rely totally on fishing for their livelihood."
    Who could quarrel with those sentiments? They were part of the statement issued by the Prime Minister prior to the general election. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) made effective use of that statement when he opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
    In the light of that, it is all the more disturbing that there appears to be not the slightest doubt that we are on the verge of an agreement on fisheries. According to all the reports—they seem to be well founded—the policy will have disastrous consequences for our fishermen and the communities which depend wholly or largely on fishing for their livelihood.
    In The Times today there is an editorial headed
    "A Curate's Fish Of A Deal".
    That is a reference to the deal that is in the offing. As I understand it, the effect of the old Punch joke was that the curate's egg was good in parts. That cannot be said of the deal that is in the offing according to what has been revealed. The article in The Times refers to
    "those who believe, with considerable justification that over the years Britain's fishermen have been sold down the river."
    That is what many of us have said for a considerable time.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to the history of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the Labour Government did not even have fishing on the agenda during their renegotiations.
    An editorial in The Times said of the Conservative Government's negotiations to enter the Common Market:
    "In its eagerness to join the Community in 1973, the Heath government agreed to sweeping extensions to the so-called London Convention which allowed Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands access to British waters in which they had established 'historic' rights. Then, with the general move to 200-mile zones in 1976, the EEC decreed that all the territorial waters of member countries should in effect belong to the Community, and that they should all have the right to fish in them. This was greatly to Britain's disadvantage, since 60 per cent. of the entire Community fish stocks were to be found in what had been British waters."
    There is no argument about that. The editorial concluded:
    "But the need to mach agreement quickly does not disguise the fact that it is still a poor deal."
    I have some sympathy for the Minister. He said that the position that he must defend had been breached to some extent. That is absolutely right. The ramparts were breached, first by the Conservative Government and then by the Labour Government's renegotiations.
    Other serious consequences will follow in the wake of the diminution of the fishing industry. A widespread and prosperous fishing industry ensures a permanent stock of hardy and experienced seamen to crew the Navy in war time. The last war demonstrated the need for such reserves in a maritime nation. The recent Falklands affair has given the role of the Navy additional point. One would have thought that a Conservative Government, who claim to have a monopoly of safeguarding national defence, might be expected to consider that factor.
    At an early stage there was talk of a 50-mile limit. That was reduced to an exclusive 12-mile limit. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised recently that he has taken the leaders of the fishing industry with him. That is alarming to some, because we wonder whether Mr. Gilbert Buchan, a past president of the Scottish Fisheries Federation, stuck out for an exclusive 12-mile limit. I was disturbed to read last week that he now says that we must face the fact that

    1195
    we are a part of Europe. We have always been a part of Europe and always will be. Reading between the lines, that implies that agreement in the EEC will be reached and that we must take the consequences. If that minimum demand is breached, it will be a sell-out of the sticking point for our fishermen.
    Breaches of quotas that are agreed within the Common Market are numerous and notorious. It does not do for the Minister to say that he has tied up new policies on protection. They have been breached time and again. Hon. Members on both sides of the House gave examples of EEC vessels fishing herring when there was a ban on doing so. A reporter from The Daily Telegraph saw herring in continental ports. The fishermen fobbed him off with an assurance that they were large sardines. Television film crews filmed landings of herring and other fish that were banned at the time. The EEC has breached its own agreements time and again.
    A document issued by the Norwegian Information Department in September 1980 said:
    "The EEC has confirmed to the Norwegian press that it has overfished its mackerel quota in the North Sea. Despite this fact, there are still EEC boats fishing mackerel. This clearly illustrates that the EEC has completely lost control over its own fishing activities. Norway has pointed this out several times—but without result".
    The Norwegian Government were therefore obliged to take a tougher line.
    The Danes ask why there should be any quotas. They say that everyone should just go ahead. How long would fishing stocks last if that grossly irresponsible attitude became general?
    The giving of fuel subsidies by EEC countries to their fishing fleets also creates difficulties. In spite of Scottish oil, such subsidies have never been payable to United Kingdom boats. Countries that surreptitiously give subsidies are unlikely to harass their own vessels about exceeding quotas. Historic rights should have been thrown into the pool in the present negotiations.
    The Government amendment refers to "particularly dependent fishing communities". There is a fishing plan for my area, which the Government seem to have ignored in their negotiations. I am glad that the Shetland plan seems to be receiving support. Nevertheless, the Western Isles are at least as dependent upon herring fishing as that area. The same applies to other areas.
    What is happening to the United Kingdom fishing industry is more than a crime: it is a blunder. Our fishermen's interests have fallen into faithless hands. They have been betrayed. The result will be catastrophe. I hope that the Government will founder in due course as a result of that.
    5.16 pm
    Sir Michael Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the fishing industry often supports local communities that are entirely and traditionally dependent upon that industry. That is correct both for isolated communities and for those that exist within a wider community. Scarborough is one example of the latter. I am proud to represent it. The fishing industry there is proud and hard working. It lives an independent and forceful life within the wider community of the area.
    1196
    It would be a tragedy if the industry were allowed to die back. That principally depends on the conditions of fishing. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) said, it depends upon encouragement to build new vessels and to improve infrastructure for the industry. I have had some differences of opinion with my local authority on the matter. We should have more confidence in the future of the fishing industry. I have always maintained that we should encourage a great deal of expenditure on, for example, the building of a new jetty.
    The need to provide infrastructure is fully understood by everyone. There are many ways to provide it. Outside help should be encouraged to build infrastructure for the working of an effective fleet.
    I have two main points in mind. The first arises out of the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Minister will attend next week. No doubt others will follow. There is an overriding need for a Common Market fisheries agreement. The quicker we get it the better. There must be negotiation. No purpose is served by adopting attitudes that become hardened and incapable of amendment. The question is whether the final result of the negotiations is satisfactory to the parties concerned.
    As I have said before—I hope that I shall have sufficient confidence to say it again—we are fortunate indeed in having as our spokesmen in the debates and negotiations in the Common Market the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State. No one could have worked harder or more positively in the negotiations than they. They have had terrible bad luck. Everything has been against them from the start. First, when they had discussed the matter with the former Commissioner, who was such a great friend to us, the Commissioner, alas, died. His successor then became seriously ill just when negotiations had reached a critical stage. A series of national elections then bedevilled any proper negotiations that might otherwise have taken place. Those events were no fault of our Ministers, but they have been daunting handicaps in the attempt to achieve a settlement.
    I believe that in the end we shall achieve a settlement. My experience in the Common Market has been that if one knows what one wants and is convinced that one is right to seek it, in the end one will get it—although not so quickly as one wishes, so one sometimes feels very frustrated. Nevertheless, I believe that in the end we shall achieve a settlement.
    It is essential for the Scarborough inshore fleet and, I suspect, many other fleets that the proposals for access and for quotas be discussed together. There must be a package agreement rather than a sectional process. Quotas can be adjusted fairly frequently as a result of discussions, but any agreement on access will be for the long term. Therefore, it is vital that the access terms should be correct. That is the most worrying aspect.
    All the documents that have been produced are negotiating documents. I therefore regretted the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Of course we must voice criticisms and worries, but we must do so in such a way as to support and strengthen the negotiating hand of our Ministers. I wish to be sure that my right hon. Friend is under no illusions as to my views on the 12-mile limit and the access of the Dutch up to a six-mile limit off the Yorkshire coast. I

    1197
    believe that the same applies to the Germans north of Whitby, but I shall deal specifically with the case of Scarborough and the Dutch.
    In the years since I became a Member of Parliament and in the period before the new arrangements came into force, experience showed that it was the powerful Continental boats coming in to the six-mile limit that did so much damage to the herring stocks—so much, indeed, that fishing had to stop altogether. It is not only herring that is affected. The boats are so powerful, the nets so big and the fishing methods so effective that everything is swept up. The result is—if it is not a contradiction in terms—a desert in the midst of the sea in which nothing grows or lives. That is a terrible thing and the cost to the fleet is devastating.
    Therefore, in the negotiations, that limit should be examined very closely in relation to Dutch access. The methods used are not traditional and therefore bear no relation to history. They are certainly not methods practised by our own fleet. The conservation record of the foreign boats is not good, whereas we have taken a real and effective interest in conservation.
    Having pressed that point strongly upon Ministers, I offer them, as I hope the whole House does, every encouragement for a successful conclusion of what we realise are extremely difficult negotiations. I hope that the practice that they have always followed in the past of intimate consultation with the industry not just before but during the negotiations will continue. In that way, I believe that we shall achieve an agreement of benefit to all.
    5.26 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not believe that those who earn their living from fishing are very interested in who did what or when or who failed to do what or when. Like other hon. Members, I have my own strong views about that, but most people in the industry are now concerned to obtain the best possible settlement in extremely difficult circumstances. It is important that the settlement should favourably affect the whole industry rather than any one of its component parts. There are growing fears that some people in Europe would like to buy off the Scottish element in the industry while giving insufficient attention to the needs and problems of the English industry. When one examines the access map, it is striking how many of the problems arise south of the border.
    Access is particularly important in my area, but it also has wider significance. I have often referred to the problems of the area from Berwick to Coquet Island. The Minister has several times given the impression today that there are long-standing historic rights justifying all that is still being given away in the proposed settlement. It is certainly an improvement on the Treaty of Accession. It is confined to herring and it names the countries to which it relates. That is not an improvement of substance, in view of other factors. We know which countries want to come here and we know the effect of the beam trawling ban on other fisheries. Nevertheless, at least on paper it is an improvement.
    The proposed agreement, however, makes an enormous concession to the French and the Belgians. I know of no historical basis for any French claim to fishing rights in
    1198
    this area, nor have Ministers ever previously conceded such a claim. In a reply to me on an earlier occasion, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
    "I have no doubt tht we can come to a satisfactory agreement on that topic with the Germans and the Dutch, who have an interest. The demands that we make will be totally in keeping with what I know are the views of the hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 11 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 888.]
    I do not know how the French have come into this. They have no historic rights. Yet rights are now being conceded to them.
    Moreover, rights are being conceded without any indication of the methods of fishing to be employed. I am extremely worried that modern methods that no country has ever used before will be employed in these waters and that purse seiners will come into what was traditionally a drift net herring fishery. It is like a person has come into one's garden every year for many years to take a few apples from the tree for his family, and then, having not been seen for a year or two, suddenly arriving with a bulldozer intent upon uprooting and selling everything in one's garden on the basis of his historic right to take a few apples from the tree. The Minister must recognise that our herring fishery could be destroyed if fishing methods that were never the subject of historic rights are used under the concessions now being given. The same problem arises in relation to mackerel fishing in Cornwall.
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that on 2 December 1981, in reply to a question, the Minister of State defined historic rights as those arising under the 1964 convention. They have nothing to do with the Treaty of Accession.
    Mr. Beith: The Treaty of Accession did not confer a historic right. No one can claim that it does. It conferred no historic right where there was none before. I ask the Minister to refer to this and the fishing methods used under the historic rights when he replies to the debate. It is of enormous importance, not only in my own area but in many parts of the contested six to 12 mile area.
    I remind the Minister that, with purse seining methods, a trawler from France or Belgium can take its quota from those areas in 24 hours. The quota was intended to provide a livelihood for fishermen over many weeks, using traditional fishing methods. In these areas there is no total allowable catch that we can refer to. No quota can be discussed because there has been a ban on herring fishing for some time. We do not know what proportion of the herring we shall be able to catch when that fishery is reopened. We hope that scientific evidence will enable us to reopen those fishing grounds soon, but we have no basis of knowing what position our fishermen will be in when that happens.
    There are related problems further down the coast. A whole new area from Flamborough Head to Hornsea is to be reopened that was not open previously. It is an area like that in my constituency where there are many men engaged in fixed gear fishing whose gear, lobster pots in particular, could not stand the incursion of the trawling methods favoured by some other countries. We cannot allow pelagic trawling to develop in areas where fixed gear is used and where it would, in any case, destroy the herring fishing for good.
    Similar access problems exist round the coast. What has happened to the proposal for what was colloquially called a small boat box in the Irish Sea, where scientists are

    1199
    worried about state of fish stocks and over-fishing has already occurred? Preferential treatment has been given to the French in that area, and in the Morecambe Bay area, but there is no record of French vessels traditionally fishing in the northern part of the area. Why, therefore, has that right to fish been conferred?
    I am also worried about the prawn fishery off St. Bee's Head, where stocks could be quickly destroyed. That would not only affect the livelihood of our fishermen, but also the processing firms such as Youngs at Annan, which depend on the prawn stocks.
    Sole has been overfished in the Irish Sea. Some of that was done, I suspect, to establish historic rights claims for the negotiations.
    The problem has already been raised of the limits on the West coast. Because of the indented coastline, the limits tend not to include large areas of shallow water and fish breeding grounds.
    I turn from access to quotas. How can the Commission dare to step up the quotas, against scientific advice, apparently in the hope of sugaring the pill or sweetening the bitter cup being offered to us? Will the Minister comment on what appears to those of us not closely involved in the negotiations, to be a manoeuvre or ruse? How can we pass a fair judgment on the proposals unless there is a fixed percentage for the quotas? How can we judge the future position if it is based on numerical quotas? How can we tell what will happen if the quota is increased? Will the increase go largely to other countries? If the quota is decreased, who will bear the brunt of that reduction?
    Will the Minister also consider the problems in the whiting fisheries? New mesh sizes are due to come in for whiting in October, although there is no certainty, and no announcement has been made. Fishermen still do not know what gear to buy. That is another problem to which the Minister must refer on another occasion. Fishermen are anxious that, with the new mesh sizes, the whiting quota will be reached not by normal fishing methods, but by industrial fishing. The whiting will appear as a by-catch of industrial fishing. That industrial fishing will be carried out by the Danes. How can the Minister hope to make progress in dealing with the damaging level of Danish industrial fishing, and the by-catch implications, when he is dependent upon the Danes to reach an agreement? I am not criticising the Minister because I see this as an almost insuperable problem in the final, crucial stage of the negotiations. How can he do something about a type of fishing that is damaging our fisheries when Denmark is the country that is featuring in the deal during its final stages?
    There are many other aspects and problems that I shall not deal with because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. However, I emphasise the importance of these issues to our fishing industry. I reassert that our fishermen want to achieve the best possible settlement. They are not disposed to rake over the coals and ascertain who is to blame. They may decide to do that when we have the next general election. For the present, they want the political leaders in every party to concentrate on getting the best possible deal for the industry. That is the commitment I seek from Ministers. I seek answers to questions that worry me as much as they do Ministers.
    5.35 pm
    Mr. David Myles: Nothing is to be gained by being over-pessimistic. Too often we hear the merchants of doom and gloom, so I shall give a few optimistic facts. Some remarkable information was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) asked
    "how many United Kingdom registered fishing vessels now fish in United Kingdom inshore waters".—[Official Report, 8 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 447.]
    The reply was that in 1960 there were 7,278 vessels, in 1970 the figure was 5,410, in 1978 it was 6,765, and in 1981 it was 7,106.
    Between 1960 and 1970, there was a considerable decline, but the 7,106 vessels in 1981 have a catching capability far beyond the 7,278 that were registered in 1960. Therefore, the message of doom and gloom that our fishing fleet has been sold down the river and that there has been a disaster is not true.
    One or two other relevant facts might be of interest to the House. The gross earnings of the Scottish industry to April this year are 15·5 per cent. up on the same period for 1981. That is partly due to increased catches, but prices have been firmer despite the increased landings. In each of the three weeks beginning 15, 22 and 29 May the value of landings at Peterhead exceeded £1 million—a record in each case. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) would have given those figures if he had been fit and in the Chamber.
    The value of landings at the port to May this year is no less than 28 per cent. higher than for the same period last year, with average prices up from £23·70 per cwt to £25·10 per cwt. The value of landings for the whole of last year was 13 per cent. higher than for 1980.
    It is valuable occasionally to mention some of the good news in the fishing industry. There was no surge of cheap imports in the early part of this year, partly because of the lower value of sterling compared with the early months of 1981.
    Fuel prices are now relatively stable, and commercial interest rates, due to the good handling of the economy, are gradually coming down. Nevertheless, one sector of the industry—the pelagic fleet—needs careful scrutiny. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will agree with that remark, although I do not think that he was listening. The pelagic fleet includes the purse seiner, the most efficient method of catching pelagic fish yet devised.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: That is the problem.
    Mr. Myles: Some, like the right hon. Gentleman, might say that that fishing method should be banned; in fact, I think that he is just about to say it.
    Mr. Stewart: I am not about to say it in those terms. I entirely agree that it is the most efficient method of catching fish, but that is the trouble. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it catches everything. It is disastrous for young stocks as well as for mature fish. Common fisheries policy or not, a time will come when the maritime nations depending on fishing will ban purse seining as a method of fishing.
    Mr. Myles: The right hon. Gentleman's interesting observation confirms my view of his view, but I remind

    1201
    him that the purse seine method does not take everything. Given the size of the net and given the way in which the fish are taken out, the fish are not dead before they are taken into the vessel, so some of them can be released—if it is done properly.
    Can the House imagine the outcry there would be in agricultural circles if it were to be said that the combine harvester should be banned and that we should return to the scythe? That illustrates the difference in efficiency between the purse seine netting and the old drift netting for herring to which some hon. Members seem to want to resort. It is because of the very great catching capability, and the skills of the men who man the vessels, that there is a vital need for sensible control to conserve our herring and mackerel stocks.
    At present, control is lacking. Too often, last minute decisions are made, such as the postponement of the opening of the Minch herring fishery. Instead of opening at the beginning of this week, it is to open at the beginning of next week. Everyone was geared up to start at the beginning of this week. I hope that that kind of last-minute change in date can be avoided and that we can have better communications, so that the men who do the practical fishing may know exactly what they are doing.
    Realistic quotas must be allocated. There is no point in allocating fortnightly quotas which do not allow a vessel to continue to be viable.
    Much has been said about the EEC agreement, but I can tell the House that the fishermen of Banffshire—the new president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is a constituent of mine—want to see a common fisheries policy. They know that fish do not respect median lines. They know that they cannot control the Danish fishing methods and the full rape of the seas without a common fisheries policy and without control of the Danish fishermen. They know that we cannot have control of conservation and of restructuring without a proper CFP. They also know that the many problems in the industry, such as that of proper marketing, cannot be solved until we know in what environment we are operating.
    I believe that we are to get a CFP, but when we get it it will not be the solution to all the problems of the fishing industry. Many problems will remain to be resolved.
    We must ensure that our boatyards, on which the industry depends for repairs and alterations, are kept functioning. That means that there must be a minimum of new boat orders going into the boatyards, so that they can play their part in the restructuring that must come.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. James Johnson: I am glad that the Minister has returned to his seat. He has told us time and again that he consults the industry and, by inference if not by definition, that the industry is going hand in hand with him. I belong to a deep sea port, and I listen to my constituents, such as Tom Boyd. I do not know where the Minister gets his idea that they think that he is doing a good job or that he has done a good job for my city of Hull. I deny that he has.
    Earlier, we were told that the Queen—I beg her pardon. We were told that the inmate of No. 10 had been to Aberdeen. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady has also been to Hull, and we have got about as much out of her as Aberdeen must have got, judging by what was said by by hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who opened the debate for the Opposition.
    1202
    I should have been happier if the Minister had spent less time in dog-fighting about events in the 1960s and 1970s. That is of no use to me. He talked about cod wars and agreements. I was involved at the time, and I attacked the former Labour Minister, who is now dead, for his sell-out over the Oslo agreement. The Minister should not talk about sell-outs and the like, because I fear that in the next six months we shall be in enormous difficulties and that he will accept an agreement—when the Danes come out of their solitude—which will not satisfy us wholly or give us more than 50 per cent. of what we have been expecting for the last year or two.
    With regard to quotas, are hon. Members on each side of the Chamber—particularly those from Scotland—satisfied with what is happening? Are the quotas which have so far been seen on paper, as defined by the Commission, generally acceptable to them? I have several qualifications to make. There should be more North Sea cod, and more West of Scotland cod and haddock. The figures for herring, for Scotland and for the North Sea are insufficient.
    As an East Yorkshire MP, I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). He will have Germans fishing for herring up to six miles off North Bay and South Bay in Scarborough in a little over six months' time, at the end of the 11-year agreement. We can talk about that on New Year's morning, perhaps, if I am in Scarborough.
    I understand that an agreement is to be made about North Sea herring. What are we to get? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. I understand that the Scots are to get about 30 per cent. of the figure in the tables.
    The one thing that I fear is an increase in the TAC—the total allowable catch. Is it correct that the figure of about 270,000 tonnes that was mentioned for herring has now become 370,000 tonnes?
    Mr. Millan: Mackerel.
    Mr. Johnson: If it is mackerel, I have misread my notes. Is this an expedient to please the Dutch? We are getting back to bad old habits in which totals are increased to please those who have made claims. This makes nonsense of conservation. It may please the Danes and the Dutch, but it is no good to the United Kingdom.
    Although the Commission knows that full well, talks are in danger of complete collapse. In its defence the Commission will probably say that even an agreement involving an increase of 100,000 tonnes is better than nothing. This would be monstrous for our fishermen. Our waters would be fished out of existence. I understand that the Belgians, the Danes and the Dutch do not want quotas. They will fish to kingdom come if allowed to do so.
    For distant water fishermen in Hull, the position is totally unsatisfactory. We are giving too much to the Germans. Out of a Canadian quota of 12,000 tonnes, I understand that our share is 1,000 tonnes. I understand that the German quota in Greenland is 11,000 tonnes of cod and 42,000 tonnes of redfish. The situation in North Norway is the same. We seem to have come badly out of the negotiations, yet the Minister maintains that we have done well.
    The Minister has given insufficient help to Hull and other deep sea ports. Aid has been inadequate, and further contraction of the fleet is inevitable. At one time we had about 50 freezer vessels. Now we have 21. Skippers,

    1203
    mates and deckhands have had to be sent to Otago in New Zealand to dispose of vessels that are unable to earn a living fishing in our waters.
    I believe that the Government have gained as much access as we are likely to get. My neighbours representing constituencies in Yorkshire and the North-East can shout to the heavens, but the Government will not stop Germans from fishing up to the six-mile limit. The Minister may say that it is faute de mieux and that no better arrangements can be made. My case is that the Government have slowly eroded our position. An agreement cannot be forecast. The Danes are in a difficult position as a minority of one. They occupy the chair, but the Government in Copenhagen are weak. I do not believe that they will stand fast. I think that in the autumn they will accept what is proposed by the Nine. It will be argued that some progress, limited or otherwise, must be made.
    I shall say no more about enforcement, except to ask whether any hon. Member believes that 40 inspectors can keep in order Belgians, Danes, Dutch and others, never mind ourselves, who are fishing in the North Sea and who wish to make a better living. The North Sea is like the Lebanon. No one in the Lebanon gets in or out as he wishes. It will become the same in the North Sea. The Israelis have moved into the Lebanon to enforce what they call law and order. Who will enforce law and order in the North Sea? We cannot do it. Many of my constituents who are on the dole would say that the Minister should buy about 40 fishing vessels now in St. Andrew's dock, install a six-pounder gun in the bows and stop the poaching that will undoubtedly occur after New Year's Day 1983.
    Mr. Speaker: Six hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. There are 35 minutes remaining for debate. It is up to hon. Members.
    5.55 pm
    Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall adhere, Mr. Speaker, to your implied suggestion.
    I share some of the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). We must have attended several dozen fishing debates over the past decade and a half. The hon. Gentleman was less than fair in blaming the Minister for what has led to the present situation. I still have a letter from the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who was at one time in charge of these matters, thanking me for the fact that in those days he received support from hon. Members representing fishing constituencies when he was involved in no less difficult negotiations. I have always tried to support Ministers of whatever party to help achieve the best possible deal.
    There is always a danger of fishing debates developing into an argument between pro-Marketeers and anti-Marketeers. I deplore that. I was not especially happy when my party leader took Britain into the Common Market without securing a much better deal for fishing. I was equally unhappy when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) failed to correct in his renegotiations those aspects of matters that I thought had been previously neglected.
    Now is the time to be realistic. We share collective responsibility for our entry into the Common Market. It was cheeky of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed
    1204
    (Mr. Beith), the Liberal spokesman who has now left the Chamber, to say that the voters at the next election would be judging whether this country had achieved a good deal out of the Common Market. The one party that has always boasted of its faithful adherence to the Common Market is the Liberal Party. For the Liberals to start lecturing other people I find unacceptable.
    It has been suggested that if Britain had not joined the Common Market we could have enjoyed a 200-mile limit as Norway has asserted. That is not realistic. A 200-mile limit to my fishermen would mean that they could fish in the waters of the Seine in Paris. To talk in terms of a 200-mile limit had we not joined the Common Market is nonsense.
    My right hon. Friend has some way to go in the negotiations, and I hope that he will pay heed to speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House and try to obtain further improvements in both access and quotas. But if the negotiations fail we cannot ask "Why did we not do something 15 years ago?" If the negotiations fail, my understanding of international law is that we shall be entitled only to a 3-mile limit excluding fishermen from Community countries in most of our waters and a 6-mile limit for those from outside the EEC. Such a settlement would not be half as good as that which the right hon. Member for Deptford has wished or that my right hon. Friend is trying to obtain.
    Without wishing to appear too laudatory, I must say that my right hon. Friend is constrained by the limitations that he inherited from previous Parliaments and he is negotiating for the best possible deal.
    I believe he can still make some improvements and I wish him well. We should consider other measures beyond Common Market negotiations as was suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. He said that, whether or not we failed in international negotiations, we should consider providing more aid to our fishing industry in whatever part of the country it may be.
    I also have a point to make that directly concerns my constituency in the South-West. The paramount concern of South-West fishermen is the present lack of markets, for reasons that I cannot elaborate on now. It is not the size of the catch but the existence of a market for that catch that enables them to earn a living. The Secretary of State and his colleagues should consider those problems at the same time as trying to obtain the best international deal that they can.
    6.2 pm
    Mr. Gavin Strang: The Secretary of State suggested that the Opposition had changed their position on the negotiations. That is completely untrue. Our policy has been consistent since we were in Government. We want an adequate share of the fish, adequate arrangements for preferential access and effective conservation measures.
    In the negotiations, we have not yet obtained an adequate share of the fish. Some way must be found to chop the Danish quotas. The large amount of industrial fishing that is carried out by Denmark is inconsistent with sensible management of fishing resources. Of course the problem is difficult and one recognises the dependence on industrial fishing of Jutland and similar places but means must be found to compensate industrial fishermen and reduce their share of the quotas.

    1205
    If any agreement is reached on the negotiations, it is vital that justice should he done to the legitimate claims of our fishermen for a dominant share of the herring in our waters, especially in the North Sea.
    As to access, the Minister's comment about our historic rights within the Irish 12-mile limit is no justification for abandoning our position on the exclusive 12-mile limit. The quotas and the distribution of our share of the fish do not do justice to the dominant preference for which we were aiming within the 12 to 50-mile area. The Government have adequately protected the important pout box that we hope will remain for ever, but there are grounds for anxiety that too much has been conceded on the Shetland and Orkney box.
    In an earlier debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) spoke about Scotland's wider interests on the subject, but no one would deny that preference must be given to the local coastal communities for fishing in their waters. It is a cause of anxiety that we are talking not only about 50 licences for French vessels, but about a maximum of 50 vessels fishing at any one time. Far too much is likely to be conceded.
    As to effective conservation, I hope that the Minister of State can say something about paper fish. The proposal would be a deplorable start to a policy which, if it achieves anything, must achieve the effective conservation and development of fish stocks. If agreement were to be achieved at the price of a high total allowable catch for mackerel, that would lead to the decimation of stocks. I and other hon. Members have said that we could decimate mackerel stocks in the same way as we decimated our herring stocks.
    A few months ago we talked about a package of aid that we believed was imminent. Are the Government holding back that package as a sweetener to sell a Common Market deal that is inadequate in all other respects? Although some fish prices have become firmer, there is a desperate need for additional aid. The Minister said that the Government have given more cash aid to the fishing industry than the previous Government. That is true, but the need for the aid is now much greater. The Labour Government were always prepared to bring forward schemes to aid the industry.
    What will happen if there is no agreement? Is it not time that we spelt out our determination to implement a national plan to maintain our interests should no agreement be reached before the end of the year?
    The Government issued a statement this week detailing arrangements for the reopening of herring fishing in the West of Scotland. The Minister will be aware of the chaos last year when thousands of tons of prime fish were turned into fish meal. We now have a tremendous opportunity to re-establish herring fishing in Scotland. I refer not only to catches but to a national onshore programme with Government aid to develop processing and marketing. In my constituency and throughout Scotland hundreds of onshore jobs have been lost. Fish catches are leaving Britain only to be reimported from Eastern European countries and others. We had long arguments and discussions about that in debates on the Fisheries Act 1981 which set up the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I am glad that the Government are taking advantage of the powers that we persuaded them to take on the licensing of klondykers, but they must go further. We must eventually curtail and eliminate factory ships and klondykers. All the
    1206
    fish caught in our waters should be landed and processed in our ports and transported from them. That means real wealth and real jobs which are vital.
    That, above all, is the importance of fishing to our people. It is part of our heritage. We are talking about the development of an indigenous industry. When North Sea oil runs dry and many of the fancy new industries to which the Government attach so much importance have ceased to be relevant, our people will depend on fishing, which will provide many valuable jobs.
    6.8 pm
    Mr. John Townend: I wish to deal briefly with access and historical rights as they affect fishermen in Bridlington. The Government stated that the proposals now being negotiated are based on the historic rights that were established before, not since, we joined the Community and that no agreement would destroy the position that the Government have persuaded our fellow Community members to accept. If that was absolutely true, it would be acceptable to the fishermen of Bridlington, but unfortunately, in the proposals that were put forward at the previous two meetings of the Council of Ministers, there seems to have been a deviation from that principle.
    It is proposed that the French will be granted rights to fish for herring between six and 12 miles in the area from Flamborough Head to Spurn Point. That is an area in which the Bridlington fleet earns a substantial part of its livelihood and in which my fishermen were expecting to have an exclusive 12-mile zone. There has been no record of the French fishing for herring in the area. Indeed, between Flamborough Head and Hornsea no such historic rights were included in the 1964 London agreement and as far as I know there is no record of the historic rights granted to the French being exercised between Hornsea and Spurn Point.
    Indeed, I believe that the only foreign boats to have fished off that part of the coast have been Dutch and German and they played a significant part in fishing out the herring stocks. My fishermen cannot understand why the French should now be given rights that they have never had before. The only conclusion that one can come to is that they have been given as a sop to the French. The word going round Bridlington is that my right hon. Friend the Minister has managed to negotiate a better deal for Scottish fishermen. I do not want to stand in the way of a better deal for them, but my fishermen strongly object to their interests being sacrificed in this way. They have asked me to make it quite clear that the proposal is completely unacceptable to the Bridlington fishermen.
    I therefore earnestly request my right hon. Friend to ensure in future negotiations that those bogus rights—which have never been exercised—are excluded from any agreement. My fishermen make two important points that are similar to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). First, they say that, although quotas can be amended from year to year, access rights, once agreed, will last for at least one generation. Secondly, between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point the water is mainly less than 12 fathoms deep. Given the large nets used by modern French trawlers, they will extend from the surface to the sea bed and will scrape up everything living, or swimming, in the sea.
    Under the conservation regulations the fishermen are supposed to throw back fish that are not herring. However,

    1207
    hon. Members will agree that in the process many of the fish die and untold damage can be done to the stocks on which the livelihood of my fishermen depend. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that, whatever the regulations, they are never complied with 100 per cent. and that often, in practice, the fishermen will not throw back any fish.
    My fishermen appreciate the efforts that Ministers have made to achieve a system of conservation that will be independently supervised. My fishermen think that they can live with the quotas that are now being talked about, although they would always like more. If my right hon. Friend can only close the wide gap, for which there is no historic justification, on the East Coast—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—which allows the French to fish for herring in an area in which they have not fished before, I am sure that the fishermen in my constituency will support the acceptance of a settlement along the lines that the Government are moving towards.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The three hon. Members who wish to speak can help each other by taking only five minutes each. Hon. Members can say a lot in five minutes, or at least I can.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall do my best to conclude my speech by 6.18 pm. I had a long speech to make about Hull, and unfortunately kissing the Blarney stone for five minutes will act as a considerable discipline in cutting my remarks.
    If I give hon. Members the figures, they will see my argument. In 1972, 88,686 tonnes of wet fish were landed at Hull. In 1981, 15,274 tonnes were landed. In 1972, 43,106 tonnes of frozen fish were landed, but in 1981 the figure was 9,971 tonnes. That is a total of 131,792 tonnes of fish in 1972, compared with 25,245 tonnes in 1981. I shall now give the figures for the number of vessels in the Hull Fishing Vessels Association. In 1972 there were 59 freshers, compared with none in 1982. In 1972, there were 35 freezers, compared with 21 in 1982. In that same year there were nine seiners compared with none in 1982. Therefore, in 1972 there were 103 vessels compared with 21 vessels today. Of those 21 freezer trawlers, only 11 are currently fishing. Five of them have been taken into service in the Falkland Islands and of those four were operational fishing vessels.
    That shows the decline of the deep sea fleet and of the port of Hull in the past decade. It is true that we suffered a great loss and a great blow as a result of the loss of access to Icelandic waters, but the loss of other third territory waters has affected us far more. The Hague agreement was a gentleman's agreement and was not binding on anyone. However, there was to be compensation for Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby for their loss in the Icelandic waters. We have never received that compensation.
    Let us consider the arrangements that have been made for fishing the seven main species of fish in non-EEC waters. Since the last abortive negotiations, the Government have lost or conceded over 5 per cent. In the earlier negotiations the figure was 37·9 per cent. but it is
    1208
    now now 32·8 per cent. In that same period, the percentage available to the Federal Republic of Germany has increased from 45·2 per cent. to 49 per cent. We are entitled to know whether there is to be no future for vessels fishing out of the port of Hull. However, if something is to be negotiated for Hull in the deep waters and if Hull is to be kept alive as a fishing port, the quotas—particularly outside EEC waters—must give us a chance.
    There are 800 to 900 unemployed fishermen in my constituency. If that figure is multiplied by six, one has the land equivalent. As a direct result of the decline in the fishing industry several thousand people are unemployed. Those men may have voted Tory or Labour, but they were not responsible for the loss of access to Icelandic waters or for the EEC negotiations and the resulting agreements. Therefore, they are entitled to compensation. However, the Government have given no sign that they are prepared to say that the three ports are a special case. They have not said that they are not to blame and that the Government are responsible for compensating them for their loss and for the result of our EEC membership. The Government have not given any positive aid to those cities to retrain fishermen, restructure the fleet, and create new job opportunities. None of those aids has been forthcoming from the Government.
    The port of Hull is entitled to expect help in compensation for what it has lost. No aid has been given. Unfortunately, the Minister is not in the Chamber but he was most upset when I accused him of blackmail. I said that he was blackmailing the industry, and in its paper the industry seemed to agree that that was so. However, this is a question not of blackmail but of complete indifference on the part of the Government. Even though the Prime Minister went to Hull and gave her promises, she has given us nothing, the fleet nothing, the unemployed fishermen in Hull nothing and the factory and process workers nothing. We deserve something better.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: The debate has been well informed. All of us were fascinated to witness the political exchange at the beginning between my right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) about who was responsible for the crisis and whether or not the EEC proposals were satisfactory.
    If a Labour Government had suggested the proposals as the basis for negotiation the Conservatives would have torn them apart, as the Labour Party is today trying to tear the Government apart. It is wrong to throw quotations back at colleagues, but as recently as June 1978, when there seemed to be a suspicion that the Labour Minister intended to settle for a 12-mile limit, there was an uproar on our Benches. The Conservative spokesman said:
    "The Conservative Party remains firmly of the belief that a 50-mile exclusively controlled zone is the most practicable and best available way in which to get what we believe are our just deserts."—[Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1245.]
    I quote that, not to praise the Labour Party or to criticise the Conservative Party, but to make it clear that if this agreement had been proposed by a Labour, Liberal or Scottish Nationalist Government we would have been outraged.
    The Government have a special responsibility because a Conservative Government put us in an appalling negotiating position as a result of the Treaty of Accession

    1209
    which made it clear that there would be a problem in 1982. We have an obligation, because the alternative would have been the 200-mile limit now enjoyed by Norway.
    It has been said that it is five minutes to midnight in terms of negotiations. We have a right to know the Government's firm view of what will happen if no agreement is reached. It worries me that questions to Ministers have been shoved aside time after time. We have been told "We have made our position clear." The matter has been raised repeatedly in negotiations with the fishing industry. The industry is constantly told "We must have an agreement, because if we do not get one by 1 January next year fishing up to our beaches will be possible." The Minister shakes his head, but that was said to me at lunchtime today by people who met the Minister this morning. I was told that by Laurie Gilson, the chief executive of the South-East of England fishermen's organisation, on whose word I would stake my life. It is wrong to try to persuade the fishermen to agree on that basis when no such statement is made in the House of Commons.
    For the sake of the fishermen, whose lives and jobs depend upon us, for the sake of our housewives and for the honour of Parliament, the Government should say, on the best legal advice, what will happen on 1 January if there is no agreement.
    Hon. Members have referred to combine harvesters and scythes. We must consider historic rights in that context. The argument is that 20 years ago the French operated one or two boats in our waters and that 10 years ago an agreement on historic rights was reached. What would happen if my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) told me that I had a right to reap some corn from his farm? If I appeared for 10 years running with a scythe, but turned up the next year with a combine harvester, my hon. Friend would take a different attitude to historic rights. That is what the fishermen of Southend and the South-East are worried about. Historic rights are based on limited performance and older boats. Today fishermen use the equivalent of the combine harvester.
    If historic rights cannot be negotiated out, why can we not negotiate to phase them out? That would form the basis of an honourable agreement. We are told that historic rights cannot be avoided, but we could state that we aim to phase out historic rights. The inshore fleet might be convinced about a settlement if it contained a firm proposal to phase out historic rights over five or seven years.
    In each debate until the last the Minister said that he would not agree to proposals without the industry's full consent. The Minister now talks about majority consensus. There is a big difference. Is the Government's view still that proposals will not be accepted without the industry's support? The Scots will probably be happy because they have a 12-mile limit, with two exceptions. The company boats will probably be pleased with the catch, but the English inshore fleet has to face the possibility of a six-mile limit. In the Southend area there would be a six-mile limit with almost unlimited access to the French beyond that.
    The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has informed the Minister
    "that the proposals do not constitute the basis of an acceptable and honourable settlement, and reaffirmed an exclusive twelve-mile limit around the entire British coast to be a minimum provision".
    1210
    That makes it clear that there cannot be a successful, viable English inshore fleet based on the present proposals.
    I hope that the Government will make it clear that there is no question of an agreement without the full support of the NFFO and the English inshore fleet. I hope that there will be no attempt to use Government or taxpayers' cash, or so-called Common Market cash, to persuade people to sign a deal which will not provide security for the English fishing industry in the long term.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is no occasion and there is no time for political archaeology about who said what on the Common Market, but it is the time to ask whether we can with honour accept the emerging settlement. I started with high hopes of the Ministers. They are two wets cast abroad on the briny deep, perhaps for being wet. One of the Ministers was anxious to emulate the John Bull stance of his predecessor. The Minister of State has the interests of the fishing industry at heart. Both Ministers are honourable men. Yet the British industry is being betrayed and the English fishing industry is about to be scuttled.
    Clear commitments have been made from the Dispatch Box and in the Government's manifesto. They were firm and strong at the start and yet the Government amendment now dilutes everything and has little to offer the industry. I am particularly worried about ports such as Grimsby, Fleetwood, Lowestoft, Whitby and Scarborough, because they will suffer mainly from the agreement that is emerging.
    The marketing agreement, as it emerges, involves a system of reference prices 'which bear no relation to the cost of catching the fish. The policing system will be inadequate, because it will still depend upon the individual States enforcing their own measures. In many ports there is a conspiracy to cheat between the authorities and the fisherman. Forty Euro-inspectors will not be able to control that. The weight put on that policing mechanism by Ministers and officials cannot be borne. The agreement itself is unsatisfactory. We have granted historic rights, but not for historic methods. What might have been caught with the equivalent of a scythe 20 years ago is now being caught by what amounts to combine harvesters in fishing terms.
    How will we enforce these historic rights? Will we Act as the Norwegians act against us and demand regular reports and impose stringent controls? We shall probably not do that. Yet if we do not, limits will be violated, and our policing will be a laughing stock.
    We have granted historic rights where they do not exist. French fishermen now have the right to catch herring between Flamborough and Spurn Point, where French fishermen have never been seen by our fishermen. In that area there are 5,000 lobster pots and all kinds of gill nets. That is between six and 12 miles off the Yorkshire coast. Every herring in the North Sea breeds there and yet it is to be laid open to rape, to powerful French fishing vesels using subsidised fuel. They will be allowed to take the bread from the mouths of our fishermen, to take the fish from the nets, and the pots and the nets with them, as they trawl those waters.
    The Irish Sea is a disaster zone. The Minister started by telling the industry that the French had no claim in the Irish Sea, but they have been conceded substantial claims,

    1211
    to the detriment of the fishermen of Fleetwood. Noel Coward observed that there was always something fishy about the French, and there is something fishy about the bilateral agreement which the Government have negotiated with the French. The Minister may congratulate himself on putting out other nations, but many of those nations would have had to go anyway because of the restrictions on beam trawling, so he has no cause for congratulation.
    Even the quotas that we are allowed are being distorted by this political desire to create more paper fish to satisfy everybody. The North Sea whiting catch has been upped by 48 per cent. by the Commission, and Irish Sea whiting has been upped by 51 per cent. West Coast cod total allowable catches have been put up by 70 per cent. and rock or haddock by 80 per cent. These are paper fish, which will mean that the fishermen will have to fish far more intensively for longer periods to catch the same amount of fish, because conservation is not being respected, and the catches will go down.
    Even the agreement that is emerging can be altered by a majority vote, because the Commission's management committee can, by a qualified majority—which I take to mean two-thirds—change what has happened. If that is not then changed again by the Council, again on a qualified majority, the decision comes into force. If the Scottish industry accepts this deal, it should recognise that Judas Iscariot at least received his 30 pieces of silver. This deal can be taken back by the Commission's management committee at any time by a qualified majority. This is not in any way a permanent settlement.
    The Minister is selling out and he knows that he is doing so. His claim that he is consulting and carrying the industry with him is his fig-leaf in these negotiations. He is not carrying the English industry, which is the one that wants compensation for the loss of the Icelandic waters, and which it was supposed to get from these negotiations but has not.
    One of my hon. Friends in an earlier debate likened the Minister's tactics over aid to blackmail. It is blackmail. Aid is being dangled before the industry, but it is not being given anything. The impression is created that the continuity of aid is contingent upon the industry's acceptance of this kind of settlement. Prices may be up slightly for certain species, but the industry is crippled with a burden of debt that will prevent it surviving unless it has the guarantee of continuity of aid that will keep it going to catch the fish, whatever fish it gets.
    We started out on these negotiations with the Minister telling us what he was going to achieve and holding out prospects of what he would get in the negotiations. He began as the General Galtieri of the fishing industry, bravely telling us what he would do. He went into battle with those claims and is now coming back, in dribs and drabs, and the result is that he has achieved nothing.
    The Minister is finishing up as the Lieutenant Commander Alfredo Astiz—the man who surrendered South Georgia to the British without a shot being fired—of the fishing industry. That is what the Minister is doing in these negotiations—surrendering without effective pressure on our partners in unilateral deals. The British industry is being sold down the river, particularly the English industry, by that technique.
    1212
    There is, however, this difference between the Minister and Astiz. Astiz did not blackmail his troops into accepting the surrender, nor did he pretend to have brought back peace with honour. Astiz did not take credit for a famous victory and congratulate himself on how clever he had been when he surrendered.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. Bruce Millan: This is an important debate because it could be the last debate on fishing that we have before settlement is reached by the Minister on a common fisheries policy. Like the previous debate on 9 December 1981, it has been provided out of Supply time—Opposition time.
    There is widespread apprehension not only in the House, or on the Opposition side of the House, but in the industry, that the Minister may be about to settle on a wholly unsatisfactory basis. There is a well-founded suspicion that he would have settled at the last meeting of the Ministers if the Danes had not stopped him. The Minister, in a blustering way, gave a historical account that was not only absurd but dishonest. I shall not deny all his points because I have not time to go over the whole of the history that he provided for us. He was not involved in fishery matters at that time.
    The Minister made a sneering reference to the words of the motion that deal with quotas. He ought to know that that part of the motion was taken word for word from a similar motion pressed by his hon. Friend the Minister of State as recently as 26 November 1980. The Government have changed their views over the last couple of years, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. I recommend that the Minister reads his hon. Friend's speech.
    As to the Minister's reference to what should have happened at the time of the extension to 200 miles, and the attitude of the Government to the Hague agreement and the 200-mile limit, I reread the Second Reading debate of 3 December 1976, when the Labour Government introduced the Bill extending the limit to 200 miles. The Minister is nodding his head, as if he had read the debate as well. If he did so, then what he said to the House this afternoon was dishonest, because he will have seen that the Minister of State who is to wind up welcomed in unqualified terms what the Labour Government were doing at that time.
    I shall not embarrass the Minister of Stateby repeating what he said about 50-mile exclusive limits and the rest, because he repeated these claims on subsequent occasions. The Government have, in the amendment to tonight's motion and in that of last December, ratted on their obligations and undertakings, given both when in Opposition and in the early years of the Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman's tactic is to try to put the responsibility for the settlement on the shoulders of an industry that is becoming more and more apprehensive about the deadline of 31 December 1982. What the Minister is doing as regards consultation is no different from what happened under the Labour Government. What is different is his dishonest attempt to put the burden of responsibility for reaching a settlement on the back of the industry. We shall hold him responsible for any settlement that he brings to the House. On present evidence, that settlement will be unsatisfactory.
    There has been some progress on some of the less important issues, but there was also progress under the

    1213
    Labour Government on conservation, the North Sea herring ban and the Norway pout box. The right hon. Gentleman gave a wholly dishonest account of the record of the Labour Government in these respects.
    This afternoon the Minister tried, in a slippery passage of his speech, to confuse historic rights on the 12-mile limit, as the House has normally understood them, arising from the London convention, with rights granted at the time of the Treaty of Accession. These two matters are different. If we compare what is in the Commission document with what is in the London convention, we find that there has been little improvement on the London convention. As hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House have pointed out, if we take the London convention and the accession treaty together, the position is considerably worse under the proposals, particularly the position of England.
    It is significant that the right hon. Gentleman is apparently not willing to provide maps to the House so that we can judge some of his claims. It is clear that Scotland comes out better than England on these proposals. Therefore, the Opposition and the Scottish fishing industry say that the industry stands united, Scotland and England together. We shall not be bought off with Scotland having a rather more favourable agreement than England. I wish to make that point completely clear, because, just as the Minister is trying to put responsibility on the industry, he is also increasingly trying to play one section of the industry against the other. We have a united industry. We hope that it will remain united, and we shall look after the interests of all fishermen, English and Scottish.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that my relationship with the industry is such that I do not say that I want it to approve an agreement? The right hon. Gentleman said that we were playing off one part of the industry against the other. Is he aware that before and during every negotiation, at every meeting that I have had with the industry the whole of the industry has been together?
    Mr. Millan: I hope that the whole industry remains together. If it remains together, the settlement that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept will not be reached because the industry believes that it is unsatisfactory.
    The 12 to 50-mile limit has been completely abandoned by the Government. We now have a formula to deal with dependent communities. There is a vast difference between local fishing arrangements settled nationally by the United Kingdom within the context of a satisfactory overall common fisheries policy, which is acceptable, and using local fishing arrangements as a substitute for either an acceptable settlement in terms of the 12 to 50-mile zone or a satisfactory overall common fisheries policy. What is available with regard to the Shetland box is not acceptable compared with the necessity to get overall control and satisfactory access within a wider band than the 12 miles. We are not even getting satisfactory access arrangements within the 12-mile limit.
    Who will control the fishing within the Shetland box? The number of boats for other countries is unsatisfactory. The Commission's proposed regulations set out the numbers in terms of the numbers of boats that can fish simultaneously at any time, which is unsatisfactory. It gives us no real control. There is no real preference for
    1214
    Scottish or British fishermen. We need licensing arrangements with named vessels attached to them. I hope that the Minister will answer that point.
    The quotas are constantly changing. Since the Government first laid the documents before the House there have been revised proposals from the Commission. They mean that the Commission is adding to the total allowable catches to provide artificially inflated figures above the scientists' recommendations so that it can ostensibly allocate higher catch quotas to individual nations. What is important for the United Kingdom is the percentage of the total catch of the main species available to the United Kingdom. The increased total allowable catches of mackerel proposed by the Commission are accompanied by lower percentage catches for the United Kingdom fishing industry. What is worse, the Commission document states that those percentages, once agreed, will form a permanent basis for allocations in future.
    The Minister of State will remember, if his right hon. Friend does not, that the Labour Government made proposals not only for much more satisfactory quota figures but for an arrangement whereby the percentages would escalate over the years. At the moment there are unsatisfactory percentage figures. I hope that the Minister of State will give us the figures. There is no guarantee that they will increase, but there is a danger that they will decrease in percentage terms, and certainly in absolute terms in future, if they are based on artificial total allowable catches, which do not adhere to the scientific recommendations and which therefore reintroduce the danger of overfishing.
    The industry is worried about many matters, including mackerel. There is also the percentage proposed for herring on the West coast of Scotland, which is lower than allocated last year and considerably lower than the historical performance of the United Kingdom fishing industry. We agree that there should be no total allowable catches at the moment for herring in the northern section of the North Sea, but a satisfactory settlement will have to include the percentage allocations to be available in future when the fishery is ultimately reopened. Without that, the settlement will not be satisfactory.
    The Minister said nothing about the plea by the industry for additional aid. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State will say something about that. Nothing has been said about that, although the Scottish industry made a proposal to the Government at least six months ago. The Minister has said nothing about what is to happen after 31 December. Brave words have been said about not allowing fishing up to the beaches, but, in the absence of a settlement, that is what the legal position will be on 31 December. We want to know what the Government will do about that.
    Despite the brave words and the bluster from the right hon. Gentleman, who is a guilty man in these negotiations, after three years and with the deadline only a few months away, the Government have failed on the main issues of access, quotas and a satisfactory common fisheries policy. What is worse, they are trying to dodge their responsibilities and put the responsibility on to the shoulders of the industry. The Government are the guilty men. If they fail to produce a satisfactory settlement, we shall condemn there and vote against them. We shall also

    1215
    vote against them tonight because of the shifty and dishonest way in which the right hon. Gentleman opened the debate.
    6.47 pm
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The debate, and not least the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), has been marked by considerable misconceptions and misunderstandings, not only of the situation that faces the fishing industry, but of what has been negotiated and what is to be negotiated in crucial matters affecting the industry.
    Mr. Buchan: Tell us.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. He does not wait to hear the real arguments, because he does not want to hear them.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) said, not all is gloom and doom in the fishing industry. One would think that it was, judging by what Opposition Members have said. They almost want the negotiations to fail. That is understandable, considering their attitude towards Europe. As one who has the interests of the fishing industry at heart, what I cannot forgive is that they are prepared to sacrifice the long-term interests of the fishing industry for short-term political expediency.
    All is not gloom and doom. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that the Government had done nothing for Hull. He knows in his heart that that is not true. He knows that the deep sea industry has received a major part of the operating aids that have been given to the industry in the past two years. He cannot deny that.
    Mr. McNamara rose—
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should take a little of the medicine instead of becoming indignant. He knows of the schemes and of the special aid that we gave for exploratory voyages. Vessels from Hull benefited from those schemes. The fact that the scheme was given to Hull was criticised by other ports, but we did so because we believed that there was a case for it. Last, but not least, does the hon. Gentleman want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take back from Hull the money that is available under the urban aid programme, which Hull has used to assist its fishing industry? If he wants that, let him say so.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the number of fishermen has decreased from 9,000 to 1,000, and why the numbr of freezers is down to 10, while the Dutch are building 10 or 12 new ones? Will he also explain why we are receiving only a miserable sum of urban aid when there is so much unemployment and dereliction in the fishing industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall be delighted to explain that to the House, because I was about to deal with that point.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that the fishing fleet was in decline, and he used other wild phrases. Certain sections of the fleet have declined. For example, the deep sea section has declined, but when
    1216
    did that happen? The majority of that decline occurred before 1976, and it happened not because of the Common Market, but because of the Icelandic extension to 200 miles.
    I am prepared to argue reasonably and sensibly about some of these issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, that we should not go over the past, but should look to the future and consider how we should plan for that future. There cannot be credibility in the criticism of the way that we have handled these issues, when some of the Opposition's arguments have no basis in fact and are a complete misrepresentation of what has taken place.
    Mr. Jay rose—
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been given a short time in which to reply, and I have not yet begun to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    The major decline in the deep sea fleet took place before 1976. There were 6,740 vessels in 1976 in total, and 7,351 in 1981. The biggest increase has been in the inshore fleet, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff referred.
    There are a number of other misconceptions. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North used the example of Norway—"If only we had followed Norway's example; if only Britain were not a member of the European Community." That is another misconception and, indeed, a prejudice. If that is the kind of argument on which the Opposition's case is based, everything else that they say lacks credibility. That is a completely false argument. The Norwegian fishing industry is the most heavily subsidised in Western Europe. The subididies amount to about £150 million and are several factors above what the French industry receives.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) knew more about the fishing industry because if he did I should listen to him. Perhaps the way in which he speaks about the industry on television demonstrate better his knowledge of the industry.
    Norway elected to be outside the EEC. Its fishing industry receives far more aid than any other fishing industry in Europe, but it is an industry that has had to carry through the most radical and painful restructuring and a reduction of the capacity of its fleet. Is that the kind of opportunity that being outside the EEC gives?
    When we were negotiating in Brussels on the last round only a fortnight ago, where were the Norwegians? They were in the corridors of the Council room, because they knew that they had to be in on those negotiations. They had to be there, because we share stocks with them and they want opportunities in our waters. Because the Norwegians did not join the Community, they could not opt out. We all have to share the waters of Northern Europe. We are all in this together, and the fact that the Norwegians had to send a delegation to Brussels demonstrates that it is not possible to opt out of these negotiations.
    Mr. Jay rose—
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is another misconception. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) asked why we had not taken into account in the

    1217
    negotiations the Western Isles fishery plan, but only the box off Orkney and Shetland. Almost the whole of the area of that plan falls within the United Kingdom base line, and therefore it is not affected directly by the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is able to consider that plan on its merits outside the negotiations. Therefore, that is another red herring and another misconception to which the House has been treated tonight.
    The biggest misconception of all is about control. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that control is, unhappily, inadequate at present. One of the reasons why we have over-fishing and why we have not been able to have effective conservation is that we cannot get control. The only way in which we can be sure of achieving control is on an international basis. All that the right hon. Member for the Western Isles has done tonight is to weep crocodile tears over the consequences of a lack of control, when, already, in the negotiations—he did not mention this—we have agreement on control on an international basis. Agreement on a control regulation will come into effect at the end of the year even if we do not achieve a renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.
    The right hon. Member for Craigton completely misrepresented the role of his party in the negotiations. He has shown a happy faculty of forgetting what happened in 1976 over The Hague agreement. Reference has been made to the confused way in which the herring fishery was opened a year ago. I share the House's horror that that fishery had to be opened in that way, but that happened because under the 1976 Hague agreement the Labour Government had given away the right of the United Kingdom Government to take their own national conservation measures on a unilateral basis.
    Mr. Millan: That is absurd. The Minister has four minutes left in which to speak. When will he come to the main issues of the debate—the limits, access and quotas?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is not absurd. It is true. The same is true of the 200-mile limit. I supported the right hon. Gentleman's Government in extending the limit to 200 miles. Having negotiated the rights to have it, the whole thing was then thrown away in The Hague agreement for nothing in return, unlike the way in which Ireland negotiated. Therefore, I need no lectures from the Opposition about how to do these things.
    The right hon. Gentleman failed to mention what we have already achieved in the improvements that we have made. We have achieved a considerable improvement in quotas in recent days. We have achieved it with regard to the Irish Sea, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) referred. We have achieved it with regard to whiting and plaice in that area, which is very important to the inshore fishermen in his constituency. We have achieved improvements with regard to haddock in the North Sea.
    I can tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), whom I welcome back to the House, that, with regard to deep sea opportunities, we have a new quota for Greenland. It was originally 2,500 tonnes of cod, but it has been increased to 3,500 tonnes—an improvement that will directly benefit our fishermen.
    We have made progress on industrial fishing. In the original proposals—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was correct to raise the matter—the effects
    1218
    of the Danish by-catch industrial fishing was unacceptable to us. They would have been taking a major part of the total allowable limit. We have achieved a considerable reduction in the amount to be allowed in the total by-catch. That is of interest to Britain and our fishing industry, which will benefit in terms of catches for human consumption.
    I know that hon. Members are worried about access. My right hon. Fiend the Secretary of State dealt with some of the problems. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) are particularly worried about this issue. We are still negotiating on those matters. We need to be very careful, particularly over conservation measures in the breeding grounds where spawning takes place. I discussed this as recently as today with interested fishermen.
    No solid or credible views have been put forward by the Labour Party. Opposition Members have completely ignored what we have achieved. We have transferred into Community conservation measures what the previous Government achieved only nationally. We now have the force of the Community, and the measures are much more powerful. Secondly, we have improved marketing, which is also important for the industry's returns. Thirdly, as I said, we have made enormous progress on control. Our job is to get the best deal for the industry—
    Mr. Michael Cocks rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 286.

    Division No. 277]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

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

    Adams, Allen

    Cryer, Bob

    Anderson, Donald

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

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Davidson, Arthur

    Ashton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

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

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Deakins, Eric

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Benn. Rt Hon Tony

    Dewar, Donald

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Dixon, Donald

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dobson, Frank

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Dormand, Jack

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

    Douglas, Dick

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dubs, Alfred

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Dunlop, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Dunnett, Jack

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

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

    Eadie, Alex

    Campbell, Ian

    Eastham, Ken

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

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

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ellis, R. (NE D"sh're)

    Cant, R. B.

    English, Michael

    Carmichael, Neil

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Ewing, Harry

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

    Faulds, Andrew

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

    Field, Frank

    Cohen, Stanley

    Flannery, Martin

    Coleman, Donald

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Cowans, Harry

    Ford, Ben

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

    Forrester, John

    1219

    Foulkes, George

    Pavitt, Laurie

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

    Pendry, Tom

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Golding, John

    Prescott, John

    Graham, Ted

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Race, Reg

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

    Radice, Giles

    Hardy, Peter

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Richardson, Jo

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Haynes, Frank

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

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

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Homewood, William

    Robertson, George

    Hooley, Frank

    Robinson, G, (Coventry NW)

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Rooker, J. W.

    Huckfield, Les

    Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Ryman, John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Sever, John

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    John, Brynmor

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Silverman, Julius

    Kerr, Russell

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Soley, Clive

    Lamond, James

    Spearing, Nigel

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Stallard, A. W.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Litherland, Robert

    Stoddart, David

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Stott, Roger

    McCartney, Hugh

    Strang, Gavin

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Straw, Jack

    McElhone, Frank

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Tilley, John

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Tinn, James

    McKelvey, William

    Torney, Tom

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    McNamara, Kevin

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    McTaggart, Robert

    Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

    McWilliam, John

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Watkins, David

    Marshall, (G'gow S'ton)

    Weetch, Ken

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Welsh, Michael

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    White, Frank R.

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Whitlock, William

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)

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

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Molyneaux, James

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

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Winnick, David

    Morton, George

    Woodall, Alec

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Newens, Stanley

    Wright, Sheila

    O'Neill, Martin

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Palmer, Arthur

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Park, George

    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

    Parker, John

    Mr. Ron Leighton.

    Parry, Robert

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

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

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Banks, Robert

    Alexander, Richard

    Bendall, Vivian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Ancram, Michael

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Arnold, Tom

    Best, Keith

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    1220

    Blackburn, John

    Greenway, Harry

    Blaker, Peter

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

    Body, Richard

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Grist, Ian

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Grylls, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Bowden, Andrew

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bright, Graham

    Hannam, John

    Brinton, Tim

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Hawkins, Sir Paul

    Brotherton, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Heddle, John

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Henderson, Barry

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hicks, Robert

    Buck, Antony

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Budgen, Nick

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Hooson, Tom

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Hordern, Peter

    Cadbury, Jocelyn

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

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

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Churchill, W. S.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman

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

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Jessel, Toby

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cockeram, Eric

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Cope, John

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Corrie, John

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Costain, Sir Albert

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Critchiey, Julian

    Knox, David

    Crouch, David

    Lamont, Norman

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Lang, Ian

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Latham, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Dover, Denshore

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Lee, John

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Durant, Tony

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Loveridge, John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Luce, Richard

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Farr, John

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Fell, Sir Anthony

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

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Madel, David

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Major, John

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

    Marland, Paul

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Marten, Rt Hon Neil

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Forman, Nigel

    Mawby, Ray

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Fox, Marcus

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    Mellor, David

    Fry, Peter

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Moate, Roger

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Gorst, John

    Moore, John

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Gray, Hamish

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    1221

    Murphy, Christopher

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Myles, David

    Speed, Keith

    Neale, Gerrard

    Speller, Tony

    Needham, Richard

    Spence, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Neubert, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Normanton, Tom

    Sproat, Iain

    Nott, Rt Hon John

    Squire, Robin

    Onslow, Cranley

    Stainton, Keith

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Osborn, John

    Stanley, John

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Steen, Anthony

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Stewart, A.(E Pentrewshire)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Parris, Matthew

    Stokes, John

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Tapsell, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pollock, Alexander

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Porter, Barry

    Thompson, Donald

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Trippier, David

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Trotter, Neville

    Rathbone, Tim

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Viggers, Peter

    Renton, Tim

    Wakeham, John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Walker, B. (Perth)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Waller, Gary

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Walters, Dennis

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Watson, John

    Rossi, Hugh

    Wells, Bowen

    Rost, Peter

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Wheeler, John

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Whitney, Raymond

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shepherd, Richard

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Shersby, Michael

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Silvester, Fred

    Sims, Roger

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Mr. Anthony Berry and

    Smith, Dudley

    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), and agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the further progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised common fisheries policy, particularly in relation to conservation, marketing and control; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a community-wide system of enforcement as well as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues.

  Greater London Council (Money) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7·13 pm
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It will be recalled that on Second Reading of the Bill some hon. Members used a blocking motion and a Division in a deliberate attempt to defeat it. I understand that there may be a similar attempt tonight, although I see another motion on the Order Paper which is supported by some Conservative Members. The Government did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading, and the blocking device has been used in the past to ensure that London's affairs are debated in the Chamber. Most hon. Members consider it unsatisfactory that such a parliamentary device should be used to obtain time to debate the affairs of the capital city. It causes much difficulty and many problems. I am one of those who think that this is a wholly unsatisfactory method of dealing with London's problems in the House.
  I am concerned that the device may be misused. As well as using the blocking motion to obtain a debate on London's affairs, it could be used to try to ensure that the GLC does not get the capital expenditure that is provided by the Bill. That would be a misuse of a debate on the GLC's capital expenditure. I need not go into the history of the debate, because it has been set out on many occasions by GLC officers in their advice to Members.
  The last occasion was not so much an attempt to debate the issues of London as an attempt to prevent that by a filibuster in the hope that some hon. Members would not be able to contribute. It certainly prevented several replies being given. While the device may be useful, it is capable of abuse. I hope that hon. Members will unite to find a better way to discuss the important problems of London.
  The debate concerns the GLC's capital expenditure. Of necessity the GLC has had to discuss that expenditure with various Government Departments—in particular the Treasury—Secretaries of State and Ministers so that the matter could be presented to the House in a form that was acceptable to the Government as well as to the Opposition.
  During the course of those discussions, the GLC was asked to make adjustments lo the tune of £39·6 million in order to make the estimates acceptable, which it did. Therefore, the Bill is acceptable to the Treasury Ministers and the various Departments involved, as well as to the GLC.
  That does not mean that hon. Members are barred from discussing the revenue estimates or how those sums are to be split up. That is where the criticism of the debate comes. At the end of the day we must recognise that there is a relationship between the GLC and the electorate, who should be involved in any debate on how the revenue estimates are spent and determined. It is an abuse for the House to go into details and to vote against the Bill. There are other methods and times for that.
  The Bill has not changed since its Committee stage. Therefore, I do not intend to go into details as I did on that occasion, except to emphasise the consequences of defeat, although I think that that is unlikely. The consequences of defeat should be understood. They are much as they were before. The GLC would not have the necessary powers to

  1223
  incur capital expenditure between the date of expiry on 30 September and the Royal Assent. That possibility seemed to excite the imagination of some members of the democratic part of the Social Democratic and Liberal alliance, which many other hon. Members could not understand.
  Hon. Members who are trying to take a responsible attitude recognise the difficulties for London and the House and the precedents that could be created if the revenue estimates were defeated by a debate on capital expenditure in the way that some hon. Members believe is possible.
  The GLC is in a unique position among authorities because its affairs are debated in the Chamber. That means that it suffers from the vagaries of the legislative process and the delays that arise in the parliamentary timetable. We have suffered especially during this Session because the timetable has been particularly cramped. Measures have been shifted around and we have heard today that we shall face even more difficulties as we move towards the end of the Session. That makes it all the more important that we accept the necessity for the Bill, its importance and the need for it to pass through the House without delay so that it may receive Royal Assent before the Summer Recess.
  There will be contractual arrangements—some have already been entered into—with which to contend and many other implications if the House fails to adopt a reasonble approach. There would be a dramatic effect on a range of projects. It is important to consider some of the things that might be affected if the attitude that we saw on Second Reading is to be taken further tonight.
  There will always be differences between the two main parties on the various Estimates and other aspects of the Bill, but the previous vote showed that there is a basic understanding between the two main parties on the democratic processes as they apply to local authorities, especially to the GLC.
  If the Bill is not given a Third Reading tonight there will be many consequences and I shall give a few examples. First, there would be a further delay for the Thames barrier. It would be a tragedy if there were further protraction because of a procedural delay. Home loans and mortgages would probably be among the first casualties. Loans to housing associations would suffer if there were an unnecessary delay in the Bill's passage. Employment schemes are being discussed in conjunction with local authorities and the private sector. It is hoped that these schemes will improve the industrial scene and give a boost to employment prospects in the Greater London area. Chambers of commerce and other interested parties are keen to see that the discussions go ahead without further delay.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I have serious reservations about the Greater London enterprise board and the cost to the people of the new chairman of £72,000 a year. The gentleman concerned is the deputy leader of the Labour Party in Wandsworth. I have such enormous reservations about that alone that I shall vote against the Bill. Is there anything that the hon. Gentleman can say to reassure me?
  Mr. Stallard: This is the wrong debate in which to go into the establishment of the board in great detail. It might
  1224
  have been better to raise that issue on Second Reading. This is not the occasion to discuss capital expenditure. However, I should welcome such a debate and I hope that we shall have one on the enterprise board as it takes shape. We are all interested in the board's development and the opportunities that we hope it will give.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday we debated the Government's policy for the regions? It embraced all the regions in Britain, employment, local authority implications and job opportunities. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) replied to the debate he mentioned the enterprise board. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) pursued the matter tonight he would probably be ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know participated in yesterday's debate. I was afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you might rule me out of order if I went too far down the road that was opened to me by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I appreciate the hon, Gentleman's anxieties and I suggest that we both ask for an early debate on that aspect of the GLC's policy. I shall be happy to join him in making that request.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: When I intervened on Second Reading I drew the attention of the House to the statement made on behalf of the GLC at an open council meeting on 15 February that no new home loans would be made and that further aid to housing associations would stop. The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill will provide facilities for home loans and for aid to housing associations, but the council has already said that it will not be able to continue to make them available because of Government cutbacks.
  Mr. Stallard: Item 8 of the schedule refers to
  "Sundry persons under the Housing Act 1957 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Acts 1958 and 1959".
  I understand that part of the sum set against that item is allocated to home loans, mortgages and loans to housing associations. They come within the council's authority, and the item sets out the sum that is provided in the capital estimates. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that I shall be corrected. It is one item that would be in jeopardy if we continued down the road that some hon. Members embarked upon during the previous debate.
  Such an approach would have a dramatic effect on the GLC's obligations that come within the transfer of housing to local authorities. We know how much heartache that causes in the Chamber. We know that some of those who are now opposing the transfer were in the forefront during the campaign in which it was advocated that more expenditure should be devoted to the houses and properties concerned. I find it difficult to understand the double voting of those hon. Members.
  We are all interested in London's traffic and probably we would all demand that more and more money should be spent on traffic schemes.
  Mr. Greenway: No.
  Mr. Stallard: Surely we do not want to injure or prejudice schemes that are designed to improve road safety and to make the life of cyclists safer. We have been advocating such action for a long time. There is a traffic signal modernisation programme.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a an unnecessary duplication of officials at borough and County Hall levels who are involved in traffic schemes, whether they be yellow lines, one-way streets, no right turns or parking meters? Under the present set-up each scheme has to be dealt with twice. This is a terrible waste of ratepayers' money. That set-up should go with the rest of the GLC.
  Mr. Stallard: As I have said, it is almost an abuse of the debate to try to turn it into an anti-GLC tirade, or even to use it to make points at the council's expense. I am discussing some of the schemes that come within the council's capital expenditure and which will suffer if the irresponsibility of some who are trying to defeat the Bill on Third Reading cause the enactment of the Bill to be delayed. Many of us have criticisms of the traffic management schemes, but it is necessary to have such schemes. I have no doubt that we shall be discussing the GLC on future occasions.
  I am especially concerned that the GLC's work on fire services should continue. In previous Parliaments we have taken a great deal of trouble to safeguard fire brigade services. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that he will wish to enlarge on the safeguarding of those services.
  I understand that £2·5 million has been allocated for a centralised mobilisation project for the fire services. The computerisation of the system, which is long overdue, could reduce the call-out time. Who will vote against that? Those who do will face the difficulty of explaining to their constituents why they did so. Furthermore, £2·5 million has been allocated to replace outdated appliances. The fire brigade services use their appliances for about 12 years. Surely no one except those who argued against the Bill on Second Reading will argue that 12-year-old appliances should not be replaced.
  I hope that between now and then there will be a change of heart and that they will accept that the capital expenditure is necessary. Two new stations are to be built, one at Beckenham and another at North Kensington. Those new stations are necessary to bring the fire brigade up to date with modern techniques and the rest. Major improvements to at least three other stations are proposed, one at Shooters Hill, one at Willesden and another at Erith. Who will vote against that? The people of London will not understand or forgive hon. Members who do so.
  Most London Members of Parliament could add to the list that I have given. Although we all have criticisms, most of them are between the electorate and the GLC. Nevertheless, we are debating the allocation of capital expenditure that has been agreed between the Government, the Treasury and the GLC.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: I have the GLC's detailed estimates on the fire brigade. I notice that no capital provision is included in the buildings and structures section of the GLC's document.
  Mr. Stallard: Several detailed documents and minutes that explain the estimates were sent to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he has not read them or brought them with him. Perhaps if he reads them he will find the relevant information.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Stallard: I think that I am doing all right. I had enough help from the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on Second Reading. He can add little to the long diatribe that he made then. His assertion that he is unable to obtain sufficient information between then and now should not be taken too seriously.
  I appeal to those hon. Members who supported the agreed estimates to go into the Lobby with those who will defend the GLC's capital expenditure projects to ensure that the Bill receives a Third Reading and Royal Assent before the recess.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. John Hunt: The House is grateful once again to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) for his explanation of the Bill. He referred rather disparagingly to what he called the device of the blocking motion.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The device of the blocking motion is well understood by all parties as a method of obtaining a debate on London matters. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said that there would be a Division on Third Reading, which in effect will be a Division on the decisions of the elected body across the water. That will be the purpose of the Division. Whether it is advisable or proper is another matter.
  Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for that elucidation. The more I listen to debates on London matters the more I question the procedure laid down by the London Government Act 1963 by which the GLC, alone of local authorities in Britain, must obtain specific approval of Parliament for its expenditure.
  The procedure is tedious and time consuming and has largely been overtaken by events. We all know that Governments are able to exercise stringent and far-reaching control over local government expenditure by penalties and clawbacks of all descriptions on a scale that was never envisaged in 1963. There is no longer any purpose or point in a money Bill of this type. I hope that in due course it will be possible to amend the law in that respect and bring the GLC in line with every other local authority in the country.
  The present procedure presents especial difficulty for a Government when the party in power in County Hall is different from that which holds a majority in the House of Commons. With regard to the present Bill, some Back-Bench Conservatives object to going through the Lobby in support of Mr. Livingstone's spending plans. But we are told by Ministers and Whips that the Bill must not be opposed as its loss would create problems of immense financial and constitutional complexity. That only underlines how farcical the proceedings are. The sooner they can be changed the better it will be for all of us.
  Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is procedurally absurd that the Bill cannot be properly discussed? Some of us voted to give it a Second Reading so that it could be pulled out in Committee only to discover that that could not happen. The only way in which we can express dissatisfaction with the GLC's spending plans is to vote against the Third Reading.
  Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has underlined my point. I am all in favour of the House having more debates on London matters, but this type of Bill is not the right vehicle for that.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in 1975 he and his hon. Friends divided the House on a money Bill. The Bill was defeated and the GLC did not get its money for about six or eight weeks. The device that the hon. Gentleman referred to has already been used. Nevertheless, the GLC remained in business.
  Mr. Hunt: I do not suggest that some of us have not had fun at the expense of the GLC. I still maintain that that is not the right way for such matters to be carried through. It would be neater and more sensible if the GLC conformed with other local authorities in expenditure matters, subject always to ultimate control of Government who hold the purse strings.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Government may assure the hon. Gentleman now of the disaster that would occur if the Bill is not passed but the hon. Gentleman has proven the Government wrong as an earlier Bill was successfully blocked.
  Mr. Hunt: I shall not be tempted along that line of argument as I might be tempted into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman, in which case I should incur the displeasure of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  We are told that the Government have no objection to the Bill. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to our London debate. Will he give me an assurance that none of the items in the Bill reflect the spendthrift, irresponsible attitude to ratepayers' money that has symbolised Mr. Livingstone's period of power at County Hall?
  Clause 4(a) provides for the expenditure of more than £10 million on recreation and the arts. Since Second Reading I have been assured that that item does not include anything for grants, but is that really so? The statement from the GLC in support of Second Reading described the item as
  "Provision of recreational facilities and support for the Arts".
  That seems pretty wide. On Second Reading, in response to my intervention seeking an assurance that none of the money was earmarked for the kind of fringe radical theatre so loved by Mr. Livingstone, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North strongly defended spending on the theatre and gave the impression that such expenditure was within the terms of the Bill. We are entitled to some clarification on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give it when he winds up the debate.
  We are entitled to know, for example, whether the £10,688,000 for recreation and the arts includes any community arts grants, as they are described across the river. Does it include, for instance, the grant of £1,000 which I understand was made to the May Day theatre in Battersea—its very name is suspect enough and its performance seems to be sporadic, to say the least.
  Mr. Ted Graham: Perhaps it needs help.
  Mr. Hunt: I am told that it has not performed in public since 1979. It would be interesting to know what assessment of its artistic abilities was made by the GLC before the grant was approved. Perhaps the infrequency of its performances explains why its applications for grant have been turned down by the Arts Council, the Greater
  1228
  London Arts Association and Wandsworth borough council Mr. "Soft-Touch" Livingstone, however, has come up with the money. I want an absolute assurance that that money is not included in the Bill.
  The other item in the schedule that I wish to query appears under the heading "Planning and Industry", and provision is made for a total of more than £62 million. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North suggested that any discussion of the Greater London enterprise board would be outside the scope of the debate. The GLC statement supporting the Bill, however, described this item as an initiative
  "to stimulate industry and employment in London"—
  ignoring the fact that the greatest disincentive to industry and employment in London is the massive and escalating rate burden imposed on business and commerce by Mr. Livingstone and his friends.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: High interest rates.
  Mr. Hunt: If we are asked to approve more than £60 million of expenditure on planning and industry, we are entitled to some explanation of how the money is to be spent. As I understand it, these funds are administered by the industry and employment committee at County Hall, and the committee envisages that half of the money will go to development and half to loan provision. I gather, however, that so far only two loans have been made under this heading. The first is a loan of £100,000 to the magazine City Limits, to which the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred on Second Reading. That is certainly a high risk project. Indeed, even the GLC comptroller of finance was driven to warn the committee that the inherent risks should not be minimised. The other loan, I gather, is to the radical feminist publication Sheba Magazine which, whatever its distinctive merits or attractions, is hardly in the mainstream of London life.
  Mr. Reg Race: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
  Mr. Hunt: With regard to money for development, we all favour creating new jobs for London, but this must be done with some sense of financial realism and responsibility. I hope that when the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North winds up the debate—he seems to have left the Chamber—
  Mr. Wellbeloved: He is getting briefed.
  Mr. Hunt: I apologise. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North is getting briefed. I hope that he is also listening to my remarks and that when he has been briefed he will be able to bring us up to date on achievements so far in the provision of money for development to create jobs, whether through the Greater London enterprise board or in other ways. The only specific achievement that I can trace so far is the erection of 31 workshops said to provide 140 jobs at a total cost of £1,950,000. That works out at £13,892 per job. The Labour Party promised in its election manifesto two years ago to create 10,000 new jobs in London. On the basis of the cost of those workshops, the cost of that for London ratepayers will be £138,920,000, so we shall have to examine the next money Bill with even greater caution.
  I have grave reservations about providing money for a council that has proved itself wholly indifferent to the interests of its ratepayers. The Greater London Council is

  1229
  an expensive shambles largely irrelevant to the real needs of London. I saw a magazine the other day which put the point rather well. It said of the GLC that
  "after the furious but ill-directed activity of their first few months, as committees proliferate activity stagnates … No one could seriously accuse Ken and Co. of not working, but so much of the work has produced no worthwhile result—galloping off in all directions and making a great deal of noise may be fun for a while, but it will achieve nothing".
  That was the verdict not of Conservative Central Office but of London Time,—the journal of the GLC Staff Association—the people who work at County Hall and have seen the Labour administration there at first hand. They should know, and their comments should make us pause and ponder before giving the Bill a Third Reading.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The hon Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) did not mention the fact that the Bill covers provision for the Inner London education authority. Given the purposes for which that provision is intended, I am surprised at the opposition expressed by some hon. Members today.
  Of the money provided for ILEA by the Bill, £1 million is for new nursery provision and a further £1 million is for updating and improving primary school premises so that they can provide nursery classes. A further £3½ million is intended for major works in primary and secondary schools owned and operated by the authority.
  Those works include the very sensible effort, which ILEA has been making for a year or two, to provide sports facilities in or near its secondary schools so that children and teachers do not have to travel miles on ILEA or other coaches to outer London, which is a nuisance for both children and teachers who do not like travelling an hour each way on the bus and at great expense to the authority, and it means that the children enjoy games less than they otherwise might. To spend money on in situ school sports facilities is an admirable policy.
  My constituency has benefited. The secondary school which my two oldest children attend had about £250,000 spent on it to improve the sports facilities on the site. That was done in a slightly more expensive way so that it would be possible for the local people to use the sports facilities during the evening when they were not being used by the school children.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who was once a teacher at that school, was pleased enough to attend the open ceremony of those sports facilities, and I am surprised, therefore, that he is saying that the Bill fails to give value for money to London ratepayers. I did not hear him say that the scheme, which is identical to others provided for under the Bill, was not giving value for money. He did not say that to my constituents or to his former fellow teachers who were present that day.
  Mr. Greenway: I fought for 12 years to improve the facilities at that school, so I do not need a lecture from the hon. Gentleman on the school's needs. I have to say in passing that the scheme is interesting. Children will be prevented from travelling to off-site games facilities which they have enjoyed and profited from for over 20 years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make remarks in passing when intervening. Interventions are supposed to be brief. Interventions prolong speeches and reduce the number of hon. Members who can take part in the debate.
  Mr. Greenway: I shall be brief. The scheme prevents children from travelling. That is a mixed blessing. The children in that school will miss some valuable facilities as a result of it. Therefore, I have mixed feelings. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking against my constituency interests. I am sure that he will accept that.
  Mr. Dobson: Children who come to my flat say they get sick when travelling on buses to outer London and they do not feel like playing games when they arrive there. I am sure that they do not consider playing games next to the school as a mixed blessing. They think that it is a wholehearted blessing, and so do the staff who normally accompany them.
  It is those blessings that the authorities are trying to introduce into other schools. The area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard)—which is, regrettably, represented on the GLC by the sole elected SDP Member—contains the major secondary school facility of Haverstock school, which is the subject of the estimates that we are debating tonight. The intention is to improve its facilities so that the children will not need to travel. It is, therefore, surprising that SDP Members—none of whom, unlike Mrs. Sofer, has bothered to go to the electorate—are objecting to these schemes.
  It is equally odd that the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) is objecting—he is trying to block the Bill—to spending £38,200 on the relocation of the existing nursery at Hargrave Park school, which provides facilities for his constituents. He is objecting to spending money to move the existing nursery from substandard hutted accommodation into the main building. That is dreadful.
  Mr. John Grant: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is being silly. I have objected to no such thing. I have not yet decided what I shall do about the Bill. The school is not in my constituency. Unless I have an opportunity to ask some questions and get some answers, I shall be obliged to vote against the Bill. I hope that I shall have that opportunity and get some sensible replies.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman will need to explain to his constituents why he is opposed to spending £163,000 on improving Holloway school, which, even if it is not in his constituency, takes a substantial number of pupils from the area that he represents. Perhaps he will be in favour of having internal lavatories at Duncombe junior mixed school. That will benefit the children of his constituents. It is intended that that school should benefit from the Bill. [Interruption.] I do not suggest that any of the schools are necessarily in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I am willing to claim, and I doubt that he can gainsay it, that children from his constituency go to those schools.
  There are other SDP Members who seem to have forgotten whom they represent. I notice that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is in the Chamber.
  ILEA is spending a substantial sum of money on improving the schools in its area. There are more than 60 pages—the schedule is even longer, with 70 pages—setting out in detail ILEA's intended improvements to its schools. That spending is intended to improve the educational opportunities of the children whom even

  1231
  London SDP hon. Members represent. They should not forget that, nor should their constituents. It is deplorable that they should be attempting to stop the Bill.
  SDP hon. Members should not talk about what they are doing on Third Reading. Some SDP hon. Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading. They tried to stop it. More than £300,000 of the money to be made available under the Bill is intended to be spent by ILEA on improving the means of escape, in case of fire, from the authority's schools and from many voluntary schools in the area. It is deplorable that SDP hon. Members voted against that on Second Reading and are considering voting against the Bill now. What will they say if one of the schools burns down? Will they say "We were just playing games in the House of Commons one night"? When the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke for one hour and 21 minutes, he was not trying to stop the Bill from going through; he was just trying to organise a vote against it! That sort of approach is absolutely disgraceful.
  It is also deplorable that some hon. Members are attempting to prevent ILEA from going ahead with a limited amount of new spending on entirely new school buildings. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) would be interested in the tentative proposals to build a new secondary school to assist in secondary education in Thamesmead. The expenditure will not be chickenfeed. It will be £10 million.
  An expenditure of £1 million will be needed in the heart of the East End to provide a new primary school which is intended to give a decent start in life—better than we could previously have expected—for many children from Bangladeshi homes. Any reasonable person would welcome such expenditure by ILEA. That expenditure has to come before the House because of the peculiar and outdated procedures to which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne referred. I agree with him on that.
  Therefore, I hope that, even without asking their questions and waiting for answers, the SDP Members—I regret that they are on the Opposition Benches, rather than on the other side of the House—will consider the consequences of a further effort to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I hope they will remember that their silly game playing would, if it succeeded, severely damage the educational opportunities and even the health and safety of a large number of London children. I do not think that we should play that sort of game. Anyone who is claiming to break the mould of British politics should avoid playing that sort of game, but ever since SDP Members have operated in this House it seems to be the only sort of game that they play.
  8 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) speaks of the money required for the Inner London Education Authority under the Bill, he is talking of about £31 million. He detailed several of the projects that the money will cover. I know, from my 23 years' service with the ILEA, that there will be many valuable projects involved. The problem with a Bill such as this is that,
  1232
  while one does not oppose everything in it, if one opposes certain things, one can only do so by referring to them in a speech and by voting against the Bill.
  I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the expenditure of which he was speaking in such moving terms amounts to £31 million, and that the ILEA has a budget during the current year of £748 million, so that it will not put the ILEA on the floor if the GLC loses the Bill.
  I have to consider the balance of my constituents' interests. That is what I am here to do. It is a form of blackmail to say that one would be voting against children's interests if one voted against the Bill. That is not what I am intending to vote against in voting against the Bill. I shall be voting against other matters in it.
  I have a long experience of East London, where there are many primary schools. Several of them are being closed. Therefore, I did not weep too much over some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because buildings are available.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the school attended by his own children, thereby declaring his personal interest in that school and its facilities, which we all accept. When he speaks—presumably as an educationist—of the value of on-site facilities for children, and of the fact that the Bill will make provisions of that kind, I go a very long way with him. However, I do not go all the way with him when he gives a particular example about which I know a good deal more than he does, having worked at the school in King's Cross for 12 years and been deputy head of it. I still know many of the staff extremely well, and the parents too. I would not say that I know them all better than the hon. Gentleman does, who represents them, but it may be that I know some of them better than he does.
  What the hon. Gentleman said about the scheme to which he tried to bind my vote was not altogether fair. Children will lose a great deal by being kept on site at the school in question and thereby being denied the chance to travel to off-site facilities. Some of them are a little distant but some are not so far away. Many of the journeys, which I undertook from the school for years, were not by bus but by Underground or train. Mornington Crescent Underground station is within walking distance of the school, as is Euston. In 15 or 20 minutes one could be out in the country, in the open air, enjoying the facilities of the countryside. That is what children from King's Cross particularly need.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that his constituents have profited enormously in the past and still profit from being taken out to the country for sports and other recreational facilities. I regret very much the loss of those facilities, just as, I am sure, the children do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will watch their interests in this way.
  Mr. Spearing: Apart from the fact that most of the pros and cons of these matters are for the ILEA, the hon. Gentleman said that he was looking after the interests of his constituents, but is it not correct that his constituents are entirely within the London borough of Ealing and have nothing to do with the ILEA—and, indeed, do not even contribute to the grant from the Exchequer to the ILEA, because under the Secretary of State there is not one?
  Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Member had been following the debate with his customary attention, he would have noticed that I said that I have to balance the

  1233
  interests of my constituents against the arguments being advanced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, who has put specific points to me in regard to education. I have been challenged to speak on them. All the points are in the Bill and it is the Bill that we are discussing. What is out of order in that? I have long known of the hon. Gentleman's experience and his teaching at Elliott school in the ILEA. I know about his rowing coaching, and of the day when all the boys walked away from the boat. He will remember that. They would not work with him.
  Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. Friend accept that the rates charged on behalf of ILEA have a real effect on the residents in outer London boroughs, many of whom have their employment in central London? The level of employment very much depends on the level of rate demands. Therefore, there is no divorce between employment and rates, and the actions of a profligate local authority, such as the ILEA, will affect the level of employment.
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. He poses an argument which I support and which will need to be answered by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) when he replies to the debate.
  My sense of outrage about the Bill is that the Labour Party fought the GLC election in my constituency on a promise not to take the proposed Hayes bypass to the White Hart roundabout in Northolt. Yesterday, it went back on that promise, having won Ealing, North by the small majority of 200 or 300 votes. Now, by diktat of Mr. Livingstone and his friends, and facilitated by this miserable Bill, we shall have this disgraceful road to the White Hart roundabout, in direct contradiction of a promise to the electors of my constituency and beyond. That is scandalous.
  I shall not rest until I have done everything possible to reverse the decision. All the traffic that is not wanted in Hayes and Southall is now to be imposed on the people of Northolt, causing them hell and misery and destroying their way of life. I cannot support a Bill that facilitates that. If an assurance was given from the Opposition Front Bench that the Labour majority on the Greater London Council would keep its promise about the bypass, I would vote for the Bill. Without that assurance, I shall vote against it.
  Mr. Dobson: Did a Labour or Conservative candidate win Ealing, North in the GLC election?
  Mr. Greenway: I am pleased to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The Conservative candidate said that he would support termination of the bypass in the area, although he did not specify the White Hart roundabout, but added that he was looking for ways in which the matter could be handled with the least disturbance to the people. He took that line against my strong opposition and the opposition of the local community and the A312 committee. But the Labour candidate said in his election manifesto that he and the Labour Party
  "oppose termination of the delayed Hayes bypass at the White Hart roundabout."
  He was elected by a margin of 200 or 300 votes. The fact that a promise has not been kept is serious for the community that I represent. On that basis alone, I cannot support the Bill.
  1234
  The Bill provides for the GLC's continued doubtful handling of London Transport. I cannot support the GLC's action in doubling fares. That may prompt ironical laughter from the Opposition Benches, but it is in fact what happened. There is now to be another "Fares Fair" campaign at a cost to the ratepayers of hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is the best that the GLC can do. I want to see London Transport taken away from the GLC and put under a separate transport authority with a proper public subsidy. It should not in any case be subsidised by the ratepayers whose rates have been doubled by the GLC in less than a year. I cannot support any Bill that helps that state of affairs to continue.
  There are many individual reasons why I oppose the Bill, though I support in most ways the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt).
  8.13 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on the fair and clear manner in which he introduced the Bill. As he says, the Second Reading debate arose from the action of my hon. Friends and myself in blocking the Bill. I make no apology for that. Had there been no blocking motion, there would have been no debate and no scrutiny of the spending of £1 million of public money. It is fair to recall that a vote against Second Reading of the money Bill is not unprecedented. I have good reason to remember that the Second Reading of the money Bill was defeated in 1976. I was the Member responsible for introducing the Bill on that occasion. It was defeated because Members of the then Opposition objected to certain parts. As a result, there had to be a renegotiation of the Bill between the appropriate authorities in County Hall and in Government. I suggest that if the Third Reading is defeated tonight, exactly the same process will take place. All the heart-rending tales that we have heard from Labour Members tonight about the dreadful consequences of defeating the Bill add up to nothing. If the Bill were to be defeated tonight, a renegotiated Bill would be introduced that would, I hope, leave out all the things to which we object and retain the good elements to which other hon. Members have referred, and we would support it.
  The Second Reading debate was exactly four weeks ago. The debate was enlivened by a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who raised some wide-ranging issues, including home defence, the role of the Greater London enterprise board, the activities of the GLC police committee, the problems of mobility of council tenants and other important constituency issues.
  We understood why the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North could not deal with all those points in a short speech at the end of the debate. As is usual in such a case, he undertook to provide a written reply. Therefore, I was surprised to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has not yet received that detailed written reply, nor has my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who also raised issues in that debate. All that they received late this afternoon was a photocopy of a letter addressed to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. That is a somewhat cavalier treatment of hon. Members who are entitled to a personal reply from the GLC on the issues that they raised.
  Mr. Stallard: Replies were received. The hon. Gentleman's point is a petty one. Naturally, as I was responsible for introducing the Bill, the replies were sent to me and I accept responsibility for replying to the questions that could not be answered then because of the filibustering by his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. Those replies were not given and I accept the responsibility for not having given them. It is petty to say that a photocopy of a letter to me was provided. I replied as far as I could to the detailed constituency points that are not relevant to the Bill.
  Mr. Cartwright: I hear what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North says, but if he were treated in that way by a Minister—simply sent a photocopy of a letter to someone else—I know what his reaction would be, and I would support him all the way. My hon. Friends were entitled to a personal reply.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Had we not put down a motion to block the Bill on Third Reading, we would not even have received that photocopied reply from the GLC, and nothing, whether courtesy or any other reason, would have induced the GLC even to acknowledge the important points that were raised.
  Mr. Cartwright: My hon. Friend makes a fair point.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I should say that at five o'clock this evening I received from the Minister a letter that was directed to the wrong Member. It went to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) first, but I finally received it at five o'clock. I always receive letters from the Minister via Leith. The Department of the Environment does, however, address letters to the right names even if turns out to be the wrong Member.
  Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred to the Thames barrier, which is vital to my constituents. I visited that mammoth scheme several times since it started, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and I toured it earlier this year. The scheme is a credit to the skill, ingenuity and expertise of all involved. It has been dogged by practical problems that are acceptable in such a pioneering project, but the scheme has also been dogged by industrial relations difficulties. Those problems have affected both the cost of the project and the construction programme. In December 1973, the original cost of the barrier alone was put at £88 million. The most recent estimate is £452 million, which represents a five-fold increase in eight years. If the associated river defence work is included, the total cost is now put at £750 million.
  The original completion date of September 1979 has slipped substantially and despite alterations to the programme the project is expected to be completed in November 1982. That date is still firm despite a further industrial stoppage in January. Seventy-five per cent. of the capital cost is met by a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that at the end of the project there will be a detailed analysis and an explanation of the incredible increase in cost to discover how much of the increase was caused by industrial problems, inflation and practical difficulties.
  On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford referred to several grants from the GLC. The reaction of some Labour Members was to say that, when set against the gigantic £1 billion capital spending in the Bill, the grants, even if they amounted to
  1236
  several hundred thousand or one million pounds, were too small to worry about. That is a strange argument. When resources for local government in London are limited, any spending on low priority schemes removes resources from high priority schemes.
  An example of such a scheme is the GLC women's committee set up a few months ago. It drew adverse comment from the staff side representatives in County Hall. They said:
  "The feeling has been expressed by a number of departments reflecting the view, of women members of staff that the proposed committee would well, at best, not assist policies for equal opportunities, and at worst be counter-productive. It has been suggested that if there are problems they should be dealt with within the Council's committee structure without the creation of a new bureaucracy."
  The new bureaucracy has a budget of £62,000 for staff, £70,000 a year for conferences, publicity and other expenses and £200,000 for grants. It is advertising the availability of grants at a cost to the ratepayers of £1,200, despite the fact that the comptroller of finance at County Hall advised the committee that, of the £200,000 available, £74,000 is already committed and applications received exceed £300,000.
  Mr. Race: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for the establishment of the women's committee was that it was believed that women were being discriminated against in the GLC and in the population at large and that it was necessary to have a separate committee to establish where that discrimination existed and to do something about it? Is he further aware that the grants made available by the committee are to such laudable projects as the safe women's transport group in Lewisham, which provides minibuses to transport women who may otherwise be attacked by men in the streets? Is he against that?
  Mr. Cartwright: It is hard to believe that discrimination against GLC employees can best be dealt with by setting up a separate committee. If trade unions were doing their job—the hon. Gentleman knows much about the work of trade unions—they would use the existing machinery to look after their members. I shall not go into the rights or wrongs of an individual grant. My point is that to advertise for more applications at a cost of £1,200, when the money already available is oversubscribed, is not a good use of the ratepayers' contributions.
  We were told on Second Reading that employment creation was the main emphasis of the GLC's spending programme as represented by this Bill. That is borne out by the estimates. Capital spending on industry and employment is £24·5 million compared with £2¼ million in 1981–82. That is a tenfold increase in one year. Revenue spending is £10·5 million compared with £3¼ million in 1981–82, which is a threefold increase.
  The main element in the programme is clearly the Greater London enterprise board. That was one of the Labour Party's manifesto commitments during the last GLC elections. At the time, we were told that it was the brainchild of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). As a result, one might have expected a well worked-out, finely-tuned scheme ready to go into operation straight away. However, there have been considerable fluctuations and alterations in policy in relation to the GLEB.
  On 26 January, in a report on the formation and establishment of the board, the GLC was told:

  1237
  "It is hoped that the company will be operative by the end of March 1982".
  It would appear that that hope has not been fulfilled.
  There was, of course, the hiccup over the position of the chairman and chief executive. In December 1981, it was announced that Mr. Edward Cunningham of the Scottish Development Agency would be appointed as chairman and chief executive. However, certain differences appeared to arise between him and elected councillors. The party of open Government at County Hall is coy about the details, but whatever they were it was announced in May that Mr. Cunningham had departed after less than five months.
  At a GLC meeting on 30 March, a report from the industry and employment committee set out the revised board structure: three full-time board directors to be appointed at once; up to three more full-time directors later; and up to seven part-time directors at some other point in time. However, by 8 June the position had changed again. We now had a two-tier structure: a main board, presided over by the chairman and chief executive and 12 part-time directors, and a management board, again presided over by the chairman and chief executive, and six executive directors heading individual divisions within the board's operations.
  On 29 June Mr. McGarvey was appointed as chief executive alone and it was implied that further consideration would he given to the appointment of a part-time non-executive chairperson.
  Mr. Spearing: Would not it be more appropriate for these criticisms—if they are criticisms—to be taken up by those sitting at County Hall, who may be members of the hon. Gentleman's party? I am told that capital is not involved and whatever the merits of the hon. Gentleman's remarks he is surely referring to administrative wisdom rather than to revenue expenditure.
  Mr. Cartwright rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Bill's provisions. We are on Third Reading, and therefore we are concerned only with the Bill's contents.
  Mr. Cartwright: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am relating my remarks to the administrative expenses that arise out of the capital provision. The GLC has made it clear that it cannot simply give capital away. It must build an administrative structure to oversee the disbursements of those capital grants. I am discussing that administrative structure.
  The salaries in that administrative structure are important. In earlier debates the salary of Mr. McGarvey, the chief executive, was referred to. The report to the GLC on 29 June said that his salary would be "not less than £25,000". It has turned out to be £35,000 and with the extra elements in the package it adds up to about £45,000. In addition, loss of Government grant will add 60 per cent. to that expenditure. That adds a further £27,000 and thus we reach the publicised figure of £72,000 as the cost to ratepayers.
  Mr. Jessel: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the cost of bureaucracy in the GLC, but is he aware that within the past week the SDP has floated the idea of a new regional government for the South-East? Is not it almost beyond belief—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) answers that point, his remarks will be wide of the Bill. He must relate his remarks to the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Cartwright: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the salaries of the directors of the Greater London enterprise board. They will be running the board and disbursing the capital sums included in the Bill. On 8 June the GLC heard in a report that the part-time directors of the GLEB were to receive salaries of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the chief executive's salary. If the salary of the chief executive was £25,000, their remuneration was to be £2,500 to £5,000.
  The report explained that the salaries were
  "based on the premise that all part-time members will spend one half day per week in work for the board and some as much as one full day per week."
  However, we know that the chief executive's salary is not £25,000 but £35,000, and therefore the part-time directors' salaries will be between £3,500 and £7,000, depending on whether they work a half day or a full day per week.
  According to the report by the comptroller of finance issued on 8 June, the salaries of part-time directors would add up to £90,000 in a full year. That was based on a chief executive's salary of £30,000, but that salary is £35,000. We must also add on 60 per cent. for grant loss as a result of the spending. That makes a bill of £160,000 for the ratepayers for the part-time members of the Greater London enterprise board.
  The comptroller of finance commented:
  "These estimates exclude accommodation charges about which a separate report is proposed."
  I should have thought that there were enough rooms in County Hall without having to find extra accommodation for the part-time members of the board.
  There is a further report on the salaries of the management board members—the full-time executive directors who head divisions. It is unlikely that they will earn less than £25,000 a year. Allowing for the loss of Government grant, that means a bill of about £250,000 for the full-time executive directors. The salary of the part-time, non-executive chairman must be added. His salary is unlikely to be less than £10,000. With the loss of grant the salaries of the chief executive, the part-time chairman, the part-time directors and the full-time directors produce a net cost to London ratepayers of about £½ million a year. That is before the staffing costs are taken into account.
  We are told that the Greater London enterprise board is to have six divisional groups of staff covering sector and structural development, appraisal, technology, area and property development, common services and general administrative support. So far, only interim staff arrangements are known. The 79 posts carry a full-year cost of £1,112,000. Even in the early stages it seems that the administrative costs of the board will be about £1¾ million. That is before even one job is created.
  We are entitled to ask questions about the board. When will it be operative? How many staff will it finally employ? What are the total estimated operating costs to be borne by London ratepayers? Most important, how many jobs will be created?
  Mr. John Wheeler: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to spend the money from the Greater London Council it will be necessary to raise a precept in London to produce money from the ratepayers—most of

  1239
  whom are commercial ratepayers—and that, for every £10,000 taken from commercial ratepayers, one job in London is lost?
  Mr. Cartwright: I would not comment on the arithmetic. It is possible to exaggerate the impact on employment of rate increases, but they do have an impact. To tax more harshly firms left in London to create new jobs is a self-defeating exercise.
  The Bill deals with another aspect of job creation at County Hall. A new unit, the economic policy group, is associated with capital spending. The chief economic adviser has already been appointed. In a report which the council considered on 29 June he says:
  "The first stage, the establishment of a 'nucleus' team, was completed on 1 March by which time a Chief Economic Adviser and four senior economic assistants…had taken up posts. A review of the staffing necessary to carry out the primary functions of EPG to draw up the London Industrial Strategy (LIS) and the London Manpower Plan (LMP) has now been completed and forms the basis of this report."
  That involves an extra 14 posts. According to the comptroller of finance, in the current financial year that adds up to another £205,000. If one allows for the 60 per cent. grant loss, the figure becomes £328,000. The full year cost of the posts is £307,300. That is an average of £22,000 per job—nice jobs if you can get them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Dobson: In response to an intervention by the Chair, the hon. Member justified relating to the Bill the salaries paid by the Greater London enterprise board by saying that the funds for investment were covered by the Bill. Is he justifying his present excursions on the same ground? It appears that there is no capital expenditure in the Bill relating to the revenue expenditure on the salaries that he is discussing.
  Mr. Cartwright: As I understand it, the economic policy group is responsible for setting out the London employment strategy, which is something that is followed by the activities of the Greater London enterprise board and other GLC departments associated with job creation. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will see that when I get to the point.
  Mr. John Grant: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is curious that we keep having interventions from Labour Members seeking to restrict discussion on the Greater London enterprise board? Does this not mean that there is something to hide?
  Mr. Cartwright: My hon. Friend is much more suspicious than I. I assumed that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) was merely concerned about the rules of order.
  Mr. Dobson: Since I deliberately made a short speech so that every hon. Member who wished to speak would have the opportunity to do so, I am concerned to assist those of my hon. Friends, and even Conservative Members, who would like to speak, to do so within the rules of order.
  Mr. Cartwright: I have given way to a number of interventions from the Labour Benches, which has extended the length of my remarks.
  I was referring to the extra jobs in the economic policy group. The number of jobs will be 26 and the full year cost
  1240
  is estimated at £550,000, again at over £21,000 a job. If we add the 60 per cent. grant loss, the cost to London ratepayers will be £850,000. The senior officers on the staff side say:
  "The work, as described, appears to duplicate and overlap in part the separate proposals for the Greater London Enterprise Board activity…There is also duplication of effort with the Central Policy Unit and the Central Policy Intelligence Unit. No justification exists for the establishment of parallel units."
  That is the reaction of the staff, and I found it very powerful.
  Another point I wish to make is about the industry and capital employment programme and its staffing. There are 38 extra posts in the valuation and estates, architects and mechanical engineering departments being added specifically as a result of the capital programme. That is another full year cost of £695,000, and it is only the start of the process.
  I accept that the aim of this operation is to create jobs for the unemployed in London, but I am sad to see that the result at the early stages is doing nothing more than adding highly paid jobs to the County Hall bureaucracy.
  My hon. Friends and I divided the House on Second Reading to show our concern about certain aspects of GLC spending plans. We might have expected that our concern was shared by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. On a number of occasions they have been extremely critical of the spending policies of the GLC. When it came to the Division we found that 56 Conservative Members voted with 57 Labour Members to guarantee the Bill a Second Reading. We noticed that in the Lobby, several Ministers and Whips were voting for the Bill.
  There has now been, a little late in the day, an attempt to recover the situation by the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of a number of Conservative Members, some of whom appear to have had a conversion since the Second Reading vote. In future I shall find it difficult to take seriously Government criticism of the GLC and its spending policies. For example, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "I commend the Bill to the House and say that it is consistent with the Government's overall strategy to local government."
  That must contrast sharply with some of the adverse comments made by the Secretary of State and by the Minister responsible for local government about the spending activities of the GLC.
  Mr. Jessel: Is not the point that the Minister was worried that if the Bill were not passed the cost of running the GLC could fall on the Department of the Environment? That was his point. He was not by any means commending everything that the GLC did.
  Mr. Cartwright: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Minister said:
  "I commend the Bill to the House".—[Official Report, 17 June; Vol. 25, c. 1175.]
  I repeat the precedent in 1976. Had the Bill been defeated, it would have been possible to renegotiate the Bill in substantially the same form, but without the objectionable features.
  It is clear from the exercise on Second Reading that the Government are fighting a phoney war against the Greater London Council. If the Government are fighting a phoney war, what about the position of the GLC's Labour leadership? What about Mr. Livingstone? He likes to present himself as "super Ken" fighting on the barricades,

  1241
  fending off the Heseltinian hordes from Marsham Street and prepared to shed his last drop of blood to defend the spending plans of the GLC from Government interference.
  As we have heard, a deal was done between the GLC leadership and the Government, which has rendered the GLC's spending programmes acceptable to the Government. Large parts of those programmes are not acceptable to me or to my hon. Friends. I am glad that we have succeeded in shedding some light on them in these debates. I do not accept that that is an abuse of the procedures of the House. We have done a service to the House and to the people of London.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Reg Race: The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) referred to the salaries of members of the Greater London enterprise board. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that on a number of occasions we are called upon to vote for or against increases in the salaries of Members of Parliament and Ministers. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Lobby with me when we voted against the increase of pay of Members of Parliament in 1979. Is it only substantial salaries for members of the Greater London enterprise board that he is against when there happens to be a Labour-controlled leadership of the GLC or is he also against top salaries being paid to Ministers and Members of Parliament? That is a pertinent point.
  I would have greater respect for the hon. Gentleman's point of view were he to argue that high pay for all executives was a mistake and that it should bear some relation to the jobs that they were creating and the people that they were looking after. That is an important point, of which the Greater London Council and the Government must take note.
  Mr. John Grant: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the salary being paid to Mr. McGarvey or is he not? If he followed his argument to its logical conclusion, he would condemn it.
  Mr. Race: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a pertinent question. I shall give a straightforward answer. The salaries that are being offered at the top level of the GLC are too high. One of the reasons advanced for the salary paid to the chairman and the chief executive of the Greater London enterprise board is that it has to fit in with the rest of the bureaucracy at County Hall, which is related to the special scales negotiated by the GLC staff association and the other trade unions that make up the trade union side. The structure of the top salaries in the GLC is out of line with what should be paid.
  I shall pick up some points that have been made in the debate. The Bill is about jobs, housing and transport. Significantly, it is also about the cost of the GLC's services to the ratepayer. If the Social Democratic Party or the Conservative Party were to vote against the Bill, they would be voting against the improvements in housing that have been made possible by the GLC's plans.
  An estate in my constituency, the White Hart Lane Estate, was built at the turn of the century and is now in dire need of urgent improvement. On 1 April 1982 it was handed over to the London borough of Haringey. Many of the houses on that estate are in a deplorable condition. They need new roofs, new guttering, new damp courses, new sinks and rewiring and a whole string of other major
  1242
  improvements to bring them up to modern standards. For any hon. Member to vote against a Bill that does those specific things for specific people is outrageous.
  Therefore, I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that the Bill will improve the quality of life for people on estates such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) which was taken over by Hackney borough council on 1 April 1982 and is also in need of substantial improvement.
  The Bill is also about jobs. The purpose of the Greater London enterprise board is not to provide an expensive bureaucracy but to put jobs on the ground. That was the Labour Party's commitment in the GLC election manifesto on which we fought and won the election in 1981. I must tell the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who has now left the Chamber, that the Greater London enterprise board and the GLC have already begun to provide jobs in the Greater London area under existing powers. They have done so in Haringey by providing workshops and they have a number of other schemes throughout London to provide a substantial number of jobs in the immediate future. That is how we should test the success or otherwise of the Greater London enterprise board. Given that there ate 340,000 unemployed in Greater London, it is scandalous that attacks should be made on a local authority that is seeking to do its best to remove unemployment.
  I wish to contrast the activities of the Labour-controlled GLC with the activities of the Government in providing employment. The GLC is seeking to use taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to provide jobs in London. The Government are using taxpayers' money to give grants to companies to move out of London and thereby to destroy jobs in London. That is what has happened in the past few months in Haringey. The Government gave a grant to Berec and Hanson Trust to remove the group technical centre from Tottenham to Consett in County Durham. That may be good news for Consett but it is bad news for London.
  There is a contrast between the use of taxpayers' money to provide such grants and the use of ratepayers' money for the Greater London enterprise board, which is proposed in the Bill. I hope the House will support the objectives of the Greater London enterprise board in its objectives.
  The Bill is also important because it affects transport. Many hon. Members will have in mind road schemes that they wish to be implemented by the GLC. I found it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should suggest that we did not need a London-wide transport planning authority. That is an extraordinary suggestion, given that individual boroughs cannot solve their transport problems by themselves. They cannot possibly be given the responsibility for providing solutions to London-wide problems. That appears so obvious that it is extraordinary that a Conservative Member should put the idea forward as a serious suggestion.
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I fear that the hon. Member far Wood Green (Mr. Race) did not hear the intervention in the same terms as I did. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) say that that responsibility should be taken away from the Greater London Coucil. He did not mention that the responsibility should be taken away from any other authority. I had the

  1243
  distinct impression that he thought that some other authority would be more capable of dealing with the matter.
  Mr. Race: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is rapidly putting nails in his hon. Friend's coffin. What other authority is there? The London boroughs cannot do the job and neither can the Government, who are not elected to do a local authority's job. The GLC is the appropriate body to plan and run London's transport.
  We need the Bill to provide the money for sensible and much-needed transport improvements. We are not talking about motorway boxes. We need to reduce lead pollution, the number of accidents and general congestion. I do not wish Conservative or SDP Members to vote to prevent much-needed road improvements in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). We are both interested in the North-South route through the Lea Valley to relieve the enormous congestion in Edmonton, Wood Green and North Tottenham. We do not want children contaminated by lead pollution; we do not want road congestion to continue. The Bill is about jobs, transport and housing.
  Conservative Members criticise the GLC and the Bill. They accuse the GLC of being a spendthrift and profligate local authority interested only in raising rates for no useful purpose. They say that rate increases drive jobs away. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) put it well; rate rises do affect job preservation and creation. But we must consider other local authority activities and those of the Government.
  I suspect that a large number of jobs in London have been lost through the huge interest rate increases as a result of the Government's policy over the past three years. The reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 26 April disclosed that rates were only 0·76 per cent. of industry's total manufacturing costs. To listen to the Conservatives one would think that they were a major cost of production.
  I cannot take seriously the argument that the GLC is destroying jobs. Its policy is to reverse the industrial decline, in London, to create jobs, to renew housing and to improve transport. It needs its own money for capital developments, and it needs money from the Government, too. The scandal is that its reasonable and legitimate objectives are blocked at every turn by the Government. They have withdrawn grants from the GLC and ILEA and hounded the reasonable Labour administration at County Hall, which seeks to implement its manifesto in the principled way in which, doubtless, the Government believe that they themselves are seeking to implement their promises.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I hope and pray that SDP and Conservative Members will not oppose it. If they do, London's electorate will draw simple conclusions about their attitude to desperately needed improvements in the quality of life in our capital city.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: The Bill is a source of great worry to my constituents and myself, particularly as the amounts of revenue raised by the precept for the GLC and its committee, the Inner London Education
  1244
  Authority, are oppressive. The average rate raised in my constituency is about £650 a year, of which at least £460 is accounted for by the GLC and the ILEA committee.
  I have examined the substantial budgetary statement of more than 200 pages which has been prepared by the GLC. There are items in it of which I approve and which will be generally welcomed by the people of London. Of course we want to see the Thames barrier completed, because that is in London's interest, but is the administration of the Thames barrier and its finances being carried out efficiently and competently? Should responsibility for the Thames barrier rest with the GLC at all? I maintain that the barrier should be the responsibility of the Thames water authority, which is, after all, the water authority for London.
  I am concerned to see evidence of duplication in the budgetary statement in the services that are supposedly supplied by the GLC. Thirty-two London boroughs are concerned with the well-being of the people who live in London. Those are the councils that provide common services such as housing, refuse collection and so on.
  It is puzzling to find in the budgetary statement and schedules to the Bill expenditure that is intended for functions that are already carried out in part or in whole by the London borough councils. I refer in particular to traffic regulations, road safety, parking, building regulations and planning. I cannot understand why the House is called upon to approve legislation which is clearly raising revenue to duplicate the work of other local authorities.
  My constituents are worried about the fact that the level of the rates obliges many of them to leave their homes and businesses in inner London, and it is up to me and my colleagues in the House to seek to defend their interests.
  Much has been made of the so-called Greater London enterprise board. There is no evidence that that board has yet made any substantial loans that would provide real and lasting jobs for the benefit of people in London. Furthermore, the evidence from the City of Westminster Chamber of Commerce—a body which, unfortunately, through its membership raises a substantial part of the rates revenue in London—is that the increasing burden of the rates, which largely come from the GLC, is causing members of the chamber to withdraw their businesses from inner London, with a consequent loss of jobs.
  It is unacceptable to allow the Bill to go through the House on the nod, without objection or substantial scrutiny. We are not in a position tonight to inquire into the contents of the Bill or the budgetary statement that has been presented with it and in support of it in sufficient detail to enable us to determine what is acceptable and what is not, both to London Members and their constituents.
  However, I have been examining some aspects of the statement and I draw to the attention of the House the statement on page 48 about the police. The GLC says that it will continue to campaign
  "for the establishment of a police authority for London."
  There is a police authority for London already, and it is vested in the Home Secretary, the office holder who has been responsible for the police service in London since it was established in 1829.
  The statement tells us also that the council will campaign
  "for the establishment of an independent procedure for investigating complaints against the police."

  1245
  It is not the reponsibility of one of London's councils to enter into that activity. The responsibility lies with the House. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has inquired into the subject and reported to the House. I understand that its recommendations are likely to be found in legislation to be brought forward in the new Session. Why is the GLC seeking to raise revenue to spend money on an activity which is not the responsibility or duty of that authority?
  There is a reference on page 48 to ethnic minorities. The budgetary statement says:
  "The council will campaign the advocacy of the repeal of racially discriminatory immigration and nationality laws and practices in the United Kingdom."
  That is not the GLC's function. It is the function of this place to determine what Acts of Parliament shall remain on the statute book. It is the duty of the House and not that of the council.
  Having examined the statement and a number of items that have been presented to us in the Bill, I am in no doubt that I cannot possibly support the Bill. I shall oppose it later tonight.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I understand that the first Front Bench spokesman would like to begin his reply to the debate at half-past nine. I am anxious to get into the debate every hon. Member who has been rising and trying to catch my eye.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Thomas Cox: It will be an insult to London if there is an attempt to oppose the Bill or an attempt by any hon. Member to talk it out. As London Members, we all know the problems that exist in London, be they in inner London or outer London.
  We know that in London unemployment worsens month by month. There are over 340,000 men and women out of work in London. It is only by the efforts of local authorities, be they local borough authorities or the GLC, that we in London can start to give some hope of employment to those who are, sadly, unemployed. It is by the development of small workshops at a local level that we can start to bring hope into the areas that we represent. When these projects are developed by the GLC in conjunction with local authorities, the result is of benefit to the areas that we represent. That is true irrespective of the party that we may represent, and no one should forget that. We should do all in our power to support those projects at all times.
  I warmly welcome and support the expenditure proposed by ILEA. Many parts of inner London will benefit from the various schemes submitted by ILEA and included in the Bill. All London Members, whether from inner or outer London, know that teachers and PTAs constantly ask us to help them to improve their schools. Anyone who attempts in any way to hinder the Bill today should think what the effect of that will be for some areas of London.
  Several projects are planned for Wandsworth, by no means all of them in my constituency. ILEA proposes to spend money on the following projects in Wandsworth schools. At Oak Lodge, it plans to provide new radio-based equipment for the deaf. Does any hon. Member oppose that? At the Franciscan school in my constituency, a nursery class is to be provided by the adaptation of
  1246
  existing classroom accommodation. There is a 65 per cent. deficiency in nursery provision in that area, which I know well. It is an area that cries out for help. For far too many of the youngsters living there the only play facilities are the streets, with all the problems and fears for parents who know that there is nowhere for their youngsters to go but the streets to kick balls and play games.
  At Swaffield, Hernville, Eardley and Earlsfield schools, the last two of which are in my constituency, teachers and PTAs have spent years of effort trying to secure decent toilet facilities for the schools. Last winter schools had to be closed because the outside toilets had frozen up. Under the ILEA projects many schools will have indoor toilets for the first time ever.
  If any hon. Member says that he does not care a damn about mums and children in Wandsworth and intends to oppose the Bill and do all that he can to block it, heaven help him, because by next week the mums and teachers will know all about it. They will know which Members were responsible and they will be up here in force. It would be an utter disgrace for any Member of Parliament to deprive areas of provisions of that kind after the years of effort put in by those people.
  In our occasional debates on London many hon. Members, irrespective of party, have complained about the way in which we have to discuss London matters through debates on GLC Bills. I have no objection to those Bills being debated, but we have to try to bring in as wide a range of topics as we possibly can. Then there are the Consolidated Fund debates, when we stay up until all hours of the night. These are the only opportunities that we have to debate London matters. I criticise successive Governments for this. The Labour Government were just as bad as the Conservatives have been. It is time that we and the usual channels decided that each year one or two days will be allocated for London debates. Hon. Members could then decide, through consultation, which key areas should be debated, and the appropriate Ministers would be present to open and close the debates.
  I hope that we shall not hear any more nonsense from hon. Members about whether they oppose the Bill will depend upon the answers that they get. Of course we have different views on many aspects concerning London, but, as London Members, we know about the problems of employment, education, housing, and transport. We debate them time and again. Our first priority is not to obstruct improvements, but to do everything that we can to obtain them. Those improvements may be slow in coming forward, and we may object to that, but let us not have any more of this damned nonsense—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Cox: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we shall not have any more of this nonsense of hon. Members opposing the Bill because there are aspects of it with which they do not agree. It is a disgrace to London and the people of London for any hon. Member to talk in those terms.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North ',(Mr. Stallard) started his speech by complaining about the need to generate debates or London. I entirely agree. Both parties have been at fault in this respect when in Government and also in

  1247
  Opposition. The Opposition could devote a Supply Day to a debate on London if they wanted to. That would be helpful.
  Some other hon. Members complained about blocking tactics being used on Third Reading. I do not share that view. The Greater London Council, of its own free will, decided that it wished to have the right of a money Bill. It did in fact ask me to sponsor provision for a money Bill in the Committee stage of the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. I am glad to say that the Minister agreed and the GLC now has its money Bill. As always, there are advantages and disadvantages with a money Bill. One cannot take the advantages without the disadvantages. Therefore, hon. Members have every right to raise these issues on Second Reading and also on Third Reading. It is proper that they should.
  I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) advance the theory that if one agrees with part of the Bill one must support the whole. That is an erroneous argument. If one disagrees with parts they must be drawn to the promoter's attention so that they can be corrected. It has been pointed out that that has happened in the past and the GLC lost its money Bill, but that was not the end of the world. The Bill was re-presented later. I am sure that as a result due account was taken of the objections and the money Bill was tailored accordingly. That was a proper course of action because such Bills give hon. Members an opportunity to express their opinions.
  I have severe reservations about the Bill. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) made an interesting speech. He drew attention to the need for administrative support for the vast sums that will be spent under the Bill. I can well imagine that the extra costs are likely to lead to overspending, and that could affect the GLC's rate support grant. That is a serious matter. I accept that the political parties in the GLC have every right to fight a campaign on the platform of their own choice, and can claim that, having won it, they are entitled to carry out their policy. The present leader was not in control of the Labour Party's campaign when the party won the election—the leadership was subtly changed after the election—nevertheless, the Labour Party has control, but it has to come to this House to have its money Bill approved.
  It is right and proper therefore that we should look very carefully at the various aspects of the Bill before we give it our support. The administrative costs are considerable, and if they are likely to lead to a reduction in Government funding which will in turn affect my constituents' rate bills, that is a serious matter. I have no wish to see my constituents deprived of anything because of the behaviour of the GLC and the manner in which it handles its affairs. That is especially so when funds are available to the ratepayers of every authority which is reasonable in its demands. It is therefore, right and proper that we should ask questions about the make-up of the Bill. If we are not satisfied with the answers, we have every right to vote against it.
  Some hon. Members made the curious statement that they did not accept that rates were a significant factor in the profitability of a business. That shows how little they know about business. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) made that very point and he could not be more
  1248
  wrong. Whereas 20 or 30 years ago the profitability of business was 10, 15 or 20 per cent., it is now more like 3 or 4 per cent. The rate bill may represent only 2 or 3 per cent. of the total bill of a firm, but a 50 per cent. increase in rates can reduce a profitability of 3 per cent. to 2 per cent. or less. It can in consequence put a company entirely into the red and cause considerable unemployment problems. That factor is too often ignored.
  With regard to improvements to schools and the other desirable factors mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), Labour Members fail to appreciate the need to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. Whereas we would all agree that improved facilities for schools and many other worthy causes are desirable, nevertheless we may vary in our views as to when we can afford to put them into effect. If we feel that we cannot afford to put them into effect now because by so doing we may increase unemployment, we have a right to ask and expect the people concerned to adopt a more reasonble approach and to postpone their desires for the immediate future. In that respect I have severe reservations about the Bill, and unless I can be assured that employment prospects will not be harmed by any reduction in Government support arising out of profligate expenditure by the GLC, I shall wish to register my opposition and to vote against the Bill.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. John Grant: I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), and repeated by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), about the general undesirability of this procedure. I shall continue to say that until the alliance is in power at County Hall and at Westminster, when I hope that something will be done about it.
  I wish to concentrate on the single issue of the spending earmarked in the Bill for employment in industry and in particular on the Greater London enterprise board. I recognise, like all hon. Members, the appalling unemployment situation in London. My constituency in the London borough of Islington is one of the worst hit. It is one of the major unemployment blackspots in inner London. Next week's unemployment figures for the nation in general and London in particular will probably reach a record level. The grim economic and social problems facing so many inner cities certainly prevail in our capital city.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and other Labour Members have made it clear that they see the Greater London enterprise board as a positive step in reducing London's grave unemployment problem. I do not quarrel with the aims and objectives of those hon. Members. Conservative Members are not in a position to criticise, when the Government have done so much to create the jobs crisis in London and elsewhere. It would be foolish to dismiss the Greater London enterprise board as a potentially useful vehicle for job creation. I am not opposed in principle, but I have serious misgivings about what has occurred in practice.
  If hon. Members are to act as public watchdogs when measures like this Bill come before the House, it is right that such misgivings should be aired. If the muddled thinking, the equivocation and, I think one can say, the maladministration that has taken place at County Hall in respect of the enterprise board had occurred in a private company, the shareholders would have been in revolt and the employees, through their unions, would have been up

  1249
  in arms. Someone had better get a firm and rapid grip—it may possibly have to be a political grip—on the Greater London enterprise board. Otherwise, there will be every justification for a ratepayers' revolt.
  If the objective of this admittedly still embryonic board is job creation, one has to say that the only success it seems to have achieved so far is to create a lavishly expensive position for Mr. McGarvey as the chief executive. He came as second choice following the strange one-off affair with Mr. Cunningham, never properly explained, who apparently took off again almost as soon as he touched down at County Hall, because he could not stomach what he found. Mr. Garvey has, of course, the right political pedigree. I do not complain about that if he is up to the job. Nor do I want jobs of this kind done on the cheap. "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
  There is still uncertainty about how much Mr. McGarvey will cost. There is the figure of £35,000 for salary. When one adds the perks, the figure floating around is £72,000. I am not sure whether that is the correct figure. Whatever it is, he is the highest paid GLC official. I should have thought that there was room for a rather more modest starting salary, with an element of payment by results introduced to the position.
  It is ironic that Labour Members who flood to sign motions on behalf of poorly paid workers such as nurses—I agree with that assessment—and who compare their rises with those of judges and admirals, do not appear to see anything wrong with this salary. The GLC is now advertising jobs under Mr. McGarvey. Some of the salaries are £24,000 a year basic. I do not know what additional perks might be possible. The intermediate staffing arrangements for the board will cost well over £1 million in a full year. If that is peanuts, I can only say that the GLC has some of the highest-paid monkeys in captivity.
  I understand that the council is to expand its economic policy unit staff at a cost of another cool £500,000 a year. I find it hard to believe that all this empire building will not result in a considerable overlapping and duplication of effort of a kind that the GLC is on record as condemning.
  I wish now to deal with a specific matter that concerns me, related to my own borough of Islington. I refer to an interesting document which has been drawn up by three of the borough's most senior officials, headed "Greater London Enterprise Board—Islington Bid." The document points out that officers from Islington council met a team of officers from the GLC to discuss the submission of
  "a package of schemes costing up to £5 million in 1982–83 for consideration by the Greater London Enterprise Board. At the time the GLC officers gave the impression that the GLEB was well towards being established, with consultants on tap to provide support services as required, and that only minimal assistance would be needed from the boroughs staff. The GLC officers requested that the package should emphasise any major industrial or mixed industrial/commercial development projects which could be started this year even if such schemes were not strictly feasible economically. The council's officers accordingly submitted a package of schemes."
  The package totals more than £2 million for 1982–83 and nearly £4 million for future years. Thus, the cost of the schemes proposed amounts to £6 million.
  The report goes into great detail about cost indications. It continues:
  "Having submitted the bid the Council's officers were advised that there had been a change of thinking at County Hall about how the GLEB was to operate. Mr. Cunningham had declined
  1250
  to accept the position as chairman/chief executive of GLEB because of a difference of opinion on how GLEB should operate."
  The assistant director, whom the council had met, was no longer leading the GLC team, and the report goes on to say:
  "A second meeting was therefore held with GLC officers, who outlined a significantly different position from that presented at the first meeting. GLC thinking, at least for the first year of GLEB's operation, is to concentrate resources into existing large and medium size firms to create employment. This will leave some £5 million for area and property development for the whole of Greater London."
  Yet Islington had been advised to put in a bid of nearly £6 million for that borough alone.
  The report continues:
  "GLEB has no staff in post, no consultants ready to advise and its effectiveness in the current year is therefore in doubt. In effect the GLC are looking to the Council to provide the staff resources to support GLEB in the current year on the feasibility and marketing studies which would be required.
  In addition the GLC officers made it quite clear that they are now looking for schemes from the boroughs which are virtually ready to start with the majority of expenditure in the current year and either no or only a minor commitment to future years … unless the GLC's approach to GLEB expenditure this year changes it is unlikely that this borough will obtain any significant benefit in 1982–83."
  That is a fine mess. Islington borough was led up the garden. Clearly a political change of course was imposed on officials by those responsible at County Hall. That time-wasting exercise cost the borough staff time and resources, a cost that is then footed by the ratepayers.
  The unemployed people of my borough have been left waiting because of a failure to act when they should have been assisted. Islington is only one London borough. I wonder how many other London boroughs worked out similar packages on the advice of the GLC to put to the Greater London enterprise board, only to have their hopes dashed by the political bungling and indecision at County Hall. I wonder how much time, paper and cash have been wasted by officials in all those boroughs as well as at County Hall. Ratepayers' money was squandered unnecessarily. That bungling could well provide an omnibus case of maladministration for the consideration of the local government ombudsman.
  Whether or not that matter merits such investigation, it inspires little confidence that those who are in control at County Hall are capable of adequately safeguarding London's cash, running London's affairs efficiently and effectively or having, the know-how or the political will to create the necessary jobs in our city's ailing industry. It also illustrates the difficulty of discovering what the Greater London enterprise board will do, or be told to do, to meet the uncertain and changing requirements of its political masters. There are still some sensible people in the Labour group at County Hall, but they are in a minority. A crackpot leadership now controls the purse strings and that is why I am so worried about the passage of the Bill.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Ted Graham: We have had a good and largely even-tempered debate tonight. Normally the Third Reading of such a Bill does not cause much controversy. Most hon. Members have demonstrated tonight that the Bill is crucial to the welfare of London. I underscore all that has been said by members of the Labour Party, who are appalled at the possibility that the Bill will be opposed or obstructed.

  1251
  That does not mean that I believe that we should not criticise what is contained in the Bill or the motives, intentions, competence and political nous of those who may be responsible for it. However, there is a world of difference between raising reservations and pointing out criticisms and taking those criticisms to such a length that one wishes to flout the will, not merely of Labour Members, but of the leaders of the GLC and Ministers, who have held discussions to ensure that the package is considered by all to be moderate and reasonable.
  The GLC and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), the promoter of the Bill, have shown courtesy and respect for the conventions of the House and for London as a whole. With such a political dimension, it is impossible to find other than diametrically opposed political philosophies enmeshed in what could be, on another occasion, a prosaic list of projects. It is sad that some hon. Members have threatened—I hope that the threats will not be fulfilled—to delay the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) repeated that this should not be the way in which London's capital requirements are treated in the House. He and others, including myself, have some responsibility to initiate discussions on whether that is a general view not only of parliamentarians but of members of the GLC. We should spend a little time outside the openness of debates in the House to see how that can be done. However, it was sad that the hon. Gentleman injected some bile and rancour into his remarks that spoiled an otherwise reasonable contribution. These days, Conservative Members cannot discuss London without personalising everything. The hon. Gentleman above all hon. Members should know that we are dealing not with revenue but capital matters. It is fair enough to want to know the revenue consequences of capital provisions, but the hon. Gentleman's contribution was not worthy of his usual contributions in debates on London.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is not in his place. I greatly respect his background in teaching and education. However, together with other hon. Members, he is carrying on a vendetta against the leadership of the GLC and that shone through in his speech. The hon. Gentleman said that ultimately he had to consider the interests of his constituents. Of course, we all consider our constituents' interests, but the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail. He was right to make a valid constituency point about transport and to refer to the apparent change of heart or volte face on the part of some individuals at the GLC. It is right to air such points, but it would not merit opposing and perhaps delaying the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North also referred to the GLC and London Transport. We all know that the funding and future of London Transport are important. The problem will not go away and it must be resolved. However, the hon. Gentleman was less than fair when he forgot recent history. The Secretary of State invited the GLC to put forward proposals on future funding and management. As every hon. Member knows, the GLC took the trouble of preparing a paper, which has been presented to the Secretary of State. It contains such options as a return to the "Fares Fair" policy, no growth, cash limits and a return to the position before March 1982. The
  1252
  GLC points out that the Government's treatment of transport provision in the capital deserved consultation and discussion at the highest level.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) spoke for about 27 minutes and it was probably the longest speech of the evening. I respect his great experience of local government. He was right to say that if the Bill is lost tonight the next step will be to renegotiate a more acceptable measure. However, I blanch at the thought of the hiatus that will be caused at County Hall and in every town hall in London if the measure is delayed.
  The Opposition are neither sanguine nor uncaring about whether the Bill is enacted. The will of the House will prevail. However, I shall echo the comments made by several hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches. London and Londoners will not forgive or forget any hon. Member who professes to represent London's best interests if by his vote or voice tonight he hinders the Bill's passage.
  I much enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). His usual passionate and eloquent speech not only on behalf of his constituents, but also on behalf of London demonstrated his deep knowledge of such affairs. With justification he warned what would befall Conservative Members who threatened London and Londoners with the consequences of the withdrawal of their support. The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) brought to the debate his knowledge of the employment scene and dealt mainly with the enterprise board. We await the progress of the board with as much interest as he.
  One can look across Westminster Bridge and see evidence to the effect that 344,000 Londoners are unemployed. The hon. Member for Islington, Central predicted that that figure will show an increase next Tuesday. Any initiative by the GLC designed to reduce the number of unemployed should be given a fair wind.
  We are mindful that the Bill is a set piece in London's Government. The House has a job to do tonight—to allow the Bill to pass so that Londoners are allowed to get on with the standard of living to which they are entitled. Londoners can stand on their own feet. Hon. Members have said that Londoners should have a better deal. I do not cavil at the use of strong language, but those who try to damage the ability of the GLC to give London effective Government do a disservice to democracy. We have had enough of the Secretary of State with his constant interfering in the ability of locally elected men and women to govern their region. The Bill is modest, constructive and needed by Londoners.
  The House should endorse the programme of works requested. London Members have a responsibility and duty to forget their petty partisan sniping. I give the Bill a warm welcome on behalf of the official Opposition.
  9.43 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): As a Yorkshire man I am conscious that I am alien to a debate on London. I feel a little like the cavalry in war, adding tone to what otherwise would be a vulgar brawl. The House will understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), has a major and prior engagement this evening, and I have come to the Box in his stead. I apologise to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) for the fact that the letter sent to

  1253
  him by my colleague reached him via Leith in Scotland and not directly. On reading the letter the hon. Member will no doubt believe—unlike George III who said that no good ever came out of Scotland—that at least he has some good news.
  The Bill is a well-established procedure. It has been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and that should be taken into account. The GLC operates under the London Government Act 1963. When new controls on capital expenditure by local authorities were introduced by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the GLC was keen to retain its unique procedure. The previous arrangements have been modified, partly in the 1980 Act and partly through understanding between the Government and the GLC. In spite of retaining the Bill procedure, the GLC is in practice under a regime as similar as possible to that applying to other authorities. Hon. Members will know that there are debates from time to time on rate support grant orders and matters of that kind, which deal with capital spend and capital provisions of local authorities elsewhere.
  We explained on Second Reading that the provisions in the Bill are, in practice, agreed by the various interested Departments in consultation with the GLC before the Bill is deposited. The Government have no objection in principle to the proposals. However, some of my hon. Friends have suggested that the Bill is objectionable because of its provision for a number of matters, such as assistance for industry. There was also the question of support for artistic groups which my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) raised. There were also certain other aspects of how the money should be spent, which did not attract my hon. Friend's support.
  The Government have, to the extent that it is possible, satisfied themselves about the level of provision for capital expenditure in total in the Bill. That provision is based on the capital expenditure allocation made to the council, as to all other local authorities last December, allowing for the use of capital receipts. After the original draft of the Bill had been seen in my Department, there were discussions and substantial modifications. About £40 million-worth of modifications were made, which shows that the Bill and its content have been substantially examined as to the capital.
  The GLC, if it secures passage of the Bill tonight, can direct these resources to other activities and away from the services where the Government believe the need to be greatest. This is where other difficulties could arise, but, as far as the Bill's passage tonight is concerned, the principles of the capital spend and the capital allocation that it contains have been discussed and are broadly satisfactory to the Government.
  However, I have noted what my hon. Friends have said about the behaviour of the existing administration at County Hall. The results of the disastrous "Fares Fair" policy on London Transport are still with us. It has set up, for some extraordinary reason, a police committee, although it has no responsibility for police matters. Daily we hear, and this evening we heard from the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), of new posts that have precious little to do with a body that was elected to look after specific local government services in Greater London.
  The GLC cannot strike a posture as the nation's conscience in these matters. All of these activities no doubt contribute to its record as a notorious overspender.
  1254
  For the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) to suggest that there is no relationship between the level of rates and the difficulties facing industries, large and small, in Greater London shows an appalling lack of knowledge of the case.
  Mr. Race: The Minister should read Hansard tomorrow because he will see that that was not what I said. I agreed with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) that there was a relationship between rate rises and job preservation and destruction. However, other factors overlay that and are much more significant. Primarily, that meant the real cost of production for industry, particularly the cost of capital and raw materials. I referred to the parliamentary question and answer which his ministerial colleague gave on 26 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  Mr. Shaw: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, but he gave the impression that he was seeking to dismiss the consequence of the rate increases on the capacity of industry to survive and continue to employ people. He is wrong to be dismissive and many a small business has been forced out of operating in Greater London because of the extremely high rate rises. My hon. Friends will be aware of the substantial differences between Conservative-controlled boroughs and most other places when it comes to the level of rates. In inner London Conservative local rates are less than half those charged by Labour authorities. In outer London Conservative local rates are less than two thirds of Labour local rates. In terms of weekly cash outgoings, a typical household with a domestic rateable value of £300 will pay £7 per week in a Conservative borough and £10 a week in a Labour borough. We have discussed those matters previously in the House. It is not right that the Bill should be allowed to proceed without recognising that the absolute level of rates is a major deterrent to industry and employment.
  Mr. Graham: Will the Minister take note of what the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this year? It said:
  "Those areas where assistance would prove most effective are:—

  interest rates

  increased capital spending

  reductions in the National Insurance Surcharge and energy costs".

  Does the Minister agree that, whatever effect increases in rates might have, the Government have, if not the same, at least a greater share of responsibility for any problems facing industry?
  Mr. Shaw: Everyone understands that industry's costs in every quarter have risen sharply. Everyone recognises that rates have risen very sharply. When rates or other costs are rising and when an industry's prospects are falling, there is no doubt that profit levels are reduced to a point where the, industry is rendered non-viable.
  In the Bill, we are dealing with the provision of capital allocation to the GLC. The House must contend with it under the existing procedures. I recognise the criticisms that have been made, but I fear that it is not for us at this juncture to suggest that the GLC should not be entitled to obtain approval for its money Bill from the Government.
  I sympathise with my hon. Friends, who rightly see in the Bill expenditure being laid out for matters that they and

  1255
  their constituents find unacceptable, but the fact is that the government of Greater London must continue. Therefore, the Bill must find its way through the House. I would not say that I have the privilege, even the enthusiasm or the utter conviction in the bottom of my soul, but at least I have the duty to see that the Bill proceeds through the House.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Stallard: I shall reply to some of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members for keeping their contributions brief so that I can reply, unlike the Second Reading debate, when I had less than a minute to reply to a welter of questions.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), I believe that the debate has been excellent. Of course there have been differences. That is what London debates are about. The majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to be constructive, not destructive. One or two have been destructive, but by and large any criticism, some of which was about the revenue estimates, has been justified.
  The most difficult aspect of my reply is that most of the points made were not relevant to the debate, which was more like another Second Reading debate than a Third Reading debate on capital estimates. There is a vast difference between capital and revenue estimates. Most hon. Members with local government experience understand that, but many points raised even by those hon. Members were about revenue estimates. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reply.
  An hon. Member may say: "If I do not get a reasonable reply from the promoter of the Bill on the detailed points that I have made on the revenue estimates, over which he has no control, I shall not vote for the capital estimates", but that does not make sense in any assembly with the expertise that we have. That is not fair. It is an excuse for hon. Members to make mischief and join some of the other mischief makers who are intent on that course. However, that is not a valid reason for withholding their votes.
  Most of the comments were irrelevant to the capital estimates. The women's committee, the ethnic committee and the police committee were just areas for criticism, but none concerned the capital budget. Therefore, they should not have been included in tonight's Third Reading debate on the capital estimates. It is disconcerting and a little sharp to say "Unless I am given a satisfactory answer about the police committee, the women's committee or the ethnic committee, I will not vote for the capital estimates." That is not how we should conduct London's affairs.
  There were some relevant criticisms. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who asked about recreation and the arts, is entitled to a reply, because that is an item in the schedule. There is no provision in the item for revenue arts grants to which the hon. Member referred. However, there is a breakdown. We have parks, £3·4 million; national sports centre, £500,000; concert halls—the Festival Hall and so on—£500,000; canal paths £700,000; museums £200,000; the Thamesmead open space—a fairly large expenditure—£1·2 million. That is a total of £6,488,000 in the estimates.
  Other items about which we may have complaints are on the revenue estimates and therefore are not specifically relevant to this part.
  1256
  Transport was mentioned, although it is not entirely relevant. We have had separate discussions on the London Transport budget, and I am sure there will be more. I was surprised to hear the Minister refer to the "disastrous" "Fares Fair" policy, and he went on to echo the chorus from the Conservative Benches. It is relevant for me to say to him that the chairman of the London Transport Executive—he is certainly not a member of the Opposition—in a statement only recently issued, said:
  "Thus, for the first time for about 20 years, a steady decline in the use by passengers of public transport services in London was halted and reversed, in spite of the continuing growth in the ownership of private cars and a declining population of the capital city. Accompanying the reduction in fares and the consequent increase in travel by public transport, there was a small but significant reduction in the use of private cars in central London, a reduction in traffic congestion and undoubtedly a reduction in road accidents. These beneficial results went some way towards offsetting the increased cost to ratepayers while employers and businesses in central London benefited from cheaper and more effective public transport."
  I did not write that. It was written by the chairman of the London Transport Executive. It more than adequately answers the criticisms of the "Fares Fair" policy which were raised in a partisan fashion both tonight and in previous debates.
  A perfectly reasonable point was made about home loans to individuals and to housing associations, to which I tried to give a brief reply. I have had another look at the estimates.
  We expect the home loans provisions of the GLC both to individuals and to housing associations to be restricted because of the general cuts due to Government restrictions, but they are still available for the sale of properties taken into possession for homesteading, for repairs and improvements in housing action areas and for repairs to properties already on mortgage. Who will oppose that outside the democratic element of the SDP-Liberal alliance? Those were the most relevant points on the capital estimates. It is a shame that the other points mentioned were not to do with tonight's debate.
  Much of the criticism of the enterprise board centred around the salaries and wages, which, again, are not a part of the capital estimates. It is reasonable for hon. Members to criticise the fact, but they should choose the right vehicle. The Third Reading of the Bill is not the right time seriously to criticise the enterprise board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, any attempt to reduce the total of 344,000 unemployed is welcome. I hope that the Bill will be read the Third time.
  Mr. Wellbeloved rose—
  Mr. Spearing rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Main Question put accordingly and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  Greater London Council (Money) Bill (By Order)

    DEFENCE
    Resolved,
    That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES
    That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
    Question agreed to.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
    Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRADE
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Hire Purchase (Cars)
  Hire Purchase (Cars)
  Video Recordings (Copyright)
  Video Recordings (Copyright)
  United States (Steel Imports)
  United States (Steel Imports)
  Siberian Pipeline Contract
  Siberian Pipeline Contract
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Migration (New Commonwealth)
  Migration (New Commonwealth)
INDUSTRY
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Mr. Peter Gent
  Mr. Peter Gent
  Nissan-Datsun
  Nissan-Datsun
  Manufacturing Production
  Manufacturing Production
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  State Enterprises (Capital Expenditure)
  State Enterprises (Capital Expenditure)
  Carpet Industry (Support)
  Carpet Industry (Support)
  Assisted Areas
  Assisted Areas
  Post Office (Exhibition)
  Post Office (Exhibition)
  Phoenix III (Joint Venture)
  Phoenix III (Joint Venture)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Security Service
  Security Service
  Charities
  Charities
  Official Journeys
  Official Journeys
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Welsh Office
  Welsh Office
  Falklands Casualties (Burial)
  Falklands Casualties (Burial)
ENVIRONMENT
  Abbey Wood (Lead Screening Programme)
  Abbey Wood (Lead Screening Programme)
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Oxo Tower
  Oxo Tower
  Canals
  Canals
  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  Stockholm Acidification Conference
  Stockholm Acidification Conference
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons (North Staffordshire)
  Disabled Persons (North Staffordshire)
  Trades Union Congress (Meetings)
  Trades Union Congress (Meetings)
  Birkenhead
  Birkenhead
  Farms (Deaths and Injuries)
  Farms (Deaths and Injuries)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Rayner Review
  Rayner Review
ENERGY
  Tidal Power
  Tidal Power
  State Enterprises (Capital Expenditure)
  State Enterprises (Capital Expenditure)
  Oil Reserves
  Oil Reserves
  Council of Energy Ministers
  Council of Energy Ministers
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Custodial Remands
  Custodial Remands
  Prisoners (Marriage)
  Prisoners (Marriage)
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Parish Council Elections (Proxy Voting)
  Parish Council Elections (Proxy Voting)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Charity Commissioners
  Charity Commissioners
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Copyright Act 1956
  Copyright Act 1956
  Repatriation Scheme
  Repatriation Scheme
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Magistrates
  Magistrates
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
TRANSPORT
  Freight
  Freight
  Inland Waterways (Grants)
  Inland Waterways (Grants)
  Midland Link Motorways
  Midland Link Motorways
  British Rail (Freight)
  British Rail (Freight)
WALES
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Land Authority for Wales
  Land Authority for Wales
  Young People (Local Authority Care)
  Young People (Local Authority Care)
  Private Hospital Beds
  Private Hospital Beds
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Sixth Forms
  Sixth Forms
  Special Education Training
  Special Education Training
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Dogs (Damage to Livestock)
  Dogs (Damage to Livestock)
  European Community
  European Community
  Cow and Calf Subsidy
  Cow and Calf Subsidy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Lebanon (Terrorist Training)
  Lebanon (Terrorist Training)
  Ann Scott
  Ann Scott
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
DEFENCE
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  HMS "Endurance"
  HMS "Endurance"
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs (Costs)
  Drugs (Costs)
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Hospitals (Construction)
  Hospitals (Construction)
  Occupational Deafness
  Occupational Deafness
  Household Duties Test
  Household Duties Test
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Stoke-on-Trent
  North Staffordshire (Pneumoconiosis)
  North Staffordshire (Pneumoconiosis)
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Valium
  Valium
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  TUC (Meetings)
  TUC (Meetings)
  Blind Persons (Certification)
  Blind Persons (Certification)
  Mental Health Act 1959
  Mental Health Act 1959
  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Primary Health Care
  Primary Health Care
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Social Security System (Computerisation)
  Social Security System (Computerisation)
  NHS (Pay)
  NHS (Pay)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Profit-sharing Schemes
  Profit-sharing Schemes
  Economic Recovery
  Economic Recovery
  Taxes (Annual Cost)
  Taxes (Annual Cost)
  Recession (Definition)
  Recession (Definition)
  Widows (Taxation)
  Widows (Taxation)
  Public Sector Pay
  Public Sector Pay
  Recession (Economic Indicators)
  Recession (Economic Indicators)
  Goods and Services
  Goods and Services
  United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association (Talks)
  United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association (Talks)
  Public Service Jobs
  Public Service Jobs
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Personal Savings
  Personal Savings
  Nationalised Industries (Investment)
  Nationalised Industries (Investment)
  £2 Coin
  £2 Coin
  Industrial Assistance
  Industrial Assistance
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Industrial Output
  Industrial Output
  Unemployment Estimates
  Unemployment Estimates
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Poland
  Poland
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Trades Union Congress (Meetings)
  Trades Union Congress (Meetings)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Council of Finance Ministers
  Council of Finance Ministers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Queens University, Belfast
  Queens University, Belfast
  Edmund-Davies Report
  Edmund-Davies Report
SCOTLAND
  Ancient Monuments, Dundee
  Ancient Monuments, Dundee
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Factory Space, Glasgow
  Factory Space, Glasgow
  Grampian Health Board (Properties)
  Grampian Health Board (Properties)
  Private Hospital Beds
  Private Hospital Beds
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Non-custodial Sentencing Policy
  Non-custodial Sentencing Policy
  Banffshire (Grants)
  Banffshire (Grants)
  Caesarian Section Operations
  Caesarian Section Operations
  Dundee
  Dundee
  Tay Road Bridge
  Tay Road Bridge
  Criminal Injuries Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Scheme

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Rea—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

Namibian Students in the United Kingdom
Lord Oram: 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 provision they are making and propose to make for the education and training in the United Kingdom of Namibian students.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, There are 63 Namibians studying in the United Kingdom in programmes administered by the British Council. Of them, 32 are financed from United Kingdom bilateral technical co-operation funds and 31 under UNESCO, FAO and United Nations Education and Training Programme for Southern Africa arrangements. We will continue to keep our programmes of educational and training assistance for Namibians under careful review.
Lord Oram: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that information, may I ask whether he does not consider that Britain has a special responsibility in helping to prepare Namibia for independence, particularly since English has been chosen as the official language and that there is every hope that an independent Namibia will join the Commonwealth? That being so, ought we not to be providing much more adequate facilities than were indicated in the Answer? Is the noble Lord aware that a number of universities have indicated that they would be prepared to provide suitable courses for educating Namibians, and will the Government respond helpfully to the initiative taken in this matter by the World University Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have seen the World University Service's Paper on the subject where they complained that Her Majesty's Government are at present contributing only a quarter of a million pounds a year to the education and training of Namibians. "Only" is a word which I would have left out of that paper. To me it is a considerable sum of money. I know that the House is particularly concerned about the cost of training and how training is arrived at for Commonwealth students and prospective Commonwealth students in this country. I would say that all Namibian students are here on scholarships which are directly funded from the British aid programme or that of international agencies. The noble Lord is correct in that English has been selected as the official language after independence. It is for this reason that we are putting great emphasis on a primary
458
English course for Namibian students when they come over here under the aid programme. But I would say that it is a little premature to do more in this direction until independence is at hand.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is a British Council representative in Namibia?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure about that. To the best of my belief, there is one in Windhoek.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this is an incongruous situation? Is not English to become the official language? Do only 10 per cent. of the people of Namibia know English, and are they not taught Afrikaans in the schools? Could not the Government at least exempt Namibian students from the overseas-student rate so as to encourage more students to come here?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that I had already explained that the charging of full costs fees does not affect the Namibians, because they are already under scholarship arrangements. Nor will it affect future Namibian students unless they come privately to this country.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? Can he confirm or deny that the British Government give support to the Namibian Institute in Lusaka, and is there any connection between this and what he has been saying about training here? Is there any combination of the two? Secondly, he spoke of bilateral aid. With whom is this bilateral aid negotiated? The reason that I ask is that, presumably, the noble Lord can tell us whether the aid that the British Government provide is provided to the present Namibian Administration—in which case they would select the students who come here.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as far as the first supplementary question is concerned, the British Government contribute multilaterally to the United Nations for educational purposes, and it is the United Nations which, to a great extent, fund their own organisation, which is the so-called UNION, the United Nations Institute for Namibia, and which, as the noble Lord knows, is centred at Lusaka. As to how the students and the scholarships are organised, I can say that we are ready to consider, and do consider, applications for training awards from Namibians nominated by organisations inside and outside Namibia—which would include UNION. However, we do not acknowledge the status of the institutions set up within Namibia as part of the internal settlement resulting from the elections in December 1978. We grant awards on the basis of educational and developmental criteria and regardless of applicants' political affiliation.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Lord's previous answer mean that Her Majesty's Government are worried only about those students who come on public funds and that they do not worry at all about

459
any who come privately but penalise them by charging heavy additional fees?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, it does not mean that. All I said was that the students currently in this country come under scholarship arrangements; therefore the arguments on charging or not charging for university and technical education in this country do not apply.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely there may be others who are not on those scholarship awards and who might be grateful to come if they did not have to pay the full fees for overseas students. As the Government have given—through the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his Written Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on 10th June—a welcome to the report of the Overseas Students' Trust, where preferential fees are suggested for certain countries, would not Namibia be a very good candidate for this? How will the Government answer that?
Lord Skelmersdale: That might be the case, but, as I have indicated, all this is conditional upon Namibia reaching full independence.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is not Government policy about students from underdeveloped countries both ridiculous and short-sighted? Is not the noble Lord aware that the Government's policy is forcing students from this country to go to East Germany, to the Soviet Union, to Poland and to Czechoslovakia? If the Government want a peaceful, democratic world in the future, should we not be doing very much more to encourage far more students to come here from underdeveloped countries?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, although that is a somewhat different question—we are discussing the Namibians in this Question—I would say that the sole responsibility for a peaceful, democratic world is not on the shoulders of the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, the Government are absolutely right in expecting students of those countries who are able to be educated in this country under non-subsidised arrangements to do so.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have now had nine minutes on this Question. I think that it is right that we should move on to the next Question.

Fast Reactor Systems
3.11 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have reached any conclusion as a result of the review which they have been conducting into fast reactor systems and into the possible collaboration in this field with other countries.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the Government's consideration of the scope for international collaboration on development of the fast reactor is making satisfactory progress. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has had opportunity to consider all the implications, he will make a Statement on fast reactor policy. The Government's objective is to ensure that the country has access to the technology necessary to enable the fast reactor to be introduced on a commercial scale as and when the country needs it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl the Minister for his reply? May I ask him whether it is mere procrastination, or whether further information is required before a Statement can be made? Secondly, in view of the long lead time involved in getting these matters started, can he give us any indication of which countries we are wooing in our efforts to co-operate in the international field?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, my right honourable friend is not one of those who is noted for his procrastination. I anticipate that he will be in a position to make a Statement some time after the Summer Recess. Regarding consultations and discussions with other countries, exploratory discussions have been held at Ministerial, official and industrial levels with the United States and with the Europeans—that is to say, the French and the Germans—and contact has also been made with the Japanese.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this is one of the branches of nuclear science in which we in this country have long held a lead. For how long has the fast breeder reactor been putting electricity into the national grid? Also, for how long has this review been taking place?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not have accurate information to answer either of those two questions. I will write to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend enlighten us a little? He said that arrangements will go forward so that a fast reactor can be introduced when needed. Is he not aware that the lead time must be at least 15 years? This means that even if it were started today we should not have something until the late 1990s. Therefore there is considerable urgency in this matter, in terms of general energy policy for the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not altogether agree with my noble friend. On the information that I have, fast reactor technology is unlikely to become commercially viable before the next century. At that time the need for generating capacity and the fuel supply situation may well be very different. The objective of the Government therefore is to ensure that we have access to that technology when we need it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the fast reactor is the only known means of burning up and getting rid of the long-lived radio isotope, such as plutonium from thermal reactors?

461
The urgency is to start working the stockpile down now and not allow it to accumulate.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with respect, that goes rather wide of the review which my right honourable friend is making as to policy at the moment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why it is that we seem to know already whether or not it is going to be viable? Surely, until there has been a commercial fast reactor proven for a number of years to be safe nobody will know whether it is viable or not. This is what is worrying.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is in those circumstances and considering all the various aspects of the matter—some of which are extremely technical, as my noble friend will realise—that my right honourable friend is still cogitating and will make his Statement in due course. But I anticipate that it will be sooner rather than later.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, bearing in mind the phrase that some of these problems are extremely technical, is the noble Earl aware that the first report of the Committee on Science, and Sir Ian Bancroft himself, suggested that we should increase as quickly as possible the nuclear installations inspectorate? May I ask whether any progress has been made since that scientific report was published and made available to both Houses of Parliament? Secondly, is the noble Earl aware that since the Three Mile Island accident in the United States, confidence in nuclear reactors has decreased? Nevertheless, if we have to educate the public it is of paramount importance for the right honourable lady the Prime Minister not to move her chariot like the Queen of the Iceni, through the quangos of scientific people so that therefore we have nothing available. In other words, we have been cutting down the scientific information that was of paramount importance. In the beginning the nation already had a lead in nuclear reaction.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I fear that I have no information on the first supplementary question. I am very conscious that safety concerns us all. Therefore, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that if there was an eventual decision to build a commercial scale fast reactor anywhere in the United Kingdom, that would have to be subject to safety clearances, and I have no doubt that there would be a very searching public inquiry.
As to some of the costs of all this, I may say that the British programme has cost some £900 million since 1955, and that is why, as one noble Lord said, we are among the world leaders in the development of the fast reactor. The Atomic Energy Authority are currently spending some £100 million a year on the programme. It is a very expensive business.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to tell us whether the Government are aware of the investigation carried out by the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis which only last year, after examining the position of fast breeders, said that so far as Region 3 is concerned, which is the whole
462
of western Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, it was essential that by 1995 they had fast breeder reactors in operation, because those reactors would be essential for that region before the next century? If they are not aware of that, may I ask whether they will study the report? If they are aware, why do they not pay regard to this very careful analysis?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend and his advisers are only too aware of the efforts of this committee; but I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend and his department to what the noble Lord said.
Lord Denham: Next Question.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think we are spending a very long time on this Question, too. We have been on it for just over seven minutes and I think we ought to move on to the next Question.

Dounreay Nuclear Establishment
3.19 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the key importance to the northern Highlands of Scotland of the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment and if so what projects, both in the long and in the short term, they intend this establishment to undertake to keep its teams of scientists intact and retain its place in the economy of the region.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment currently has a full programme of work in support of the United Kingdom fast reactor programme. The importance of the establishment to the economy of the Highland region is well recognised by the Government.
Viscount Thurso: In thanking the noble Earl the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that he has already indicated that there is no decision yet about a future for the fast breeder reactor, and therefore it must be assumed that the programme lying ahead of the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment is limited? Is he also aware of the work which is being done in fuel reprocessing and fabrication at Dounreay and can he indicate whether there is a future for the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment in this particular field?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with respect, the noble Viscount must not make leaps into the dark, particularly when they are not wholly logical. I do agree with him that the long-term future of Dounreay is of necessity dependent on the outcome of the Government's present consideration of fast reactor policy. I know that my right honourable friend is very well aware of the key role, if I may so call it,

463
that Dounreay can play. He is equally aware of the importance of the establishment and its work to the Highland region, but, as I said in answer to the last Question, all this is part of the Government's review of their fast reactor policy.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that it is 16 years since a Labour Government gave the go-ahead for a prototype fast breeder reactor at Dounreay, so that we have had plenty of experience of that? Would it not have been better for the noble Earl the Minister to acquaint himself and the House with the fact that the safety factor involved in fast breeder processing is very much more reassuring than with other processes? Will he not under-estimate the value of this to the Highland area and continuing work there? We do not want another Invergordon further north.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the last part of the noble Lord's remarks. I do not want another Invergordon anywhere in Scotland or, for that matter, anywhere in the United Kingdom. But of necessity conditions change, and they have changed in the last 16 years. That is why the review is going on in the way that it is, and that is why my right honourable friend is considering the future. As I have said, he is well aware of the importance of the present programme of Dounreay and any future role it may have in the local economy.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Earl suggest to his right honourable friend in the other place that it might be desirable to look at the present programme of ordinary thermal reactors? Will he pay attention to the report from the inspectorate today stating that they are not prepared to approve of immediate progress with the proposed pressurised water reactor, and will he not therefore suggest that it would be better to scrap this ill-considered programme and, rather, go over to the fast breeder reactor, which is known to be safe?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I will certainly draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend, although, as the noble Lord will appreciate, he is going slightly wide of future work at Dounreay.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend also bear in mind that, given the accelerating programme in the development of thermal reactors all over the world, there are those who believe that there might be a shortage of uranium by the end of the century, and that in turn argues the case for the fast reactor being pushed ahead?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes, my Lords; that is no doubt one of the factors that my right honourable friend is considering.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, as I have just returned from Dounreay, whether he is conscious of the fact that the research and development there have reached a point where they need to be told that there is something in the future? Should they not
464
now logically go forward to the building of a commercial plant? Also, does the noble Earl realise that if this is not given to them we stand in serious danger of losing this remarkable team of men who have proved themselves to be not only so competent but also so enthusiastic about the fast breeder reactor?
May I also ask the noble Earl, in the light of the galaxy of supplementary questions on this subject, whether time could be found in your Lordships' House for a debate on this subject, as he has gathered from these questions the range of information we possess? In particular, would he not agree with me that what we need to do is to enlighten the public on the safety factors associated with the containment of plutonium and the safety of a fast breeder reactor?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, so far as the noble Earl's point about a possible debate is concerned, I am sure that the usual channels, who are here and as always aware of the moods of the House, will make the necessary arrangements in due course. It may be that when my right honourable friend makes his statement that will be the occasion on which to arrange a debate.
So far as Dounreay is concerned, the Government's review of fast reactor policy is concerned with the programme as a whole and not just with Dounreay. As your Lordships will know, a number of possibilities are being examined. First, for example, there is the option of going ahead with an independent United Kingdom commercial-scale fast reactor, which I think the noble Lord was advocating. Secondly, there is a measure of international collaboration; and, thirdly, there is the reliance of licensing the technology as and when we need it. All these are options. But, so far as Dounreay is concerned, I repeat that my right honourable friend is aware of the fund of devotion and expertise at the establishment and also of the very great economic benefits that have been brought to the people in that part of the Highland region.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, why is it that scientifically-minded noble Lords always try to turn Question Time into a debate?

Psychiatric Secure Units
3.27 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 how much money is being allocated for permanent psychiatric secure units in the present financial year; how many places are now available; and how many more are likely to be available at the end of the financial year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, revenue of £10·5 million has been made available for current spending in 1982–83 for the development of regional secure units and interim secure facilities. Capital amounting to £10·8 million

465
for this financial year has been set aside for approved permanent schemes. The 30-place unit at St. Luke's Hospital, Middlesbrough is as yet the only permanent unit operational, though by the end of the financial year 120 places are expected to be available.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, while I thank the noble Minister for that reply, I am bound to say I found it less encouraging than I had hoped. The painfully slow progress of this programme, going back over eight years or so, is not one of the major glories of our island story. May I ask the Minister whether the sums he has referred to as being allotted this year will all be spent on these units and not diverted to other purposes, as has happened in the past?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recognise that progress on these schemes has been slower than we would have wished. However, in addition to the total of 120 places which will be available by the end of the current financial year, 240 places are currently under construction and 90 further places are to be started, hopefully, before the end of this calendar year.
On the question of funds, I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks: namely, that all the funds to be allocated will be used for these purposes in the current financial year, but the majority of funds will be; and where they are not used precisely for the RSU programme they will be used in general for psychiatric purposes of one kind or another.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he can indicate to the House how much money has, in fact, been given by Governments over the last eight years for this purpose, and how much of it has not been used by the regions, which have used the money, in some cases, for entirely other purposes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the designation of funds for this purpose is a curiosity, if I may call it that, in the health service funding generally, because, as a matter of usual course, we do not specify precisely the purpose for which funds which we supply should be used. In fact, £54.7 million has been provided for revenue purposes and £20.3 million for capital purposes in the financial year since 1976/77. I cannot say offhand what percentage of those figures has been used precisely for RSU purposes. But I can say that, during the period that we are discussing, in addition to the creation of the small number of permanent places to which I referred earlier, more than 500 interim places have been provided and, of course, it would be quite proper for the funds to be used for that purpose.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government control in any way the geographical area to which funds are given? Would I be right in thinking that there might be a catchment area problem? It is no good having 220 places in one part of the country, which would be lovely for that area, if another area cannot get secure places because they are outside its catchment area.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the system is that funds are provided to each regional health authority for this purpose, and they propose plans for the precise number of places that they think appropriate for their particular region.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether only two-thirds of the unit at St Luke's Hospital is being used, because, when I visited it a few months ago, one-third of the beds were closed because of lack of staff? Would he see that there are enough trained staff in the forensic-psychiatric-medical field, particularly senior registrars?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my understanding is that the RSU at St Luke's Hospital, Middlesbrough, is fully operational. But I will look into that and, if I am wrong, will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there are some aspects of the Answer which he has given today which fill a number of us with a great deal of concern, particularly the suggestion that if the money is not used for regional secure units it will be used for other psychiatric purposes? Is he aware that his department has an unenviable record of diverting money in this way, not only during the lifetime of the present Administration but during the lifetime of previous Administrations? Finally, is he aware that, until we make major progress in the development of regional secure units of this kind, we shall not be able to get severely mentally disturbed people out of our prison system and, therefore, we shall continue with the scandalous situation of the mentally ill being kept in prison?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the facilities to be provided by the RSUs will form an essential feature of the range of options available with regard to the detention of mentally disturbed people. I would certainly agree with the thought behind the question of the noble Lord, that prison is the wrong place for the great majority of them. There are difficulties in creating these facilities—for example, in planning permissions—which sometimes cause a great deal of delay, and I think it is right that the funds that are earmarked for this purpose are, with the necessary authority, sometimes used for interim facilities, in particular, pending the completion of the permanent facilities which the noble Lord has asked me about.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lord Beswick: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been trying to get in and has twice given up his place to other Peers. May I suggest that he asks his question and then we move on to the next business, as we have had 33 minutes on Questions.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. Did the figures which the noble Lord gave for capital and revenue expenditure include spending by the regional authorities on the interim secure units? Is the noble Lord aware that, even though obviously, in the long term we must have the permanent facilities, the interim secure units are doing a very good job and, at any rate at the one in Beckenham, patients and staff mix in a reasonably civilised atmosphere which would be a lesson to the prison service on how to contain potentially violent and refractory men?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the interim facilities which have been provided play a very important part in this matter. But the security provided in RSUs, whether they be interim or permanent, is not of the same order as is provided in, for example, the special hospitals, and it forms an important halfway house, if that is the right term to use, between special hospitals, on the one hand, and ordinary psychiatric hospitals, on the other.

Business: The Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House, if I announce that, in view of the business before the House today, and, in particular, the Committee stage of the Transport Bill which was not concluded last night, it has been agreed that the Report stage of the Stock Transfer Bill, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, will not now be taken today but will be taken next Thursday, 22nd July, instead. I have arranged for the Grill Room to be open until 9.45 this evening.
Your Lordships may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Tuesday, 3rd August, and return on Tuesday, 12th October.

Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill
3.37 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Proposals for reductions in local authorities' rates]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, leave out lines 13 to 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should apologise, on behalf of the Government, to anyone who tries to make sense of this clause, because, quite honestly, it is a dog's dinner and I defy anyone to read it and then tell us in fairly plain language what it means. We start with the 1966 Act, Section 5, although I should warn your Lordships that it is amended by the Act of 1981. Then we go on to further amendment in this new Bill. The sooner the Government get round to giving us a consolidated measure, the sooner we shall be able to understand it.
What the Government are doing in this clause has
468
nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with the Stodart Report. Noble Lords will remember that, exactly a year ago, we were faced with the Government coming before us and asking for what many of us thought were very draconian powers to deal with local authorities and to put them in their place; and here they are, a year later, asking for even greater powers. Bearing in mind that they themselves produced a Green Paper last year, in which they gave voice to certain aspects of local government, it seems strange indeed that we should have this clause. Page 3 of the Green Paper reads:
"local government has traditionally enjoyed a degree of discretion about the amount of local revenue it raises and the amount of expenditure it incurs. It is desirable that authorities should be able to tailor local revenues and expenditure to the provision of a level of services".
Here the Government are saying, "You are going to do nothing of the kind in future". The Green Paper continues:
"It could be argued that the Government should supplement the existing arrangements by seeking powers to take direct action where necessary to restrain public expenditure so as to protect the interests of local ratepayers".
Evidently the argument is not finished because there has been no further action on the Green Paper.
The paragraph ends:
"The case for the Government taking such powers has to be judged against the very considerable constitutional and practical difficulties that would be involved".
But before the argument is finished we have a Bill which the Government hope will be an Act of Parliament before the month is over and which takes power not just to reduce the rate support grant overall or in respect of a single authority—that was the power which they took last year—but to fix what the rate will be in relation to all expenditures and bearing in mind certain categories of expenditure, and they are ordering local authorities to do that. The Government will be fixing the rate after an order has been passed. An order cannot be amended: you take it or you leave it. If a local authority do not comply within 28 days, then they will be deemed to have fixed the new rate. If anything is more likely to interfere with local authority freedom and the traditional rights of local authorities, I should like to know what it is. This is basic to local authority powers and duties at the present time.
We decided not to seek to amend this clause during the Committee stage. We opposed it but we did not seek to amend it. I should apologise for not being here during the Committee stage; it might not then have lasted quite so long. However, it gave me a little time to read the Bill and I was appalled when I came to subsections (6) and (7). Just listen to what subsection (6) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order under this subsection repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to the determination, levy, or payment of a regional, general or district rate and such determination, levy or payment is affected by a determination (or deemed determination) under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above".
That is to say, it is subject to an order approved by Parliament determining that the rate shall be what the Secretary of State fixes, and if local authorities do not comply thereafter it will be deemed to be so fixed. It is a tremendous power. If a Government want to repeal legislation, usually they have to pass an Act of

469
Parliament. And if they want to amend legislation they have to pass an Act of Parliament. I know that the Minister will say that we had this argument last year on Section 15 of the 1981 Act. Its phrasing is virtually the same.
It is interesting to note that Section 15 is not repealed by this statute. Section 15 refers to Section 1 of the 1966 Act and is therefore incorporated within the 1981 Act. So there will be a duplication of powers, one a little more extensive than the other, related to the very same thing. I do not know how the draftsmen dealt with this but they have had plenty of time to look at it. I had various other worries about Scotland's activities in Malaga and Seville to concern myself about, but I thought that some of the more perspecacious noble Lords concerned with local government would have spotted how incomplete this particular clause is. Apart from that, I raised this point last year, and I think that this is very unfair. The Government are taking powers which have never been dreamed of before and then they are covering themselves, just in case they have made a mistake somewhere or have not gone far enough, by taking a power to repeal or amend any enactment, including the very Act to which I referred a moment ago.
Could the Minister tell us what he has in mind? To deal with any enactment that relates to the determination, levy or payment of a regional, general or district rate is a very wide power. Further on in the Bill one discovers that duties are placed upon local authorities. Duties demand expenditures. Expenditures affect the general rate. It may well be that a local authority which takes its duties seriously and spends money will be caught by subsection (4)(b). It is amazing how wide it can be. I do not believe that we should give a power of this kind to a Secretary of State without being fully conscious of what we are doing.
What are the legal snags which the Government think might arise whereby they feel they have to be given this very unusual power to amend statutes? It may be argued that we do not need to worry because the Government would have to introduce an order which would have no effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The snag, though, is that you cannot amend an order. You have to take it or leave it. So you have very restricted access to any attempt to make the Government change their mind.
When it comes to the Government taking such a power, we find that much of it is already there and will be duplicated by what was done in the 1981 Act, so I want to know exactly why the Government feel that this power is necessary. Would it not be far better for the Government to think about it again? They should drop this. If they had wanted this power to be extended to deemed determination of rates they could have inserted a phrase into the amendment which they made last year. This would have saved them the speech I have just delivered—in about four or five minutes. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it would be remiss of me not to commence this Report stage by welcoming the noble Lord back from the Iberian Peninsula. If I hear any cries behind me of "Haste ye back",
470
I say "Fie!", although we got through the Committee stage of the Bill in just over four hours. Nevertheless, we are glad to see the noble Lord back, and if our thoughts stray towards Colombia in four years' time, when my right honourable friend will be in the middle of her second period in office, that is a joy to come and we must wish Scotland well.
The fears which the noble Lord has expressed are slightly excessive, for the reasons to which I shall come. What subsections (6) and (7) do is enable the Secretary of State to make what I would call necessary and consequential amendments to an order under subsection (4). If I say that these are likely to be minor in nature as compared with the order under Section 4, I hope that the House will bear with me until I can illustrate it.
The power is an essential part of Clause 1. It is possible that the redetermination of a lower rate proposed by the Secretary of State first of all and then approved by the House of Commons could entail technical problems for the authority or authorities concerned—and I emphasise that. For instance, there might be variations in timetables if more than one authority in the region were involved in a redetermination of rate. The regional council and one or more district councils in the same region might redetermine rates on different dates and this might cause substantial administrative difficulties. There are precedents for seeking an enabling power to make minor and consequential amendments; most notably, that power was sought in the 1981 Act and use was made of it for 1981 and 1982. That use illustrates the kind of purpose to which the powers in subsections (6) and (7) might be put by the Secretary of State.
I can give three illustrations. First, the powers might he used to modify regulations which prescribe the last date by which a district council shall notify its rate to the regional council, which collects all rates, to provide that a redetermined rate is notified two days after redetermination. Secondly, they might be used to provide, where appropriate, that rate repayments relate to redetermined rates and not to the rate originally determined, and, thirdly, that the cost of collecting a redetermined rate is excluded from the computation of the product of the penny rate of the authority concerned, and thereby from the calculation entitlement to resources clement of rate support grant.
In order to avoid such problems, it is provided that the Secretary of State shall be able to remove as far as possible, subject to the approval of Parliament, any such difficulties that statute might contain. The powers sought in subsections (6) and (7) would allow him to do this. The purpose of these provisions is therefore to ensure that unforeseen circumstances do not prevent the smooth and sensible operation of the statute. All that will be required will be minor and consequential amendments such as were exemplified last year by the Renfrew District Council. These, I may say, were accepted by the Opposition at that time as being minor and consequential amendments.
If subsections (6) and (7) were removed, very serious difficulties could be afforded to an authority. Bearing in mind that we do have the affirmative resolution procedure in subsection (7), which adds a very proper safeguard, I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will see that this power is not the draconian power I believe he

471
thinks it is and that it will be used simply and solely to tidy up an order which has been made in consequence of subsection (4).
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are grateful for that explanation by the noble Earl the Minister, although he did not reply to the point I made about Section 15 of the 1981 Act and the fact that I consider this to be an unnecessary duplication. Indeed, it might well be that under the power he has, the Secretary of State could amend Section 15 of the 1981 Act. Has the noble Earl given any thought to that particular point? My difficulty is that the Bill does not say that it will deal only with orders. It says,
"any enactment (including this Act)".
Any legislation—it does not say anything about orders or tidying up. So the power is there. That is what I object to. This is to save the Government embarrassment in case they fix a wrong date somewhere, or in case they have made some kind of mistake—that is all. The Minister should be man enough to get up and admit it.
I am not going to divide the House on this, but I want to point out the lengths to which the Government are prepared to go to bash local authorities without any troubles with the law falling upon their heads because they have made a mistake in what they have done. It is nice to be able to make a mistake and then say, "It is all right, we will amend the law", and then say, "We are doing it for the good of the local authorities and not for the good of the Government". Having heard, and taking it for what it is worth, the explanation given by the noble Earl the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Prohibition of using sums from loans fund to offset effect of determination of new rate]:
3.56 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("determined") to ("a") in line 43.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to find out from the Government just exactly how local authorities are supposed to work this. What a local authority can do at the present time, if there is a gap in respect of its income from rates and the cost of providing services, is to take some sum from its loans fund to meet that difficulty. But the Government are so determined to close every loophole open to the local authorities, so that the local authorities will do what the Government want them to do, that they say that,
"(1) A local authority who determine, or are deemed to have determined"—
that I do not mind—
"or anticipate that they will be required to determine, a rate under Section 5(4)(b) …".
are not allowed to close the gap by means of sums advanced from their loans fund.
How on earth will a local authority anticipate that it will be "required to determine"? The person who will be required to determine will be the Secretary of
472
State. Are the local authorities supposed to read the Secretary of State's mind and know that he is going to take this action—this kindly action, according to the noble Earl the Minister?
Suppose they do; another thing the local authority has to anticipate is not only that the Secretary of State is going to take action but also the actual action that he is going to take. The subsection says,
"a rate under Section 5(4)(b)".
That is a rate determined by the Secretary of State. So the local authority has first to determine that the Secretary of State is going to take action against it and then it has to anticipate what the Secretary of State is going to fix as the new rate. It is a bit unfair to leave the local authority in a situation of complete uncertainty when something which it may be doing carefully as a matter of financial prudence—closing the gap to ensure that its outgoings are met—is going to be attacked by the Secretary of State. How do the local authorities anticipate in this way? How can they do so?
How can it be proved by the Secretary of State that they have so anticipated? He is the only person who knows that he is going to take action, and his department, after considerable consideration, will determine the nature of the action he is going to take. Remember, it is open to the Secretary of State to determine what the new rate will be. The new rate might meet only part of the gap to a greater or lesser degree. I believe it is a bit unfair on local authorities to place them under this power. Remember, subsection (2) states that,
"the local authority shall, on such opinion being intimated to them, reimburse their loans fund forthwith".
The local authority could put itself into considerable financial difficulty by doing so. Why? Because there is going to be a gap. But that gap may not be due to anticipated action by the Secretary of State to reduce the rate support grant.
I really want to know from the Minister of State how this is going to work. I think it is quite impossible for the Secretary of State to prove that the action taken by the local authority is in anticipation of something that the Secretary of State may or may not do, and having decided to do it, what the rate will be that he will fix. I think it is asking far too much of the local authority. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the words about which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, complains in fact stop up a loophole of which recalcitrant local authorities might otherwise avail themselves to frustrate the Secretary of State's desire to prevent them from maintaining expenditure at excessive and unreasonable levels. What would happen if these words were excised from the Bill would be that local authorities could borrow right up to the moment when a rate reduction becomes effective; they could take money out of their loans fund; they could build up funds which would allow them to maintain excessive and unreasonable expenditure at that rate, and therefore they would be in a position to frustrate the Secretary of State. The Government machine does not move at exactly lightning speed when it comes to these matters, and therefore

473
it would be perfectly possible for a local authority to do it. We have only to look over the history of the last 12 to 18 months, even at what is going on now in Scotland, to appreciate that a local authority who wanted to evade the strictures and resulting actions of the Secretary of State would find it all too easy to do so by means of this simple device. That is why the clause is drafted in the way that it is. Obviously, this is an amendment which the Government are going to resist.
If the prohibition on making use of the loans fund did not apply to the period where the authority anticipated a reduction, it would make nonsense of the action the Secretary of State might take. As I have said, the Government juggernaut moves in a fairly ponderous way, so that as soon as the Secretary of State announced his intention to embark on the formal procedures authorities would be able to take action to frustrate him. It might be that the measures eventually given their blessing by the House of Commons would have no effect whatsoever on their spending level. So the words which are the subject of the amendment are no more nor less than that, and therefore the noble Lord will understand, if he does not share, my reluctance to accept the amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend wishes to take these words out. I can also understand why the noble Earl wants to keep them in. But I have grave doubts whether their inclusion will serve the purpose he has in mind. The clause talks about a local authority "determining a rate" or "being deemed to have determined a rate". Both of these are facts which are obvious. But how can you prove that an authority is anticipating something which might take place in the future? If the authority does not make it known that it is taking action in anticipation of something, I do not think the Secretary of State will be able to stop it, unless he is claiming that in addition to everything else he has taken power to read its thoughts. The Minister says "no", but how do the Government work out that an authority is anticipating something? Quite frankly, I do not care very much whether the amendment is accepted or not. I think if an authority wishes to do the sort of thing which the Government fear it might do, the inclusion of these words will not stop it doing it.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have to seek the leave of the House to speak again—and I hope I may be forgiven for saying the House has been rather generous on Report stages recently—but I do not intend to make a practice of it. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is quite right; there is nothing that the Secretary of State or anybody else can do to stop a local authority from behaving in this way. But it would be illegal, the officials of the local authority would know that it was illegal; they would have their statutory responsibility and so might the various councillors who voted for such a measure. Therefore, Nemesis would creep up in the end, and that, of course, is something which all properly and lawfully constituted local authorities have regard to when they consider their actions.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and while I agree with the Minister that it is undesirable
474
that we should seek to depart from the rules, I would say this. The local authority could only be proved to be acting illegally if somebody else proved that it had anticipated something, and I am suggesting that such proof will be almost impossible to obtain.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think I am entitled to speak again, but I will ask leave, just in case.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord who moved the amendment has the right to speak again.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I thought so. It is great that I still have some rights left. Local authorities have not many rights left. My noble friend should read this. No one is required to prove that the local authority have anticipated the evil intent of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) says: "If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that subsection (1) … has been contravened". It is just the opinion of the Secretary of State. What could be worse than that? What could be more tyrannical or dictatorial than that? It may well be a completely prudent local authority anticipating only that there is going to be a gap between what is produced by rates and what they have to spend, offsetting that by use of their loans fund, quite prudently. But they are now going to be in the position that if they do that, even for the best of purposes, it is going to be construed by the Secretary of State as anticipating that he was going to take action against them.
The kind of thing that this noble Chamber prides itself on is examining legislation. I hope they are satisfied with the kind of legislation Scotland is getting from here. If there were a Scottish Assembly this power would never be given to a Secretary of State: that if he is of the opinion that somebody has done something, that is all that matters. The question of proof does not arise. The party opposite is making it as easy as possible for this present Government to bash the local authorities. Remember that only a handful of local authorities in Scotland have been able to keep within the cash limits laid down by the Government. It shows that the cash limits themselves are nonsense. The matter turns on that basis, consideration of unreasonableness and excessive expenditures and the fact that the rates are high. Everybody's rates are high; my rates are far too high, no matter how low they are. At least I realise that the standard of the rate is determined by the Government. The Government decide what is reckonable expenditure in aggregate for the whole of the Scottish local authorities.
So they cut the aggregate. There is nothing obvious to the public, but they cut the aggregate and that itself reduces the amount that the Government pay in grant. But then the proportion that they pay in grant is determined by the Government. They reduce that, and that leaves a greater expenditure to be met from the rates by the local authorities. It has nothing to do with the local authorities; it has everything to do with the Government. It is the Government who have forced rates up in local authorities throughout Scotland, and then they come along and say, "Ah, but your expenditure is excessive, so we shall cut your grant".

475
They have the power to cut the grant of a single authority; they have the power to cut the grant of all the authorities.
Local government has been completely undermined, and here it is being still further undermined by this power for the Secretary of State to take action on just the basis of his opinion. To my mind it is not good enough, but I know that most Scots are probably more interested in what is happening within a few miles of where I live and where I would have liked to be today—around Troon—and so I will not divide the House on this matter of importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, which has been so unreasonably and unsatisfactorily answered by the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("in any case").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment because the Government are going to accept it. It asks them to leave out three words, "in any case" as those words do not mean a thing; they are just otiose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord considers the subsection with a little more care he will see that in fact the words are not only desirable but will enable the Secretary of State to have flexibility which would otherwise be denied to him, and a flexibility which could react in favour of individual local authorities. The provision is drafted in terms which make it clear that, should the Secretary of State consider it appropriate to permit an authority to use money from the loans fund to offset the effect of a rate reduction, he would exercise that permission having regard to the circumstances of the individual authority concerned. This is consistent with the provisions in Clause 1 to which Clause 2 relates.
Proposals for reductions in rates or grants must be preceded by a very careful assessment by the Secretary of State of the circumstances of the individual authority concerned. It is also necessary for this provision to be consistent with Section 18(1) of the 1981 Act which makes similar provision for grant reductions. The effect of the amendment would be to widen the application of the proviso to Clause 2(1) so as to enable offsetting to be made generally to all local authorities. This would be inconsistent with the provision to which it relates with Clause 1 and with Section 5 of the 1966 Act, which all relate to particular cases. It is not the policy of this Government to ask Parliament for a power in wider terms than are required. So there is point in drafting the subsection in this way and perhaps, on reflection, the noble Lord would agree.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, my Lords, I would not agree. The fact is that the words do not mean anything at all and do not extend, as the noble Earl suggests, this particular power. However, this is the Report stage and it is no time to argue the matter out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Redetermination of estimated aggregate amount of rate support grants]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 20, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the representatives of the Scottish Local Authorities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to Clause 3 which gives yet another power to the Secretary of State. At present, the rate support grant is drawn up usually in about November or December—that is when the argument begins and it goes on over a long period and then the Government make their determinations. We must remember that the Government are the last word: they decide what is reckonable expenditure, and reckonable expenditure is only that expenditure on which grant is paid; they determine the rate of the grant, and during recent years it has been going down; and recently, or up until this year, the Government have also been laying down guidelines in respect of what should be paid as regards increases in prices and salaries.
As regards anything beyond that, it has been their practice, usually at about the same time—the end of the financial year when they have seen how things have been going—to produce a supplementary order, an increase order, recompensing the local authorities for expenditures above the limits that have been laid down. Mind you, within that the Government can do a bit of manipulating and they have done so in the past. If the reckonable increase that should be rated for grant has been so much, they can reduce it, and they have reduced it in the past.
However, now we are entering a new system. What has happened in the past is that the Government have only had to introduce increase orders. But I think that the Minister of State has made it perfectly clear that the purpose of this clause is that they will introduce orders decreasing the rate support grant, as well as increasing it. A new system is produced whereby, instead of dealing with sums of money which are to be estimated, they are going to make the rate support grant sums of money towards which the local authorities have to work and they are not going to be increased unless there is a change in interest rates that creates such necessary fluctuation.
But they have taken the power here at any time during the financial year, for whatever reason they like, to introduce an order reducing the rate support grant in aggregate—that is, for all the authorities. I am suggesting that it should be done:
"after consultation with the representatives of the Scottish Local Authorities".
I know that the Minister will say, "We will do that anyway". I am not prepared to accept that they will do it anyway. They do not need to do it according to this piece of legislation, and so I am suggesting that they should insert this provision. It is not very much, because the Government will consult and then do what they like. That is what happens at present when they negotiate the rate support grant, be it with the Scottish local authorities or any other local authorities. But at least it would be some satisfaction to know that by statute they have to consult representatives of the local authorities before they make this possible change. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary, but I hasten to add, not otiose. I entirely agree that there is a need for consultation with the convention before rate support grant is redetermined initially. The words:
"under section 2(2) of the Act"
in the new Section 4 (1) of the 1976 Act proposed in Clause 3, together with the minor and consequential amendments to Sections 2 and 3 of the Act proposed in paragraphs 5 and 6(a) of Schedule 3, will apply the provisions which require the Secretary of State to consult the convention before grant is determined initially to any redetermination of grant in terms of the 1966 Act amended as proposed in the Bill. What I have said sounds complicated but it will be all right, I hope, when the noble Lord looks at the Official Report. I hope that with that assurance he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not like it when the Minister tells me that it will be all right when I look at the Official Report; that means that he is racing up to the Official Report to see that it is going to be all right. But I do not doubt him. The information which we have been getting from COSLA—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—is that these so-called consultations have tended not to be consultations at all; the local authorities are "told" by the Secretary of State. That is not my interpretation of consultation. However, there is no reason for me to disbelieve the Minister of State, in respect of the further amendments and the references back to the 1966 Act, as amended by the 1981 Act, and any other Act anyone cares to mention, that the consultations are already explicitly written in there and so, implicitly, they are already here in this particular subsection. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Effect of specific power or duty to incur expenditure at one tier of local government on exercise of general such power at different tier]:
4.21 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: We turn from one matter of importance to another. This could take me about three hours in the Scottish Grand Committee and, with a Minister like the noble Earl, it could probably take five hours! Noble Lords should not forget that I used to be a schoolmaster. On page 6, line 12, what do we read? We read:
"Where one of any two local authorities are a regional council".
I do not know what the reaction of most noble Lords "is" or "are" to that.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, as an Englishman, you are bang on, dear boy.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we have this strange business that the local authority is counted as a plural body, and the Government, having seen the amendment tabled, hurriedly raced in to change
478
it in certain other clauses in the Bill. Where they had sensibly put "is", they have changed it to "are". I want to change it to "is". Whether they think that "are" will bolster them, I do not know—I hope not. If they have done so, perhaps I could tell them that they have not done all their homework correctly. For instance, at line 33 on page 22 of the Bill, it says:
"as regards any transfer in respect of which the first local authority is a regional council".
That really ought to be "are", if we are to follow the Government's logic.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is provided for in Amendment No. 9.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it has not been accepted. My goodness! This is one of the changes that there are to make. Is it not incredible? They are not accepting it. They are insisting on "are" here and they are putting "are" in the other one. Surely not; is it not crazy?
I think that the purport of my amendment has already been pointed out—that is, that it is common sense in this particular case, when you are talking about one of something, to say "is" and not to say "are". I beg to move, and await, expectantly, acceptance.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is an old song which starts:
"I'll sing you one-O",
the last line of which is:
"One is one and only one, and ever more shall be so"?
That is a celebrated precedent, and it is not "one 'are' one".
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, reminded us of his teaching background. I must say, I have always wondered where Giles was moved to get Old Chalky from, but I must speculate about that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I was a very young Chalky then.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I certainly would not want to mix it, if I may use such an expression, with the noble Lord on grammatical terms. But having viewed, with some alarm, the noble Lord's amendment and consulted, among others, the draftsman, I am assured that the convention in statute is that the term "local authority" should be predicated in the plural. In fact, later amendments will ensure that consistency of approach is adopted throughout the Bill. Thus, the use of the verb "are" in line 12 reflects this general doctrine and is, I think, consistent with the expression—although it occasionally looks rather odd, as in, for example:
"the other local authority are",
in line 18 of the same clause. But, although in certain instances it tends to jar, I gather that this is the convention, and a local authority, like the Government, must be predicated in the plural.
One only has to look at the Minutes, containing various Motions and debates which are set down for the future, to see that, in fact, Her Majesty's Govern-

479
ment are already predicated in the plural too. So it is consistent. Nevertheless, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for sharpening us up on this. I hope that he will agree the line, so far as "are" is concerned, and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should not like this important point to pass without some support being given to my noble friend on the matter, even although he has, of course, the invaluable support of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in spite of the fact that he declined to do what he was asked to do—to sing it. But I do not disagree, although I do not like the convention where "authority" is regarded as being plural and takes "are" instead of "is".
However, in this case the reference is not to the "authority"; the reference is to the word "one", and "one" is not plural. It never has been and not even this Government can make "one" plural. So it is "where one … is". My noble friend, therefore, is perfectly correct. It does not in any way invalidate the Minister's later amendments to substitute the word "are" for the word "is", because later on the reference is entirely to the word "authority"—"where an authority are". But in this case, I repeat, it is "where one … is". Even this Government must admit that to talk about "where one … are" is absolute rubbish.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I also should like to support my noble friend Lord Ross and the other Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—with that great Scottish title of his—to the fact that there are many illogicalities in our system. When one refers to "the Government are", one is referring to the Members of the Government; one is referring to a collective body. When one refers to "the Government", one refers to the fact that the Government "is" determined. Here we are referring to "a local authority"—not a collection of people, not a collection of members, but a local authority acting collectively.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If it is one of two, it has to be "is", if it is to fit our common language. There may be other circumstances in which it is appropriate to refer to "the Government are", if you are talking about a collection of people, and I do not think that there are very many of those. Perhaps the convention has become too wide over the years. Sometimes it is not a bad thing to look at it. But when you state it so specifically and so clearly as "where one of" two, then logically, grammatically and legally there can be no other word than "is".
We can look at all the subsequent amendments when we reach them to see whether "are" or "is" fits the particular context. I am no ex-schoolmaster. I am just a rather twisted product of other schoolmasters. When one is talking of one of two things, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, his draftsmen and his civil servants sitting up there on the back box and grinning down upon us now, one of two has to be "is". It cannot be anything else.
May I suggest that we behave sensibly here and put in "is". Forget what the noble Earl says is a
480
convention. Maybe the convention has been stupidly widened; I do not know. I repeat, there are occasions when you are talking about the Government and when you are clearly talking about a collection of people when it is sensible to say "are", but you cannot possibly say "one of two are"; it has to be "is". May I ask the noble Earl's advisers up there to rush him down a little piece of paper quickly saying, "My dear Minister, you will lose nothing by accepting this amendment. We are also graduates. We also have studied English. We also know that one of two has to be "is".
If need be I shall talk a little longer while they get that piece of paper down to the Minister, because it is absolutely absurd to say that "one of two are". I would have got nought out of a hundred at West Square Central School had I answered a paper in those terms. So may I ask the Minister please to forget the convention. Forget the bit of paper you have in front of you. Just do the obviously sensible thing. One of two can only be "is"; it cannot possibly be anything else. When we get to what the Government is, when we get to what the local authorities are in other circumstances, we will look at the context. But the context of this has to be "any one of two is" the local authority.
I beg the Minister please not to drag this matter out. I can go on speaking forever on the subject, if need be. My noble friend Lord Ross said that he could do so for three hours, and, given this Minister, he could do it for five. Having listened to this Minister I think he is probably right in his boast. If he drags in the middle I will help him out. But please—to the advisers of the Minister, at whom I am looking at the moment—just send him down a piece of paper saying, "Don't be so damned silly". Any one of two can only be "is". It cannot be any other way.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, lest the Minister is not prepared to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, may I just say that as one by no means unfamiliar with the idiosyncracies of parliamentary draftsmen, and in particular Scottish parliamentary draftsmen, I find it a little startling that the Minister should suggest that any one of those is in this context a greater authority than the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. Surely with that in mind the Minister is bound to give way.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, perhaps it is a good thing that we are having this protracted discussion because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, it at least gives this noble House a clear picture of how the Scottish Grand Committee has always conducted itself. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will think of an old friend of ours, one Mr. Willis, who must be thinking of how he would have spoken for at least two hours in the Scottish Grand Committee on this particular subject.
When I read this amendment and then read the text, I felt that the grammar of the actual text in the Bill jarred on me. I do not know whether my noble friend has had a piece of paper, with which I used to be very familiar, at the bottom of which is written the word "resist", but if he has not I do not really

481
think that the Bill is going to suffer very much if we put in "is" instead of "are". May I add my voice to those other founts of eloquence on this subject, particularly the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before we come to a conclusion on this matter I rise and will speak with the maximum of brevity, because unfortunately I arrived too late to hear my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock—a source of deep regret to me. Unfortunately, since this is the Report stage he will not be able to rise and repeat his speech for my benefit. I shall look at it in Hansard tomorrow with the greatest possible care. He must be right—though I do not know what he said. He always is right. From what I have heard of this debate it is quite clear that he is right on this occasion.
I should like to add a further nuance. I am speaking not as a Scot at this moment, whatever you might imagine, and I have no experience of the Scottish Grand Committee, something for which I have always been and to my dying day shall continue to be grateful. It is an excellent and elegant body but I am glad I was never in it. I am speaking now as a journalist. Although parliamentary Bills are not written by journalists they are written in the English language. The English language is a continually evolving body. In the evolution of that body journalists play their part. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that nowadays it is customary for even the Government to be regarded as singular—not to be regarded as my old, trusted and valued friend Lord George-Brown mentioned a minute ago.
Lord George-Brown: Please delete "old", will you?
Lord Howie of Troon: I mean "old" in the sense of long-standing; and long may he continue to stand, in all respects. What I have in mind is that usage now has got past the stage where the Government, or a local authority, or any body, a committee, for instance, would be regarded as a group of individuals and therefore would be entitled to "are". Nowadays the usage in journalistic circles and literary circles is to regard the Government, or the committee, or the local government, or anything of that sort, as a body, and therefore singular. Whether we are talking about one, or talking about the Government, we would use the singular sense. In this case my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock must be right in whatever it was he said earlier.
The Government should surely yield because it is the right thing to do, and for another reason. The Government, on a number of occasions and on a number of bodies of legislation which it has brought before us, has been, for good or ill, urged to yield something. Only the other day the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, urged the Government to yield on a small point in the Employment Bill, because he thought that yielding was sometimes a good thing for Governments to do. Here is an occasion where the Government might not only do a good thing by yielding but might actually be right at the same time. Surely that must be sufficiently tempting for the noble Earl.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I have not had the
482
privilege of attending your Lordships' House for many months, but I am so moved by the importance of this occasion that I feel I must rise, and I hope the Minister "are" listening to what I am saying. I want to caution him against accepting this too readily, because with a name beginning with the letters "Mans" the next move will be to substitute the word "Men" in his name, and perhaps that would be unfortunate.
As I look at the wording here, if he is deciding to stick with the word "are", then ought he not to change the word "other" to "others" in the same line so as to make the district council plural as well? My final point is that in the Interpretation Act "the singular shall include the plural" and "the plural shall include the singular", so it may be that the Minister could happily give us our "is" and rest on the Interpretation Act if he runs into any difficulties in the courts in future.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, on all sides—from the Government Benches, the Cross Benches, the Opposition, and I need not detail others—support has come for the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in this matter. I was brought up to believe that one or two "is something" rather than "are", so I hope the noble Earl will accept the amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is only your Lordships' House that can spend 20 minutes on a matter which is so totally unimportant as this.
Lord George-Brown: And only with you as the Minister.
The Earl of Mansfield: I enjoyed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, my Lords, patronising as they were, and of course my title is a matter for me; it is not double-barrelled, nor does it have a hyphen. I will not waste any more time, except to say I hope that, if the worst ever happens and we have a Government of a different persuasion, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as Lord Advocate, so that he is responsible for the drafting of Scottish Bills, he will have a little more loyalty to his draftsmen than he has shown on this occasion. Having said that, I do not think I can say other than that rules are made to be broken and I think they should be broken in this particular case, and accordingly I am happy to accept the amendment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is world-shattering, my Lords—such a noise, like Scotland's second goal against Russia. It still rings in my ears. If only the referee had allowed the other two minutes of extra time we would have scored a third. I shall not press the Minister on the other matters, though I must apologise to the House because, having tabled this simple amendment, I was then faced with the Government, to save their own face, putting down another four amendments to get consistency. It is the old business of everybody being out of step but our Jock, so we change everybody else so that Jock can be in step. I was about to say that this was a case that called for the Lord Advocate. We used to resort to that—calling for the Lord Advocate

483
—in the Scottish Grand Committee, only to be sorry we did because we never found that legal help was any real help to us. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment and I hope he will forget his other four amendments because they just do not make sense either.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Islands or district council's functions in relation to tourism]:
4.43 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 23, after ("After") insert ("the said").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical dafting amendment which has no effect on the provisions of the Bill. It makes clear that the reference to Section 90 in subsection (2) of Clause 11 is to Section 90 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. This is achieved by referring back to the reference to Section 90 in subsection (1) of Clause 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Power of regional council to contribute financially towards the provision of recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilities and activities]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 14, line 7, leave out from ("council") to ("by") in line 11 and insert (",as regards recreational, sporting, cultural or social facilities or activities—

(a) shall contribute such sums as they shall decide by way of grant towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a district council; and

(b) may contribute").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have some trepidation in intervening in Scottish matters, especially as a precedent has just been created whereby it seems almost certain that, as a result of what I am about to say, the amendment will be carried. Therefore it is not a case, as often happens, of moving an amendment simply for discussion and then withdrawing it; in Scottish affairs it is clear that when one moves an amendment the Government are immediately so impressed with one's argument that they may accept it. I must choose my words with care in the hope that that precedent will be followed on this occasion.
Although I am unqualified to pose in any way as an expert on Scottish matters, let alone in such recherché matters as Scottish local government affairs, I have a great admiration and long-standing friendship with the Scottish theatre. A number of friends of mine, knowing of my interest in the theatre, have been in touch with meéas they have with my noble friends on the Front Bench, who have been kind enough to agree that I might move the amendment—concerning their worry that the local government changes proposed in the Bill will have a deleterious effect on the amount of public support they get. The Federation of Scottish Theatre are among those who have written to us saying that the position at present is that they get, they say—and I have every reason to believe it is true—their main local authority financial support from the regions. Many of the buildings are owned by the district councils, who
484
then lease them to theatre trusts. An example is provided in the case of the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company in Edinburgh, but it is a situation of general application.
Their concern is that, as a result of these changes, they may no longer get from district authorities the same generous—or fairly generous support, at any rate—they have received from regional authorities. It may be that in response to that feeling the Government have themselves included Clause 17 because that gives power, as no doubt the Minister will tell us, to regional councils to contribute financially towards the provision of recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilties and activities. The regional council under the Bill therefore, fortunately, has the power to continue to act in the beneficent fashion in which it has acted in the past, in spite of the changed circumstances which will be brought about by the Bill.
What my friends in Scotland would like—and it would be the effect of the amendment—is that, so far as a local authority proposal, a district council proposal, is concerned, the regional council, the other body, would be obliged to make a contribution, rather than merely be enabled to do so. It would be obligatory. So if the district council concerned were to make a proposal for assistance to a regional authority, that authority would be required to give a positive response. These ideas will be familiar to noble Lords. They take place in other areas; there is an obligation on local authorities to make a contribution to library areas and so on, so there is nothing very startling in what is proposed.
One objection which might be advanced is that it is not a very onerous obligation; a regional council who wanted not to contribute much would be able to get out of the obligation by making a purely token subscription, and therefore one is not placing a great burden on the regional council. However, it would draw a distinction between a request coming from a district council—in other words, a request coming from an authority—and a request coming from anywhere else. Thus, instead of reading, as the clause does at present:
"A regional council may, as regards recreational, sporting, cultural or social facilities or activities, contribute"—
it would say:
"A regional council … shall contribute such sums as they shall decide … towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a district council"—
and it would go on to say that it "may" contribute in all other respects. There would be a slight distinction, therefore, between a request coming to the regional authority from the district council. The clause would state that, in respect of such a request, the authority "shall" respond; in respect of all other requests it "may" respond.
As I said a few moments ago, the difference is not perhaps as large as might be seen, because the regional authority could say, "We will give you a pound". I think it very unlikely that it would do that. But the amendment would provide a sense of obligation, and I believe that my friends in the Scottish theatre would feel a little more secure if the Government were able to agree to this fairly minor change, so as very slightly to increase the sense of obligation which local authorities would feel was upon them to maintain, continue and, when circumstances permit, perhaps even to enlarge,

485
their financial support to the theatre in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney in this matter. In doing so, I am aware of the fact that the amendment would make only a marginal difference; it would be a difference of emphasis, and nothing else. At the moment support for the theatre and other activities mentioned in the clause is provided by the regional authorities on a wholly voluntary basis. They are not under any duty to support theatres. They have the opportunity to do so, and the district councils have the same opportunity.
I have a letter from the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow, which has relied fairly heavily on the support of Strathclyde Regional Council. There is a fear that the change from the region to the district might lessen the regional council's enthusiasm for continuing such support. Quite frankly, I do not think that it will. I very much doubt whether the Strathclyde Regional Council's view of the importance of the Citizen's Theatre will in any way be altered by the change that is proposed in the Bill. Nevertheless there are fears in this respect, and it may be that those who fear the change are more justified in having fears than I am in discounting them. The amendment will not change what is proposed in the Bill, other than by way of emphasising that the authority,
"shall contribute such sums as they shall decide …".
So I hope that the Minister will consider that the amendment can be accepted.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney can read the future, or whether before it took place he had in his mind the debate that we had a few minutes ago on the previous amendment. It may well be that in a bid for the Minister's support my noble friend accepts wholeheartedly that an authority is plural, since the amendment refers to what "they" may do, not what "it" may do. So I hope that this leaning towards the Government's side in the grammatical battle that we have had—and which we shall have again later—will mean that the Minister will be inclined to accept the amendment.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I hope that I am not going to embarrass my noble friend; for all I know, he might propose to accept the amendment. I am not as certain that the amendment is as meaningless or as ineffective as noble Lords opposite have suggested. Clearly, until the passing of the Bill, the function relating to leisure and recreation is a concurrent one for which both regions and districts have responsibility. I certainly do not propose to go to the stake in favour of the recommendations made in the report of my committee, but undoubtedly the burden of the report is that the responsibility, or—if I may adopt the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—the obligation, for leisure and recreation matters should pass to the district.
We have also stated quite specifically that the region has a permissive power to contribute. I may be quite wrong—and no doubt, if he were here, the former Solicitor-General would correct me, if necessary—but it seems to me that if there is placed upon the region a mandatory obligation, concurrency would
486
therefore still exist, if to a lesser degree, and, speaking personally, that is one thing that I would wish to avoid.
4.56 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am of course aware that fears have been expressed, in particular by theatres and theatre trusts, as to the financial future under the new arrangements. It was for that reason that Clause 17, which empowers regional councils to contribute to the provision or maintenance of leisure and recreation facilities or activities, has been drawn as widely as it has been drawn. In another place there was criticism of the original provision, and in consequence of that there is now no limitation on the powers to contribute, provided of course that the council wishes to do so.
As I have said, I am aware that there is concern lest facilities and activities which previously have depended on regional aid should in future be deprived of the aid and as a result get into financial difficulties. I can appreciate the motivation behind the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, to make it obligatory for regional councils to contribute, though I must point out to him that his amendment relates only to aid to district councils and not to other bodies.
As I think the noble Lord would realise, his amendment, if accepted, would not necessarily elicit any tangible financial assistance from regional councils. A regional council could solemnly determine a nil contribution, and in such instance the effect would be no different from that which would result from the Bill as at present drafted, under which it is for regional councils to determine what aid they give to others, whether they be district councils, as the noble Lord wishes, or voluntary bodies, or any other person. That can include, for instance, such bodies as the Scottish National Orchestra.
So I have to ask myself whether the amendment would achieve more than the Bill already provides. I have to answer, no, because the regional councils already have complete discretion. It is for them to decide what they want to do, and what they think their ratepayers would wish them to do. The attempt by the route of the amendment to make regional councils undertake a burden which they are perfectly free to undertake is to be slightly criticised because, as I have said, the discretion is complete and it is a matter for the regional councils. Therefore I am driven to the conclusion that the amendment would not improve the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston has hinted, I think that it would be mildly otiose because it would detract from the way in which we have reshaped the different jurisdictions and responsibilities of the regional and district authorities.
I therefore hope that this debate this afternoon will reassure, not only noble Lords in this House and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in particular, but, perhaps just as important, all those bodies in Scotland which, quite naturally, are very anxious as to their financial future and feel that this disturbance of the practices and organisation of local government may affect them adversely. As I say, I hope that this debate will reassure the noble Lord, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for this amendment, mainly because it gives us an opportunity of once again expressing the fears which have been relayed to us by certain authorities. I can think of the Lyceum Theatre Company in Edinburgh, the Citizen Theatre Company in Glasgow and the Borderline in Irvine, not to mention the others of more Scottish context and support, like the Scottish Orchestra, the Scottish Ballet and Scottish Opera. I think myself that probably the Government have gone as far as they can. Of course, the trouble is that the obligation rests upon one authority now, and it is just open to the other authority to contribute. The real danger at the present time, as I see it, is that, with local authorities being pressed by the Government in relation to their overall expenditure, too often the kind of expenditure which is sacrificed as a result of that pressure is money spent on something which may be of majority interest to some of us but which really is a minority interest. The cultural aspects of life are those which are shed first, and that, to my mind, is the real danger.
After all, we have the Government taking new powers to ensure that the local authority will not spend over a certain amount of money. Who is to say that, they not having been given the responsibility in respect of these activities—cultural, sporting, recreational and social facilities—the local authority will not be pressed by the Government to say that what they are spending there is unreasonable? The present local government financial atmosphere is the greatest thing shedding a gloom upon us so far as the future of many of these organisations are concerned.
But I trust that there will be recognition of the contribution that these organisations make, far beyond their district. If they were dependent upon the district they just would not be there. They depend upon people from the region, and even upon people from outside the region in which they are based. There are people from well wide of the Strathclyde Region or the Glasgow District who make visits to the Citizen Theatre in Glasgow. It may well be that the local authorities from which these people come have felt an obligation to contribute and to keep the thing alive. In respect of many other features not connected with local authority I know how much we are dependent on the support of local authorities not in the immediate area. I am thinking in this respect of the National Trust for Scotland, where, at a time like this, I should not like to see the interest of the local authorities disappearing.
I do not know that this amendment is any better than the ones we have tried before, but at least it gives us the opportunity to express the hope that regions as well as districts will recognise the need and the justification that there is for their further contributing to certain of these organisations which have done so much and struggled so much against financial adversity in keeping alive. I do not know what my noble friend intends to do. It may well be that he will decide, on balance, to withdraw his amendment; but that means, of course, inevitably, that we are left to the generosity of the regions in the future—and, indeed, in the first instance, to the acceptance of their obligations, their
488
duties, by the districts, and to their giving adequate support to these institutions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most gratful for what my noble friend has said. Perhaps it would not be out of order if I were to point out to the noble Earl the Minister that the difference drawn in the amendment between the district authority and all other organisations was indeed quite deliberate, and was in fact the main purpose of the amendment. On the other hand, what is proposed here is in no way a precept. The district council has no power to demand from the regional authority any particular sum. The local authority, as the noble Earl the the Minister quite correctly points out, could make a token contribution of £l, and that would be that. What was sought to be done here was to emphasise the importance of this type of grant in cultural activities, theatres, orchestras and so forth, so as to give the regional authority a greater sense of obligation in respect to a request for a grant coming from a district council than it would feel to the generality of such requests.
However, in view of what the noble Earl the Minister has said, in view also of what my noble friends have said from the Front Bench, and in the hope that what has been said here this afternoon will give assurance outside this House—it is not so important to assure me; it is, I think, very important to assure people who are engaged in the arts in Scotland—and in the hope that this assurance will be no mere figment but one of real substance, I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Re-allocation of responsibility for the enforcement of certain provisions of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956]:
5.7 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 1 on page 18 and insert ("In the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List, and perhaps I may be allowed to preface what I have to say by a few introductory words, because I am not ceratin that if I did not do so some of those present today would understand what I was talking about. This amendment concerns the distribution of functions between regions and districts in Scotland. It seeks to prevent change where change is neither demonstrably necessary nor demonstrably beneficial. It seeks to prevent the taking away of functions from the nine regions and handing them over to the 53 districts, as recommended by the Stodart Committee in paragraphs 157 to 169 of their otherwise excellent report—a recommendation which the Government have accepted and incorporated in the Bill in Clause 22.
The clause was debated in Committee in another place, and a Motion to leave it out entirely was defeated by eight votes to five—rather fewer than the numbers present in your Lordships' Chamber at the present time. This amendment was moved in Committee here

489
by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who regrets he cannot be with us today to support me. There was a 45-minute debate—a short debate in relation to the nature of the subject. Personally, I regretted the asbence of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who had shown on Second Reading an inclination to be against the proposal in the Bill. I am glad to see him here today, and I hasten to add that I would not for the world (or for the World Cup, if it conies to that) blame him in any way for missing the Committee stage, particularly as I missed it myself.
I have no interest to declare, though I have been for some years an honourary vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, of which the Society of Scottish Directors of Consumer Protection is a component. I think that is not particularly well-known south of the Border. The reorganisation of local government in Scotland under the Act of 1973 necessitated an allocation of functions as between the nine new regions and the 53 new districts. Section 158 of the Act divided the functions of local authorities under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, the principal Act dealing with inspection and enforcement in the field of food.
Under the 1973 Act, functions relating to composition, labelling and advertising of food were allocated to the regions. Functions relating to food hygiene at local level were allocated to the 53 districts. In other words, misdescription and adulteration came under the regions; contamination of food rendering it unfit for human consumption and dangerous to health came under the districts. In the Islands areas, the question of dividing responsibilities did not arise, as the authorities were all-purpose.
Clause 22 of the Bill proposes to transfer the composition, labelling and advertising functions from the regions to the districts so that the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act would all, or nearly all, be administered at one level—that is, by the local authority departments of health and hygiene. This is what the Stodart Committee recommended, saying in paragraph 165 of their report:
"We see considerable merit in concentrating as far as possible all functions under the 1956 Act on one authority"
They also put forward two other reasons which I venture to summarise as, first, the difficulties of demarcation of responsibilities which, in some cases (they use the poetic word) "intertwine"; and, second and much less convincingly, they said in Paragraph 164:
"it is arguable that, because of the public health implications of, in particular, sections 1 and 2 of the Act, they lend themselves to more effective enforcement by district councils in view of their other responsibilities for matters to do with health."
Your Lordships will note that the word used is "arguable". The committee did not state that as a self-evident fact or even as the opinion of the committee but as an arguable point of view.
I am bound to point out that these supposed advantages of concentrating all functions under the Food and Drugs Act on one authority must have been weighed in the balance against the division of functions that was made in 1973. The outcome then was the decision in favour of a division of functions for the very practical reasons given at the time by my right honourable friend Mr. Buchanan-Smith, now Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
490
and Food. Why was this change of attitude made? Is it that arrangements have not worked? The Stodart Committee said in Paragraph 166:
"The Scottish Home and Health Department did not make any major criticisms of the existing arrangements".
Is it wise to make a major change in the existing arrangements in the absence of any major criticism? Surely, the answer must be, no. Secondly, is it that there has been widespread criticism of the working of the arrangements, whether public criticism or in the press or broadcasting, or again from the trade and manufacturing interests concerned? Again, the answer is, no.
The consumer organisations—and I list them—the National Consumer Council, the Scottish Consumer Council, the National Federation of Consumer Groups and also the Consumers' Association are all against the proposed change. As for the trade and manufacturing interests—the CBI, the Retail Consortium, the Food Manufacturers' Federation, the Food and Drinks Industry Council—they, too, are against the proposed change. The only bodies in favour are those who stand to gain from the change—namely, the district councils and the Scottish Institute of Environmental Health.
It seems as if the Government consider it a dangerous threat, which should be resisted at all costs, when industry, trade and the public share the same views as to where their interests lie; and in this case their interest lies in maintaining the status quo. We have heard of the man in Whitehall knowing best; now we have the Scottish Office knowing even better. Let me make it quite clear that I do not wish to say anything disparaging of the efficiency of the health and hygiene inspectors. I do not doubt that they could do the job being done by trading standards departments. What is in doubt is whether they could do it better and more economically—and, of course, one has to bear in mind that there will be transitional hazards. I suggest strongly that, unless it can be shown incontrovertibly that they will do it better if this clause is passed by your Lordships, there is no case for change.
In making the decision in 1973, the Government took into account developments which had taken place since 1956, when the Food and Drugs Act was passed—and it was largely a consolidation Act—and also tendencies which were manifest at that time. Among those developments was the marked growth in prepacked food and convenience products coupled with a tendency towards self-service in retail outlets both large and small. Under new weights and measures legislation in 1963, many products had to be sold in specified quantities. There really was a veritable revolution in the retail trade in progress at that time.
The counterpart of this change in the manufacturing, packing, distribution and marketing field was that more and more of the control over products, packing and labelling (including indications of quality, quantity and composition) was being conducted at factories and packing stations—in other words, the control was not truly local—rather than at retail level. Food manufacturers became more and more accustomed to seeking guidance from trading standards authorities before they launched a new product or adopted a new packing.
By the end of 1973 we were about to be confronted with a spate of regulations and directives from the EEC—for example, the recent change from net weight

491
of contents to average weight, measured at the factory and the packing station by the trading standards authorities' inspectors, who are able to control contents, composition and labelling during the same visits of inspection. There is no wonder that the Stodart Committee—and I quote:
"took the point that the fewer the authorities involved the easier to achieve a uniform approach to food standards".
They did not follow that through by acknowledging that higher food standards mean higher health standards, providing that the higher food standards are effectively and efficiently enforced, as they are at present. The same tendency towards more concentration of effort was evident in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
I am trying to give the reasons why the decision that was reached in 1973 was reached. That trade Descriptions Act was a United Kingdom Act which prohibited misdescriptions in the course of selling any goods, including food. A major and far-reaching decisions was taken in regard to enforcement. The decision that was taken at that time was to confer on the weights and measures inspectors the responsibility for enforcement.
What happened was that a conscious and very far-reaching decision was taken to concentrate all the enforcement responsibilities of local authorities into one large, highly skilled professional organisation called in most cases the trading standards organisation, or consumer trading standards administration, and in some cases the consumer protection department. The Stodart Committee said that they appreciated the need for uniformity in the administration and in the interpretation of the statutes and regulations. During the passage of the Trade Descriptions Act through this House doubt was expressed about the likelihood of achieving a uniform approach and of avoiding conflicting judgments up and down the United Kingdom. It is greatly to the credit of the regional authorities and of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration that they have co-operated to achieve a large measure of uniformity. The Institute of Trading Standards Administration have developed a confidential information service to which all authorities contribute and on which all can draw.
I see the Chief Whip looking puzzled. But I have some things that I feel that I have to say and get on the record. I hope that they are of interest to noble Lords. I shall try to curtail my speech as much as I possibly can.
In addition to that, local associations in the United Kingdom have set up a co-ordinating body on trading standards, known as LACOTS, to which trade associations can refer specific inquiries with confidence that the answer will be accepted by the enforcement authorities. LACOTS have regional panels, one of which has already been established in Scotland to monitor the administration of legislation covering food, agriculture and medicines.
There is great value in having in each region one large department handling all trading standards functions. In this way, both consumers and businessmen know where to go for advice and guidance on matters affecting composition, labelling and advertising. There is no doubt at all that this would not be so easy to run if Clause 22 were allowed to stand in the
492
Bill. Above all, there is the advantage of having a sizeable staff of trading standards officers with a professional qualification, the Diploma in Trading Standards, gained through training on the job, passing a common examination covering a wide range of enforcement duties. The training and experience fully covers food and drugs law enforcement and product testing and analysis. It is the width and scope of experience and enforcement in many fields that counts.
Naturally, changes have taken place since 1973. But the point is that these strongly reinforce the reasons given by my right honourable friend Mr. Buchanan-Smith on behalf of the Government for the decision taken in 1973 to entrust the food composition, labelling and advertising provisions to the regions. They amply justify his foresight.
May I remind your Lordships what he said at that time, speaking for the Government in the Scottish Grand Committee:
"The food composition, standards and labelling provisions are complex and they, I think, quite fairly reflect national and, indeed, in some cases international codes. Enforcement, which must as far as possible he uniform when one is talking about these national and international codes, requires a considerable degree of specialised knowledge and is akin to consumer protection rather than to public health."
That was the principle. He went on:
"Today food manufacture, supply and advertising is essentially a large-scale operation usually conducted over an area wider than that of a single local authority. The enforcement of the provisions by regional and islands councils, as is provided for in Clause 158—that is, by councils which we believe are large enough to employ the specialised staff required for this task—should contribute to an all-round uniformity …".
I repeat the words:
"Enforcement … is akin to consumer protection rather than to public health."
What on earth induced the Stodart Committee to come to the opposite conclusion? Why have the Government endorsed this retrograde recommendation? No positive reasons have been given—only a few moans about duplication and overlapping that surely do not need a major legislative change to pacify.
I hope that my noble friend can give us some—or at least one—such positive reason this afternoon. If he cannot, I hope that he will accept this amendment. If he will not even do that, will my noble friend give an undertaking not to activate the clause until further inquiry is held? He talks about monitoring, but what is the good of monitoring once the change has been made? The chances of it being reversed later are about 99 to 1. Will he set up an inquiry?
In the meantime, may I point out what the Stodart Committee said in their introduction:
"The relatively short period allowed to us for making our own report meant … that it was virtually impossible to commission any independent research in real depth on issues where further information could have been very valuable".
Here was such as issue. All my noble friend need do is to introduce on Third Reading a new subsection to Clause 22, or for that matter into Clause 63, bringing the clause into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may by order provide, and then as soon as possible cause an inquiry to be held by an independent person, such as an advocate or an independent expert. If the inquiry comes down on the side of leaving things as they are, then I hope there will be no question about

493
accepting the result of that inquiry. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. I spoke at length on Second Reading and at Committee stage and I shall not trouble your Lordship with repeating all that I had to say. It seems to me that one can but endorse what my noble friend said. This is a clear-cut position in which the Stodart Committee—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Stodart will agree—now appear not to have been as fully informed about all aspects of it as have later come to light—as I brought to your Lordships' attention principally at Second Reading. It would seem therefore that my noble friend's suggestion, that if the Government cannot accept that the status quo would be the best solution and the fact in this particular case that the subsequent evidence confirmed that the region really is the best place for this function, perhaps they could make sure that there is a further inquiry to ensure that there is proper and full information on all aspects of the case. I do not think that there is much point in saying more. I hope that my noble friend will be agreeable to those alternatives.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given the whole story. This is a case of something which is working perfectly well. It could go on working perfectly well and does not require to be changed. The Stodart Committee—admirable as many of its recommendations are—had not the time to go into this, and they say so in the report. Nobody wants to change. I am speaking as someone who has a quite close association with the Consumers' Associations in England and Scotland. I know they feel very strongly about this, and it would be much better if the Government were to be wise enough and broadminded enough to realise that this is something people do feel very strongly about. It is not necessary. It will multiply enormously the number of people engaged on the bureaucratic side. That is one of the things that we on this side of the House stand for trying to prevent. We are in favour of doing away with as much bureaucracy as we can. This is an opportunity to do that, and I hope that the Government will take this opportunity and heed the advice of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, again I rise with some trepidation. Your Lordships were extremely patient with me at the Committee stage. I shall not detain your Lordships long because I am well aware that I must not be guilty of repeating what I said at Committee stage. All I would say about what I said then, in the light of the remarks made by my noble friends about evidence that has come out since the report, is that we have heard nothing said during the Committee stage, nor have I read of it as having been said in the other place, of which we were not fully aware when we wrote our report, in which we came to a unanimous conclusion.
What I should like to tell your Lordships, because it may be of interest, is the position that my committee found when we were examining how the powers of the 1956 Food and Drugs Act had been distributed under
494
Section 158 of the 1973 Act. That may not be fully known even to some of my noble friends. I think only one section number is given in the Bill we are now discussing, and only four—the regional ones—are mentioned in my report; and I hope that, having told your Lordships of the difficulties that we faced, my committee and I might receive a little more sympathy and, if I may say so, a little less scorn from my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
What we found was that four duties that existed in the 1956 Act had been placed on the regions and islands and 12 duties had been placed on the regions and again on the islands. As a result, of course, the island authorities do the whole lot, which shows that there is no argument or difficulty about expertise. It is irrelevant, in my view, for the purpose of this debate, to list all the district functions—all 12—which included such things as the supervision of slaughtering, the registration of manufacturers and traders and the regulations concerning the sale of horsemeat. The spotlight is really on the four functions which were given to the regions, and we remarked that we felt the functions had become somewhat intertwined with some of the district ones.
Perhaps I may explain what we meant. We found, for example, that one of the four regional functions was to see that any substance which resembled cream but which was not cream must not be sold as cream. "Reconstituted cream" and "imitation cream" were defined. That was very good; but then given to the districts was the duty or obligation of seeing that no water or colouring matter or dried or condensed milk should be added to milk intended for sale. We found it quite extraordinary that one authority should be responsible for cream and another one responsible for milk.
We then come to the contentious matters, and I fully accept them. The other duties that were given to the regions, if I may just paraphrase them, were that they must see that nothing was added to food or abstracted from food which renders food harmful. We asked ourselves, if food is harmful, is it unfit for human consumption?—because, if it is, that is a function for which the districts are responsible. Food must not be sold which is not of a substance or quality demanded by the purchaser. That is a regional function. Labels or adverisements must not give false or misleading descriptions of food.
When one found that to the districts the functions were that no food was to be sold or exposed for sale if it was unfit for human consumption, one has surely got a very considerable intertwining there—that food suspected of being unfit for human consumption was to be examined and seized by the district either on exposure or in the course of delivery; and food must not be sold or moved if the medical officer might suspect it could cause food poisoning. And of course, the district do the inspection of food that is imported into their particular area.
I do accept that the regions will still be involved as the watchdogs over such things as weights and measures, but the latter, of course, did not come under the umbrella of the 1956 Food and Drugs Act and I still think that on balance—and this is a matter of balance—it was not a bad thing to tidy up the functions which were allocated under that one statute to two

495
different authorities and to have them operated by one.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he not agree that he took no evidence from the food manufacturers' organisations who could have clarified for him the misapprehensions I have just heard him giving us in his speech?
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend may be correct, without my going through all the papers. We saw no point in taking oral evidence, as I said on Committee stage, from those who had submitted excellent papers in writing. I think that is a matter of practical common sense. But what I do repeat, whether or not my noble friend is right, is that nothing he has said and nothing that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has told me anything that my committee or I did not already know. I repeat that it came to a unanimous conclusion, and on it there sat members of regional councils and the head of the leading supermarket chain in Scotland.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, if I may, I should like to echo the opening comment of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, that he intervened in this debate with trepidation. I do so with even more trepidation but I do so for a reason which is totally different from the noble Lord's reasons. He referred to the district function in relation to the sale of food unfit for human consumption. Some noble Lords may remember—and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will—when I spoke rather strongly recently in support of a Private Member's Bill which was directed towards an aspect of consumer protection in that it increased the penalties for the sale of unfit food.
I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I should like to ask the question: how far does his amendment affect the extremely important and fundamental question of protecting the public from the sale of unfit food? I have heard it said that the status quo is what we want in this matter, and that, therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, should be accepted. I am raising this matter only in relation to the question of unfit food and consumer protection. Will this amendment strengthen, in any way, the powers of the district, the region or whatever it is called in Scotland—I am sorry, but I do not know much about Scottish affairs, as is obvious—and will it affect the protection of the consumer against the sale of unfit food?
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already pointed out, this matter has exercised both the other place and your Lordships' House on a number of occasions, and I think that the areas of debate are fairly well defined. I shall not go into all the avenues which we explored in Committee, because most of the points are fairly well known. But I think that I should encapsulate my arguments in small compass, because it is something which exercises the minds of a number of your Lordships.
496
I should first point out what we are actually doing. What we are doing is to give the function of enforcing food composition standards and labelling, under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, back to the environmental health departments, which continued to exercise all the food hygiene and safety functions under the 1956 Act till 1975. So we are bringing back what existed before the 1973 Act took effect. Secondly, we are taking this step following the recommendations of the Stodart Committee, and the longer this debate has gone on the more convinced are the Government—and this applies equally to colleagues in another place—that that committee (and my noble friend can cover his ears, if he likes) set about its task and went into the question fully.
It did not have oral evidence directly from the food manufacturers, but it had evidence from the Institute of Trading Standards Administrators and Directors of Consumer Protection. It had a lot of material upon which to base its conclusions and, as my noble friend has pointed out—and, after all, he was chairman of the committee—he has heard no points since his committee sat which are new, and all of those points were fully considered by his committee.
So if I criticise the remarks of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn—and I do not wish to do so—I do not think one can cavalierly dismiss the conclusions to which the Stodart Committee came. As my noble friend has pointed out, it had on it four regional representatives and a number of other highly distinguished people in this field. The Wheatley Report, of which mention has been made, made no recommendation on the subject, other than to suggest that all environmental health subjects should go together, and these functions were given to regions by the 1973 Act, as I have already said.
The aim, as I think I said in Committee, was to help build up the new departments of consumer protection in the new authorities, and they now operate effectively. But the enforcement of milk legislation was left with environmental health departments, and they were given joint enforcement powers where there was extraneous material in the composition of food. I think it is worthy of note that, at that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in his then capacity, thought that the functions could quite well have gone to environmental health departments in the districts. So this is something about which there has been a debate for a good number of years.
Therefore, in the new arrangements, we have the assurance of staff with experience, we have the assurance of the considered recommendations of the committee and, we have the fact that the key technical work, the sampling, is, in any event, carried out by the public analysts who already carry out work for both regions and districts. Furthermore, of course, this is not something which is totally novel, because, as my noble friend Lady Elliot will know, the Borders region, which is her area, has delegated these functions to districts.
We now come to post-Stodart. We have had the assurance of detailed consideration not only in this House, but, before that, going back to the beginning of 1981, and, indeed, having two stages. The first asked for comments on the report, and my right honourable friend made his decision in June, 1981. The second

497
was a reconsideration of the position between June and November, 1981, when the Bill was published. I acknowledge that the Food Manufacturers' Federation have written to me to point out that their comments were made after the Secretary of State's decision in June. But I have assured them, in turn, that their representations, which were first made at that late stage, and those from other bodies were considered by the Secretary of State before the Bill was published, and their representations and thoughts have been much considered in argument and debate since.
So the key point is whether the subject is one for food and drugs or consumer protection. My noble friend's committee, and the Government, take the view that the subject is best returned to the food and drugs work carried out by environmental health departments. This will eliminate some uncertainty and overlap, and it should achieve a strengthening integration of these subjects which should primarily be protection of health functions. Just because we are used to high standards in this area of food safety, does not mean that we should take them for granted.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn might care to reflect on whether when in his youth he was travelling about in the Middle East developing British commercial interests, he bought food, his prime interest was in the precise weight and value of the food he purchased, or in whether it was safe to eat and what effect it might have on him. I acknowledge that it is quite true that these changes which we propose in the Bill will result in some overlaps on the weights and measures side. There always will be overlaps, but the Bill will remove the main overlap by ensuring that food law is all dealt with by one local department with existing roots, experience and contacts and greater accessibility, particularly in the more rural areas.
It has been said that the transfer is illogical, but, looking at the perspective in which food standards and composition are presently set, is it not more illogical to leave them where they are? Section 1 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, by requiring that food shall not be injurious to health, sets the tone for the whole Act. Set alongside regional functions connected with quality and quantity control of equipment, hallmarking, fertilisers, petroleum and explosives licences and price and credit control, I suggest that food functions seem out of place. On the other hand, if one takes the responsibilities of the districts for such things as sanitation, atmospheric pollution, rodent control, food hygiene, safety of milk and ice-cream and port health functions, I suggest that there is a much greater degree of compatibility with these food functions.
There is the argument about uniformity being more difficult because there are many more district authorities than there are regional authorities, but co-operation is already there in environmental health departments in other subjects. There is GB machinery for cooperation into which the environmental health departments intend to slot. They are represented on the European Food Law Group. There will be refresher training of their staff. The two professional organisations, the Scottish Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal Sanitary Association of Scotland, intend in any event to merge to form one very powerful body, and the directors are very willing to enter into
498
consultation with the trade to iron out any possible difficulties before they arise.
In conclusion, I have to say that I still think that what is proposed in the Bill is the right way to proceed. The history of the matter, the investigation by my noble friend's committee and the weight of argument on the health side, the keenness and the organisation of the districts and their officers and the existing machinery for consideration all point to a straight-forward transfer of what is in effect a fairly modest function.
Yesterday my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn rang up my department. Unfortunately, I was out, but I was able to consider some of his points with my officials, particularly the last point he made in his speech concerning the moment when these proposals would come into effect under Clause 68 and what we could do meantime. I say to him that under Clause 68 there is complete flexibility. The commencing days may be made by statutory instrument and there may be different commencing days for different clauses of the Bill.
At this very late stage and bearing in mind the full debates and discussions which we have had, I think that the time is past for any formal inquiry—if that was the noble Lord's thinking. But what I am prepared to do, and I am very happy to give this undertaking, is this. Between now and the making of a commencement order—which, as I have said, is flexible—we shall be very ready to consider any representations of substance which include previously unconsidered matters, and we shall be very happy to consider details of real practical difficulties. If something comes to light, we shall give it the time that is required, and if there has to be a delay about laying an order in respect of this particular clause, or section as it will be then, I give the undertaking that we shall have that delay so that we allow as much time as is necessary to get things right before the actual commencing date takes place.
With that undertaking, which I think is very nearly what my noble friend was asking for, I hope he will see that the Government have given prolonged and anxious consideration to all the matters which he and my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, have raised this afternoon. I hope he will feel that, while the Government have, as it were, remained faithful to Stodart, they have done so for reasons which are genuine and, I would say, cogent. After the assurances which I have been able to give him, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I was not here at the Committee stage, so I was denied the opportunity to allow my noble friend Lord Stodart—I do not think he will mind me calling him that—to quote what I said in 1972. I apologise to him for that. I am sure that he spent a long time trying to find out how what I said then is in conflict with whatever I might say now.
People have spoken about handing back to districts or to departments. Let me remind them that they are doing nothing of the kind. New regions and districts were created when the 1973 Act came into being. Handing back is not the point. The point is that we are going back on a decision that related to the functions

499
of three new sets of local authorities. When all the departments were being created anew, I argued that this should go to the districts.
It is ten years since I made that speech. Since 1973 we have had experience of the new position, and I do not think that a case has been made out for the Stodart Committee's proposal. I am very glad to see that paragraph 166 said:
"The Scottish Home and Health Department did not make any major criticism of the existing arrangements".
Even though I said something different as to what the arrangements should be, the existing arrangements have been in being from 1974 until 1982. They have worked well and I do not think that sufficient justification has been put forward for this retrogressive step. It would be far better to leave it alone. You do not do things unless you have really got to do them. In the case of concurrent functions, there was a certain measure of intertwining and overlapping, but both Stodart and the Minister have said that there will still be that. With new departments and officers having been created, our experience of the reorganisation of local government has not been all that good. It would be far better to leave things as they are.
The Minister made the point—so did Lord Stodart, I think—that there were a number of regional councillors on the Stodart Committee. I have had a look at the composition of the committee. There were far more district councillors. One of them made his maiden speech yesterday in the House of Commons. It might have been better if we had kept this back, for he might have been able to enlighten us about his feelings concerning this matter. This was Provost Tom Clarke, who had a very distinguished victory a short time ago at Coatbridge and Airdrie.
My feeling is that it is working well, so why interfere with it? I must also confess that if the speech made from this Bench had been made by my noble friend Lord Hughes, he would have said the very opposite. Our counsels are divided on this.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to what would have been said if I had made the speech. The only thing wrong with that is the tense, because I am going to make the speech. He knows perfectly well from the discussions which we had both before the debate and today that I do not agree with him, so whatever else I may be accused of I certainly cannot be accused of cowardice. It is a bold man who disagrees with my noble friend, particularly when he is sitting on the same Bench. If my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is here, he will not be supporting me because he has already enunciated the doctrine that anything my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock says is automatically correct, so on that basis I am "out" again.
I do not intend to make a long speech because I expressed views on this point at Second Reading. I support what is in the Bill. I was surprised at some of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I was equally surprised that they were repeated in almost the same way by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked why should there be change, and questioned whether there was widespread criticism of the way things are
500
working now. That is a reasonable enough basis, but when the 1973 Act was passed and it was decided to change things from the sanitary inspectors—as I believe they were still known, and he is the same creature as the environmental health officer—it was not done because there was widespread criticism of the way in which the job was being carried out then. So that is no argument against changing now—because there was no criticism—if it was not an argument against changing when the original change was made.
The second point on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is where he said that no doubt the job would be done quite well if it went to the district council. That is a perfectly fair statement. He then went on to ask, would it be done better if it was transferred to the district council, or would it be done more economically? Many things have been said about regional councils since the Act was passed in 1973, but I doubt whether there are many ratepayers who would say that regional councils have been economical. I doubt very much whether the shifting of this function from one authority to the other would give an increase in expense. I do not believe that the authorities will need any more staff to do the job than they have at the present time. I am pretty certain that the regional councils will not dismiss any staff because their main emphasis, as has been stated, has been on protecting the consumers' pocket. I thought that the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about the movements of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in the Middle East, and whether he ought to have been more interested in the price and weight of the food or whether it was safe to eat, shows the difference between what the region is doing and what the district council is doing in their respective functions.
If the matter which is most important is protecting the health of the individual, it will be best protected near to the individual—and that is in the number of district authorities which exist. As to capacities, surely no one would suggest that the Western Islands Council is more capable of undertaking that than, say, Edinburgh District Council or Glasgow District Council? Yet because they are all-purpose authorities, they have these departments at the present time, as they are in Orkney and in Shetland. So size is not necessarily the determination of how the job can be done efficiently.
My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said that it was not a case of returning this power because it was borough councils which had it before and they no longer exist: that it is a totally new organisation, with district councils on the one hand and regional and islands councils on the other. But what did not alter at that time were the people who were doing the job. The bulk of the people who were undertaking that function are the class of people who are still employed by the district councils and not by tile regional councils. Under the Bill, the work will be done by those people who have expertise in looking after health and so on. I do not believe there is any political argument on this, and the only reason for saying what I said at Committee stage was to make it perfectly clear that there is no political point of view on this matter on this side of the House either.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, we seem to be agreed on both sides of the House to disagree with our own sides. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Mansfield for his reply, and I recognise that, in the circumstances, possibly he has gone as far as he can. I believe that the Institute of Trading Standards Authorities and its Scottish counterpart will probably take advantage of his offer. I find it difficult to answer some of the points which have been made without reopening the whole debate, and I am quite certain that your Lordships would not wish me to do that.
My noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston felt he would have welcomed more sympathy towards his committee than I appeared to show. I have every sympathy with his committee because they did not have time to do the job. This is exactly what my argument has been throughout. If your Lordships will look through the list showing the amount of oral evidence, you will find hardly any at all on this subject. I am asking for a proper inquiry and lots of time. I am in no doubt that I have not said anything this afternoon which my noble friend has not heard before. It would be quite astonishing if he had not heard the major economic argument and, for that matter, the health argument that I put to him. The fact remains that since redistribution in 1973, the tendency for more and more control to be exercised at higher and higher levels is one that is very difficult to rebut when one is considering where the questions of composition, trading, advertising and so on are to be controlled. This seems to me to be a cardinal point.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I too am against upsetting things which seem to be going well. I am sorry if I have offended my noble friend because that is far from what I wanted to do, but I think he went a little far in saying that I showed scorn. I showed no scorn at all; it is simply that he did not have time to do the job. He said so, and he said so at Committee stage too the implication of what he said was just that. As I have said from the outset, I think that he did an admirable job, except in this particular case.
I recognise that the conclusion of my noble friend's committee was a unanimous one, but we all know how these things go. There is often a strong emphasis on achieving a consensus—and there has been some criticism of this in your Lordships' House recently—and also, perhaps, there is a tendency to look for recommendations which will stand up when they are put down, so to speak, and this may have influenced unanimity in the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked a question about protecting the public from unfit food. I believe he had a copy of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act in his hand at the time. It is not for me to dilate on this, but the provisions dealing with food which is unfit for human consumption are contained in Clause 8 onwards, which are already the district councils' responsibilities. The earlier part deals with the sale of goods. Clause 8 states:
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who—

(a) sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale; or

(b) deposits with, or consigns to, any person for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale,

any food intended for, but unfit for, human consumption shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
502
This is a matter which relates back to the days before the Food and Drugs Acts were consolidated, when so much of the food both in Scotland and in the Middle East was open to the flies and all the rest of it. The responsibility that was placed on the district council was the responsibility to avoid contamination. The responsibility on the regional council was to avoid adulteration. That was the principal distinction. The adulteration now takes place at the level of the factory and packing to a far greater extent than it did before, when it was common enough to put sand in sugar and all the rest of it. I hope that answers that point.
I do not think I will follow up what was said about the Middle East because I have made that very important distinction. Incidentally, it was the person himself who had to look after his health in those days rather than the local authorities. I would simply close by saying that I cannot recommend your Lordships to divide on this matter, not because I do not feel strongly about it. I would add that, quite naturally, the Institute of Trading Standards feel strongly about it because they consider they have not had a fair deal. It is not the fault of my noble friends. There just was not the time. It would not really make sense. It is unlikely that we would win this Division with the proportion of noble Lords present in the Chamber. And even if we did, I feel absolutely certain it would get put back in the other place, so it is not worth the trouble of dividing against it. But I am grateful for the distance to which my noble friend has gone, and, in the light of that, I think it would be ungracious of me to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Consequential transfer of officers of local authorities]:
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 22, line 34, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall just touch on this amendment and also Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. I have been thinking whether we are going to continue to be gloriously inconsistent or whether we should, as it were, give effect to the obvious desire of the House for what it considers to be better English, as opposed to the law, which really ought to be more precise. I have considered the matter. I think I must go back and satisfy myself that in showing this delightful inconsistency the House is not going to put something into the Bill which it might afterwards regret. So, with the possible threat of coming back to this matter on Third Reading, I will not now move these four amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
"Power of local authority to incur expenditure for certain purposes not otherwise authorised.
. In section 83 of the 1973 Act (which gives local authorities' power to incur expenditure for certain purposes not otherwise

503
authorised, but limits the expenditure which it authorises)—

(a) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—

"(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the power of a local authority to incur expenditure under that subsection includes power to incur expenditure in giving financial assistance to persons carrying on commercial or industrial undertakings.

(2B) Financial assistance under subsection (2A) above may be given by lending or guarantee, or by making grants.";

(b) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4)—

"(4A) For the purpose of determining whether a local authority have exceeded the limit set out in subsection (4) above, their expenditure in any financial year under this section shall be taken to be the difference between their gross expenditure under this section for that year and the aggregate of the amounts specified in subsection (4B) below.

(4B) The amounts mentioned in subsection (4A) above are—

(a) any grant paid to the local authority for that year under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969, in so far as the grant is in respect of an activity in relation to which the authority have incurred expenditure in that year under this section;

(b) the amount of any repayment in that year of the principal of a loan for the purpose of financing expenditure under this section in any year;

(c) so much of any amount raised by public subscription as is spent in that year for a purpose for which the authority are authorised by this section to incur expenditure;

(d) any grant received by the authority for that year out of the European Regional Development Fund or the Social Fund of the European Economic Community, in so far as the grant is in respect of an activity in relation to which the authority incurred expenditure in that year under this section;

(e) the amount of any repayment in that year of a loan under this section made by the authority in any year; and

(f) the amount of any expenditure—

(i) which is incurred by the authority in that year in circumstances specified in an order made by the Secretary of State; or

(ii) which is incurred by the authority in that year and is of a description so specified; or

(iii) which is defrayed by any grant or other payment to the authority which is made in or in respect of that year and is of a description so specified."; and

(c) in subsection (5), for the words "subsection (4) above "there shall he substituted the words "this section"."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that we had a debate in Committee on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, who I am sorry is not in his place, moved a very similar amendment, and withdrew it eventually on my assurance that we had the objects of his amendment under urgent and sympathetic consideration, and that I would look at the drafting of his amendment and bring forward an appropriate provision at Report. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have confirmed that the amendment is desirable, and minimal adjustments only had to be made to the drafting. In fact the new clause proposed in this amendment is, except for the side title, identical to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in Committee.
The effect will be to make it absolutely clear to local authorities that Section 83 can be used to assist financially persons carrying on industrial and commercial undertakings, and, secondly, to clarify that the limit
504
on the total expenditure incurred under this provision in any financial year is the product of a rate of 2p in the pound calculated net of certain items which are specified in the amendment.
The need for amendment of Clause 83 on the lines now proposed was suggested to the Secretary of State by several Scottish local authorities and in particular by the Convenor of Strathclyde Regional Council, when my right honourable friend last met the convention. The amendment reflects similar amendments made to the corresponding provision for England and Wales in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking which he gave at the last stage of the Bill. I have gone through the amendment and compared it with that which was moved by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie in Committee. As the noble Earl has said, this one is identical, with just a few minor drafting amendments. If I may give as an example the very first one that occurs, in the amendment as my noble friend put it forward, the 1973 Act was given its full title and, in the amendment as it stands, it is just described as the 1973 Act, because in the interpretation clause the 1973 Act is explained. So there is a saving in language. That is the sort of alteration which has been made.
I am also glad that in moving the new clause the Minister referred to the fact that this had originated with the local authorities concerned. I should like particularly to express thanks to the Strathclyde Regional Council, because it was they who noticed at a very late stage in the proceedings that the Bill did not contain the alteration which had been made to the English Bill in similar circumstances. So between them this somewhat unlikely combination of the Strathclyde Region and the Scottish Office have produced this very desirable clause, which I have much pleasure in supporting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Limitation on payment which may be required of persons exercising right to purchase under Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980]:
6.19 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 35, line 40, at end insert—
("(3) In section 4 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (regarding the conditions of sale), for subsections (7) to (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(7) In a rural area to which an Order under subsection (6) above applies, there will be no further disposal of the dwelling-house unless—

(a) the tenant (or his successor in title) has offered to reconvey the dewlling-house to the landlord for a price to be determined by the district valuer as being the value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer is made; and

(b) the landlord has refused the offer or has failed to accept it within one month after it was made".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my remarks will be devoted to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. These were amendments which I withdrew at the last stage and I said then that they would be re-tabled. But just as the noble Lord, Lord

505
Drumalbyn, on an earlier amendment said that he did not propose to divide the House, at this stage I am in that same position so far as these amendments are concerned.
I personally hold views in relation to the sale of houses which are not universally held by people in local government, or even in new town development corporations. My disagreement with what is being done is not concerned with the principle but with the extent to which it is carried out. There are two things particularly that I do not like. I do not like the possibility that all houses in a particular area may be sold. I think there ought to have been some provision for maintaining a balance between houses for sale and houses to rent.
The second matter I do not like concerns the question of the authorities being compelled to provide finance. This is rather important in relation to both amendments. I know from experience that last year, for instance, approximately four-fifths of the money which was seized from the sale of houses to sitting tenants went back in loans to those tenants, and what was left as being available for the building of new houses was such that somewhere between five and 10 houses had to be sold to provide sufficient remaining money to build one house. These two particular categories—houses in rural areas which have been available for renting, and houses which are primarily adapted for disabled people or which, in relation to their vicinity, are particularly suitable for elderly people—are ones for which it would be most undesirable to have no provision of this kind made. If there are a comparatively few houses and they all find themselves in owner occupation, then authorities will be compelled to go on building more houses of this kind.
The two amendments suggest that there should be no further sale of houses of that kind unless the tenant who is exercising his option undertakes to give the authority the chance to acquire the house if he decides to sell it—acquire it not at the price which he paid for it, or even at the updated value of what he paid for it, but at the market value then prevailing. If the authority decides not to take it or—to go further—if it has failed to exercise the right to acquire it within one month, then the sale can go ahead. It gives the opportunity—if the Government were to accept it—in the comparatively small number of cases, for there to be the possibility of houses reverting to the ownership of the local authorities, so that they are available to the people who are on their waiting lists for these particular classes of houses.
The case for the amendment is exceedingly good, but I am in no doubt at all that the Government will not accept it because they are so tied to the idea that houses must be sold and, having been sold, must remain sold, that this flies totally in the face of their wishes in the matter. But it seemed to me, having tabled the amendments in the first place, that it would be wrong not to explain what would arise if these amendments were accepted by the Government. I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, feels so pessimistic about the chances of these two amendments. He will know that we on these Benches have always supported him
506
in this matter and, indeed, when the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill was before your Lordships' House, we fought for the retention of a certain number of specialised houses by local authorities so that they were able to discharge what is their undoubted duty.
It is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that it will become increasingly difficult for local authorities to discharge their duty in providing houses of the specialised type, such as, old people's houses, houses for the disabled, houses for the elderly who require attention and so on, it these houses are to be exposed to the possibility of purchase. This is especially true in rural areas; and it is expecially true in the remoter parts of Scotland. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that this will not receive even a smile from the Government Front Bench. Nevertheless, if there is any hope, I would plead with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to accept—or to give some hope of accepting—these amendments. If he will not do so, I can only applaud the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his friends for bringing them before your Lordships' House.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, once again the noble Lords, Lord Hughes, has spoken briefly but cogently to both Amendments 14 snd 15 and I shall do the same. As noble Lords have said, the matter of the sale of council houses was one which we debated at very considerable length when the Tenants' Rights Bill—as it then was—went through your Lordships' House in 1980.
The amendments apply both to sales of councils houses in rural areas and also to houses in respect of the elderly or disabled. So far as rural housing is concerned, of course we are now in a different situation from that which we were in in 1980, because in 1980 we had to speculate about the possible effects of the legislation. Now the Act has been in operation for 21 months and we have had hard evidence by which to judge its effects. In the circumstances the onus must be on those who want to change the provisions of the 1980 Act, to show that problems have arisen in practice, that the existing legislation is unable or inadequate to deal with those problems, and that therefore there should be a change in the Act. The Government have received no such representations since the Act came into effect which would suggest that there have been problems either in relation to sales in rural areas in general or in relation to the specific issue of second homes, which your Lordships may recall was one of the matters which came to light. Noble Lords this evening have not been able to produce any such evidence, either.
Therefore, I think that the House has to conclude that unless there is something which would cause the Government to reconsider their policy, the Government are at least entitled—whether noble Lords opposite like the policy or not—to pursue their policy unless and until evidence that they should make some sort of reconsideration becomes, as it were, cogent and present.
I do not want to go over the old ground as to the effects of a sale on the stock of houses in the non-rural areas. We did have an independent study of second homes which was completed in 1977. It was called

507
Second Homes in Scotland and it was prepared by the Dartington Amenity Research Trust. It indicated that there had been no net growth in the number of second homes in Scotland in the previous five years, and that state of affairs remains valid today. I submit that the presumption in Scotland is, therefore, that a second homes problem related to the sale of council houses is unlikely to arise. That presumption is so far borne out by experience. It follows, therefore, that special powers should only be available where there is evidence of the emergence of a second homes problem and that is, therefore, where we part company with the amendment.
I remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State may allow a local authority to apply a 10-year preemption condition to council house sales in its area, or in some part of its area, if there is evidence of council houses being resold as second homes. The amendment would remove that requirement from the Secretary of State. In other words, he would not have to be furnished with such evidence, and so there would be no criteria governing the Secretary of State's use of the power, and that I think would be wholly wrong. Therefore, I do not see that there is any case that has been made out for Amendment No. 14.
On Amendment No. 15, again, this is an area which has been extensively debated—I could say exhaustively debated. On at least two occasions the House decided on a Division that elderly and disabled tenants should not be deprived of the same rights as other tenants. That is a principle to which I stick. We have now had 21 months' experience of the legislation in operation. Again, there has been no evidence that the existing legislation is in any way in adequate. We have received no representations on this broad issue from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities since the Tenants' Rights (Amendment) Act—which, as your Lordships may remember, dealt directly with this area of policy—came into effect.
So the legislation as it stands was carefully thought out. It was very thoroughly debated and, so far as I know—and noble Lords have not furnished the House with any evidence to the contrary this afternoon—the Act is working well. In those circumstances, I could not possibly advise the House to accept this amendment. Quite frankly, I do not even think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was trying to make me do so.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, if I am anything, I at least claim to recognise what is possible, and I know that in matters of this kind, even if I had persuaded the Minister of State that this was the right thing to do, he would have found himself in serious difficulty with his colleagues in another place if he had so far departed from the ideas to which they appear to be so firmly attached.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that he was surprised that I was so pessimistic about it. If I had thought that there was some way in which we could lock the doors and confine the voting on these amendments to those who had listened to the debate, there would be a fair chance that we would have carried the amendments, but I know perfectly well that as soon as the bell rings people come crawling out of the
508
woodwork from all over the place, and those who would determine the fate of the amendments are those who have not listened to a single word of what has been said. We know that on both sides of this Chamber people will come in and say "How are we voting?". On that basis, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, would win if I divided on these amendments.
However, I did get some help from the noble Earl's reply. He is more or less inviting those who know what the position is to make representations, and I shall encourage my friends in local government to gather evidence on these matters, although not between now and the next stage of the Bill, which I understand is not very far away. Unless the Minister has been making a totally empty promise, there is a possibility that if the evidence can be forthcoming in due course, the Government will table the necessary amendments to the legislation. On the basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Liability of water authorities etc. for damage caused by escapes of water onto agricultural or forestry land]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 38, line 36, leave out ("(but not any building)") and insert ("and fixed equipment as defined in section 93(1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 excepting all permanent buildings including farmhouses and farm cotages").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that I moved a very similar amendment to this one at the Committee stage and withdrew it on receiving an assurance from the Minister that he would look into the matter. This he very kindly did and wrote to me suggesting that the wording within the Bill before your Lordships was sufficient to cover all the eventualities that I had in mind. In fact, he was able to suggest that, with the usual caveat that the interpretation of statute is a matter for the courts, the word "land" for the purposes of this clause would attract the definition in the Interpretation Act 1978 and would, therefore, include buildings and other structures.
There is no disagreement between the noble Earl and myself on purpose. I think we both agree that the purpose should be to compensate people for damage to agricultural land in so far as this cannot normally be insured against. Therefore, it is agreed by both of us that buildings—farmhouses, farm cottages and so forth—should be left out because these can normally be insured against damage, and are normally insured against damage. We are trying to make sure that the compensation which it is being strictly enjoined upon the local authorities to give for burst water mains should be given for farmland and for the things that go with farmland which it is not normally possible to insure.
If I accepted the definition which the noble Earl has given to me—that is, the one in the Interpretation Act 1978—it seems to me that for certain one thing which is very important to farmland would not be covered by this provision, and possibly several other things as well would not be covered. The one thing that it seems to me for certain would not be covered

509
is shelter belts, because the definition in the Bill before your Lordships is that where the ground is covered by trees the compensation would be given only if the trees were for growing of timber or for purposes connected therewith.
The areas where it seems to me possible that the farmer or landowner would not be covered are where we refer to a part of the land which, in effect, is not a structure. It really depends on the definition of the word "structure". For instance, I wonder whether a ditch is a structure or whether it is part of the shape of the land; whether an open drain is a structure, or whether a mole drain is a structure. If a flood were to block up the mole drainage system in, say, a clay soil, it would do enormous damage which would cost large sums of money to put right, and if it were not regarded by the courts as a structure, there would be no compensation for this important part of the land.
The same might apply to roads, although one might think that a road was a structure in the sense that somebody has brought something to it and made something on the surface of the land, but one could hardly describe a mole drain as being a structure in the normally accepted sense of the word, and I think that open sheep drains and field ditches might hardly be regarded as structures.
Therefore, I invite the noble Earl to consider the amendment which I have put before him, because, as far as I can see, it excludes as much as would be excluded. I am asking him to accept a definition which excludes,
"all permanent buildings including farmhouses and farm cottages",
from the definition of "agricultural land" contained in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act. So far as I can see, these are the only things to which he could take exception in the sense that they are normally insurable. The remainder of the things listed as being part of agricultural land under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act—the fences, hedges, stone dykes, gate posts, ditches, open drains, tile drains, conduits, culverts, ponds, sluices, flood banks, main water courses and so on—are all things against which it is not normally possible to insure. Therefore, I invite the Government to accept this amendment and, if not, perhaps for your Lordships to ask the Government to accept it.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I confess to a faint feeling of pique that the noble Viscount simply will not accept the effect of the advice which I gave him by letter. I undertook in Committee to consider whether the existing wording of the clause covered such items as ditches, culverts, fences and drains. I have fulfilled my undertaking. I have written to the noble Viscount, and I said to him in the letter that "other structures" do cover these things, and indeed I can say shelter belts too. But apparently the noble Viscount will not be persuaded that his concern is misplaced.
I want to correct one point about what is the object of this exercise. It is not to provide compensation for farmers, as such. It is, in fact, to make the water authorities liable to a measure of strict liability, so that if there is a flood and if a farmer sustains damage to, for instance, his crops and is unable to prove
510
negligence on the part of the water authority, nevertheless he will still be compensated. In any instance, if he can prove negligence of course he will be compensated. But what we were trying to do—and I recognise that it is a compromise, and, as a compromise, may I say is unpopular with the convention—was to provide a degree of strict liability in respect of the uninsurable, but to make farmers certain of obtaining relief, if they suffered a flood in the absence of negligence on the part of the water authority, by insuring that which they can insure.
If I accepted this amendment it would go much wider than the compromise. I should also note that an addition to the Bill of a reference to "fixed equipment" would import a concept of agricultural law which enables waygoing tenants to get compensation for items provided by them during their tenancy. This reference is not at all necessary, and certainly is not appropriate in the entirely different context of this provision.
I cannot accept the amendment. I can only reiterate to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that it is not realistic to try to separate such items as ditches, fences and drains from the land itself. The fence is clearly seen to be for a good agricultural purpose—the containment of livestock. Without it the land, for all intents and purposes, could not be used for an agricultural purpose, particularly if it is adjacent to a road for instance. Equally, without a ditch or a drain the land would not be suitable for any agricultural purpose at all if the drain did not work. That is why the law says that these items, such as fences and ditches, and indeed shelter belts, are part and parcel of agricultural land, and if damaged in the circumstances I have described would attract compensation under the Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will not divide the House on this because I assure him that it is quite unnecessary.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes his remarks—which is a different way of putting "before he sits down"—may I ask him a question?
As I understand the point raised by the noble Viscount originally, the farmer in England and Wales was in a more favourable position because of the responsibilities which were placed on the water authorities. Does the Bill as it stands put the water authorities in Scotland in exactly the same position as the water authorities south of the Border? If not, why not?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question, in short, is no. As the noble Lord will know, the water authorities are the local authorities in Scotland and not a separate statutory body as they are in England. It has been a bone of contention for some time that the English farmers had this rule of strict liability and the Scottish farmers had none. During consultations which have now gone on for over two years—just about as long as I have been in the Government—the Scottish local authorities, naturally enough, were unwilling to undertake further possible financial burdens which were not already enjoined upon them, or imposed upon them, by statute.
That is why I say that this is a compromise. What we decided to do was to provide a measure of com-

511
pensation by strict liability in cases where the farmers could not insure. In cases where he can insure then we think that it is incumbent upon him to provide a measure of compensation for himself. That is the way the compromise has been reached. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied before I finally sit down.
Viscount Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for at least expanding his letter somewhat. His letter, which I hold before me, does not include any reference to shelter belts. It certainly would be a natural mistake for any reasonable person to make to assume that land with trees on it was not land with structures on it. I have never before heard a tree described as a structure. However, the noble Earl has assured me that shelter belts are included; that holes in the ground are also structures and therefore are included; and that all of the things that would be included if he accepted my amendment are in fact included. On that basis I am happy to agree that he has given me what I wished to have. In those circumstances, even though the Scottish farmer is not given the same protection against the burst of a water main as the English farmer is given, even though the strict liability is not so extensive on the Scottish water authority as it is on the English water authority, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 69, line 39, leave out ("such application") and insert ("their so applying").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to correct a possible ambiguity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]

Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill
6.48 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Introductory provisions: the Code and the Contracting Parties to it.]
Clause 2 [Implementing regulations: the general scheme]:
On Question, Whether Clauses 1 and 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Glenkinglas: May I make one or two comments about Clause 2 standing part? I have, as some of your Lordships know, spoken on these problems at our Second Reading debate. As I have studied it more carefully, I find myself even more unhappy about some parts of it than I was at Second Reading. The point that I find particularly difficult is that in signing these new conventions each country is allowed to make what reservations it feels likely and appropriate. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is unbelievably complicated, and I am assured by my legal friends that the complication is owing largely to the extreme complexity of the treaties on which it is based. When one is dealing with a very large number of some not too literate countries, there will be many who do not understand what they have agreed to do and many who will be determined deliberately not to understand it, so there will be a good deal of cheating.
Having said that—and I do not want to detain your Lordships for long because I know the stresses under which you have been suffering for the last few days—I would ask my noble friend whether he has looked at (which I am sure he has) the reservations that have already been made. If one looks at that brave and determined country, France, one sees that the reservations they have made to their signature say, in effect, "The French Government are only too delighted to sign the new code, but if there is anything they do not agree with, then of course they will not abide by that". What is the point of signing the code with a reservation of that width?
Also as I said on Second Reading, you then get the very real fear—which is the basis of a good deal of the opposition of the British shipping industry to the Bill—that we shall move into a period when bulk cargoes are also controlled. On Second Reading I asked my noble friend whether or not it was true, as had been reported, that Indonesia had already said it would include bulk cargoes, and, if so—this was by then already four or five weeks old—what steps the Government had taken to deal with the situation. It is very important indeed, if we are to go forward with the Bill, that the Government should make it absolutely plain exactly what action they will take against people who deliberately break the codes to the disadvantage of British shipping and expect to get way with it.
Lord Lyell: I thank my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas, for the great interest he has taken in the Bill, and I am sure noble Lords who have studied or attempted to study all the articles and legal complications, and then gone into the code, will agree with him about its complexity. My noble friend asked me on Second Reading, as he pointed out, what we were able to do about the problems of other countries. He mentioned Indonesia in particular and spoke of how they wished to include in the negotiations and discussions on what is essentially the liner trade the matter or bulk cargoes, and as noble Lords who are specialists in this matter (such as my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Cayzer) and others of your Lordships will be aware, bulk cargoes are not part and parcel of the code or indeed of the Bill.
In relation to my noble friend's query, I am afraid that I am not able to go much further than I was on Second

513
Reading regarding any future negotiations, certainly between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Indonesia, on the particular matter of the Indonesian Government and shipping interests attempting to bring bulk cargoes within the ambit of the code. I stress, however, that we regard this intrusion into the code and into the liner conferences and liner trade as being entirely inappropriate and unhelpful to the British shipping industry; and that, of course, is at the heart of the Government's concern with the Bill.
I am sorry I am not able to be more helpful or more specific in answer to my noble friend. But I hope he will accept that we are taking the robust view he always took when speaking for the Government on these matters. With the backing of my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Cayzer, we shall continue to press that the Indonesian Government should not introduce bulk cargoes, or the problems of bulk cargoes, into the negotiations and discussions with which we are concerned.
On Question, Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Matters which may be provided for by regulations]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved the amendment:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("may empower the Secretary of State to") and insert ("the Secretary of State shall with their agreement").
The noble Lord said: My amendment relates to the responsibilities of shippers' organisations, which are defined in Chapter 1 of the code and their responsibilities are set out in Article 11. These are weighty responsibilities which, under Clause 3(3) of the Bill, will almost certainly carry with them implied legal obligations. At present, a number of trade associations consult with conferences on such matters as general tariff conditions, freight rates, loyalty agreements and so on, but they do so on the basis that such consultation is generated by commercial necessity. There is no legal obligation on either party for such consultation.
The code creates a new situation inasmuch as it contains consultation rights for shippers who are so designated, and designated under Article 11 at the discretion, in this country, of the Secretary of State. Therefore, if the Secretary of State does not designate an organisation to be a shippers' organisation, certain organisations which presently have a satisfactory consultative relationship with conferences may find their position greatly weakened, if not totally undermined. I should perhaps have said that I am advised by one such organisation, the British Federation of Commodity Associations.
At the same time, it is important that the Secretary of State should consult organisations before designating them. It may well be that some trade associations will consider that because of the staff and expense involved in fulfilling the legal obligations, they are unable to accept designation with all its consequences. On the other hand, there may be others which could have been omitted if there had not been prior consultation and which might well need to have designation in order to
514
perform and continue to perform their functions. This is a very real problem which is worrying several trade associations, and it was with that in mind that I tabled my amendment, which should bring about the necessary improvement to make the Secretary of State's responsibilities more certain with the agreement of those who may be affected. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend for presenting this amendment with his customary clarity, brevity and succinctness. As he pointed out, the problem of consultation affects a very wide spectrum of the shipping and commercial world, which is centred in London and is very important to us. We noted my noble friend's comments on Second Reading, and we have this evening heard expressed his views on the importance of consultation.
I hope that it will help the Committee and my noble friend if, first, I try to deal with what we see as the specific terms of the amendment, and then briefly discuss some of the concerns that we believe lie behind it. The amendment would appear to have the effect of enabling any shippers' organisation, any representative of shippers, or any individual shippers to demand to be consulted by conferences on the very wide range of issues which are set out in Article 11 of the code, which I think your Lordships will find on pages 23 and 24 of the Bill.
The number of persons and groups who could be involved in demanding to be consulted by conferences would place quite unrealistic demands on conferences, and we believe that it would hold out little prospect of sensible, reasonable and helpful consultations, which, after all, is what the Bill is about and what the Government want. Furthermore, the amendment would allow automatic rights to all shippers, but for only some of the issues identified in the code as being of concern to shippers. For those two reasons the amendment is not acceptable to the Government.
I should like, briefly, to look at the broad issues which lie behind the amendment and which were explained by my noble friend at an earlier stage and again briefly this evening. In my turn, I should like to explain that the Government consider it unrealistic to lay a duty on conferences to consult individual shippers, except perhaps in the case of very large shippers prominent in particular trades—and I would stress the words, "in particular trades". In this case shippers' organisations will necessarily incur a major responsibility for consultations.
I think that my noble friend mentioned one or two matters in the definition clause. The Committee will see that the term "shippers' organisation" is defined in Chapter I of the code as
"An association or equivalent body which promotes, represents and protects the interests of shippers and, if those authorities so desire, is recognized in that capacity by"
the authorities. In the United Kingdom the appropriate authority is my noble friend the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may specify conditions for recognising a shippers' organisation, and in that connection I would refer the Committee to Clause 3(8) (b), lines 33 to 35, directly above the part of the text that my noble friend seeks to amend.

515
Further, under Article 11 of the code more specific provision already exists for appropriate authorities to designate persons or organisations who will have to be consulted. It would seem, at least to us, sensible to adopt common criteria for recognition as shippers' organisations, or a shipper, for each provision of the code, and thus any criteria would encompass Article 11 and each of the half dozen or so other articles which give rights to recognised shippers' organisations. The department will be consulting interested parties on what the conditions should be, and the conditions will be specified in regulations which we shall make under Clause 2(1).
In addition, there are a number of important considerations that parties which are interested in the consultations, and indeed in these matters, would wish to consider. Shippers' organisations may be under an implied duty to their members to carry out their consultations properly, but the willingness of a body to be recognised might therefore be an important factor. It would also be possible—I hope that this will help my noble friend at this stage, at least to a small degree; I say that it would be possible, nothing more than that—to include a condition that an organisation would first have to indicate its agreement to be so recognised. In regard to the amendment, and indeed the entire matter, a balance has to be drawn. I am sure that we all wish to avoid an undue proliferation of bodies that have to be recognised, but certainly we see a role for smaller specialist, or indeed larger specialist, organisations and regional shippers' organisations in addition to the British Shippers' Council.
I referred earlier to criteria for recognition, and I should like to take one obvious and clear criterion for recognition as a shippers' organisation. This might be that the body represents shippers who carry a certain percentage of a conference trade on a particular route. But, as I said both earlier this evening and at an earlier stage of the Bill, clearly further consultations are required in this very complex area. I would assure the Committee, and in particular my noble friend, that views will be sought from all interested parties before the regulations are laid. I would stress that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that your Lordships' House and another place will have full opportunity to discuss them and to consider the form of the consultations and other matters which I believe lie at the heart of my noble friend's amendment.
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of Inchcape: On behalf of the British shipping industry, in which I declare an interest, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lyell in his rejection of the amendment. In theory, all shippers' organisations, representatives of shippers and, where practicable, individual shippers, all demand consultation. The designating process is intended to reationalise and simplify the consultation procedure. Clearly the regulation that empowers the Secretary of State to designate in this way must be carefully worded, so that it does not exclude from the consultation process those parties which have a legitimate and substantial interest in the trade concerned. It is to be hoped that normally their interests can be adequately represented by the British Shippers' Council, and other similar
516
bodies, but of course there will be many occasions when other voices also need to be heard.
However, the present amendment would largely destroy the value of the designating process. It would require the Secretary of State to designate all those who desire to be designated. In doing so, it would enable consultations to get out of hand, which would benefit no one. It is understandable that some smaller organisations may fear that theirs would be a voice in the wilderness. However, their view would go equally unheard if their's were but a voice in the multitude. A middle ground must be found, and, in our view, this can best be done by the Secretary of State using his common sense in the drafting of the relevant regulation.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend Lord Lyell, though I am not sure that I thank my noble friend Lord Inchcape for his rather heavy-gunned attack on my amendment. He suggested that the Secretary of State would use his common sense. Well, without mentioning any names, it has not been my experience that Secretaries of State use much common sense. However, I see the point made by my noble friend and, indeed, by both my noble friends. I shall certainly take away and read with great care what my noble friend Lord Lyell has said, and I reserve the right to come back on Report. But before I sit down I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lyell very much for his helpful letter in response to the points that I raised on Second Reading, which of course has been passed on to the appropriate people. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part part of the Bill?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: This clause deals, as we have heard, with matters which may be provided for by regulations. Indeed, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, confirm that the affirmative procedure will now be used for dealing with the regulations as and when they are made.
A number of the matters to be dealt with by the regulations will undoubtedly be very complicated matters, and will include such things as the definition of a national shipping line. However, my point in rising on the Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill? is to ask how it is proposed to regulate the regulations which are made. Will there be some form of annual report by the Secretary of State setting out how in fact the regulations have been complied with; or should there be some form of regulatory machinery, such as we have in the civil aviation field, in the Civil Aviation Authority? Should there in fact be some sort of authority to report annually on whether the regulations have been complied with and how they have worked?
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, in his usual kind fashion, gave me some warning of the point that he might wish to raise on Clause 3, alas!, I have not been able to see my way entirely through—if I may say so describe it politely—the jungle of regulations and points that have to be considered in Clause 3. But, as I understand it—and I think that probably the

517
noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, might agree—Clause 3, and above all subsection (1), hangs very much on Clause 2, and above all subsection (1), since Clause 2 sets out the general scheme, as they call it, and Clause 3 details the regulations and especially the matters which may be provided for by the regulations. I hope that the Committee, and indeed all your Lordships, will forgive me if I forgo the marvellous opportunity to go right through the whole of Clause 3 which presents itself to me, and indeed to your Lordships, this evening.
I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that, so far as his query on the regulation of the regulations is concerned, there are two things to start with: first of all, there will be no annual report; and, secondly, there will be no regulatory machinery. But I am given to understand that a five-year review is built into the code; and I think that the noble Lord would agree, and, indeed, that my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Cayzer, would agree, as I think would my noble friend Lord Mottistone, too, that the code lies very much at the heart of the Bill. So, if I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, there will by no annual report and no regulatory machinery per se, but there will be a five-year review built into the code.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Before the noble Lord sits down, what we shall in fact have, therefore, is a report every five years as to how the machinery has worked?
Lord Lyell: I am given to understand, by devious means, that the answer is, "Yes".
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Transport Bill
7.16 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 EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Rear seat belts.
. In section 40 of the 1972 Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2A)—
"(2B) Regulations under this section shall require, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, every motor car manufacturered on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985 to be equipped with rear seat belts.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to have regulations made that every car manufactured on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985 shall be equipped with rear seat belts. There is a powerful case to be made for rear passengers having to wear seat belts, but I want to emphasise that this amendment is not seeking to make compulsory the actual wearing of rear seat belts. But, unless rear seat belts are made standard equipment, there will be no freedom of choice on the wearing of seat belts available to rear passengers in some cars.
This is crucial for adults who may wish to place children in rear seats but who do not want them to be unrestrained—and I am not now referring to children who are young enough to have child restraints. It is also essential for adults who are used to wearing seat belts when riding in front seats but who may have to ride in rear seats and desire to have a similar protection of seat belts—and they may be in cars which are not their own.
Research conducted at the Accident Research Unit at Birmingham University in 1980 covering some 4,300 fatal and seriously injured rear seat passengers concluded that the use of seat belts in rear seats would have saved some 73 per cent. of all the fatally injured rear passengers in that sample on which they worked. Of course, I am not basing this amendment purely on the accidents which may occur but on the freedom of people who want to wear a rear seat belt and who may not be able to do so because there is not one installed. Therefore, there is a sound case for persons wishing to have the use of rear seat belts as much as they wish to use front seat belts.
A somewhat similar amendment was moved at the Committee stage in another place, and the Minister then said that to make rear seat belts mandatory may be a little in advance of what the British driving public may be prepared to take. That might be so if this amendment were seeking to make the wearing of rear seat belts compulsory; but it is not. It is wishing to make mandatory the installation of rear seat belts as from the dates T have mentioned. It is only the making of rear seat belts a standard fitting that we are seeking in this amendment.
I understand that rear seat belts are fitted as standard in many of the more luxurious cars manufactured in this country. The amendment will make them available to those who purchase cars in the lower price range. It may be of interest to your Lordships that countries which already have the fitting of rear seat belts as mandatory by legislation include Canada, the United States of America, Australia, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany and Brazil—and I understand that in South Africa it will be mandatory from later on this year. The Under-Secretary of State in another place undertook to go away and take a further serious look at the issue and what had been said in debate. I hope that that has taken place and that, based on that review and on what I have said, the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask the Minister, as in this amendment we are talking about seat belts, whether coaches and lorries are going to have them fitted? Also, after what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, have the Government any information

519
from countries like Germany which now fit seat belts in their rear seats? My noble kinsman has a Mercedes car which has fitted seat belts on the rear seats.
Lord Airedale: I dare say that we shall be told that the argument against the necessity for rear seat belts is that the main purpose of the seat belt is to prevent the person sitting in the front from hitting his head on the windscreen and that this hazard does not apply so much in the case of person sitting in the back. But there are those grand chauffeur-driven cars which have a glass screen between the driver and the people sitting in the back. I should have thought that it was worth considering that it might be advisable to make seat belt wearing compulsory in those few instances.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wonder if I may speak before my noble friend the Minister responds. I hope that the Minister will reject this amendment at this particular time. There are quite serious and positive reasons for a rejection at this time, notably that we in this country have not yet had the experience that we are looking forward to receiving of compulsion to wear seat belts in the front of motor-cars. If I may remind the Committee, we have not discussed the regulations to that measure and it may be that those regulations are not passed. It seems to me that we are jumping the gun and that this is an inappropriate time to apply compulsion to the manufacturing industry to spend more than is vitally necessary in a highly competitive business.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made it clear that he is not seeking compulsion for the wearing of the seat belt, but we know that it would not be very long, having got this through, before he will be asking for compulsion to be applied. We are particularly anxious about young children being free and rolling around in the back of a car. This can be adequately looked after, to British standards, at the choice of the consumer. That, I think, is where the matter should rest at this moment. To impose this requirement on the industry for two or three years hence is wrong and ill-conceived at this time. I hope that the Government will resist this amendment.
Lord Bellwin: The draft clause suffers drafting defects. There seems to be a strange confusion between primary legislation and secondary legislation. Secondary legislation of this kind is made under enabling powers. The clause is dressed in the guise of a mandatory requirement. This is more apparent than real as the most limited provision which was at once revoked would seem to satisfy it. Nevertheless, the requirement would be incompatible with its context. For example, the mandatory requirement could not be grafted on the discretionary powers in Section 40(1) and incompatible with the purpose of secondary legislation of this kind, which requires genuine consultation and adaptation to new developments.
As it happens, the clause would not add anything to the powers that we already have contained in subsection (1) and (3) of Section 40 of the 1972 Act. Those powers have for many years been exercised to require the fitting of seat belts for certain front seats
520
of certain vehicles. They would suffice to require scat belts to be fitted for certain rear seats. Since October 1981, new cars have had to be fitted with rear seat belt anchorage points and those drivers who wish voluntarily to fit seat belts may now do so without difficulty.
Should the Government be convinced of the desirability, on safety grounds, of fitting rear seat belts they will consider doing so, subject to the restrictions in Section 41(3) of the 1972 Act. However, we are unconvinced that it would be wise now to make rear seat belt fitments mandatory from 1st January 1985 for new vehicles. We prefer to wait and sec whether a clearer picture of the necessity to fit rear seat belts emerges from the early experience of compulsory front seat belt wearing. If that should be the case, it may be undesirable to wait until 1985.
Without going on at too great length on this matter, perhaps I could sum up the position as we see it. First, the amendment, as I hope Lord Underhill will agree on reflection, is unnecessary because the Government already have adequate power under Section 40 to make regulations requiring rear seat belts to be fitted. These powers are subject to the safeguards of giving proper notice and consultation, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is right. Perhaps ironically, this amendment would not allow these to be exercised.
Second, because it would remove the Government's discretion, it could be a retograde step since it would prevent the Government from requiring rear seat belts to be fitted in cars manufactured before July 1984. I suspect that that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would wish. I am sure he will appreciate that cars manufactured since October 1981 have had rear seat belt anchorages fitted, and it may be, in the light of experience from compulsory front seat belt wearing, that it would be desirable for the Government to consider fitting rear seat belts to cars made at an earlier date than the amendment would allow, or, I have to say, equally, at a later date.
To comment on the points raised by my noble friend Lady Masham about coaches, I would tell her that we shall not require seat belts in coaches and lorries. At least as yet, that is not the intention. As to her other points, the results of investigations into the benefits of rear seat belts in Sweden concluded that there would be a 28 per cent. saving in injuries. This is dependent on rear seat occupancy and the extent of front seat belt wearing. I think there is nothing further I wish to add. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in view of what I have said will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: What the noble Lord has said about the drafting of the amendment would appear to be forceful. I shall certainly take that into account. But the other arguments put forward against it, frankly, seem to me not to have any logic at all. Before I pass on to that, on the question of regulations there surely must be some provision for Parliament to be able to say to a Government, "You have this power. We want you to use it"—and not just rely upon when a Government feel that they will introduce a regulation. I shall therefore to have look at that aspect.

521
On the other point about the logic of the argument, not being there, Government and Parliament have said, "We are going to introduce compulsory wearing of front seat belts". As the noble Lord the Minister has said, time will tell whether that has benefits. In the meantime, we want to encourage people to wear seat belts. Let me suppose that I am a passenger in somebody else's car. I am used always to wearing my own seat belt—not because it is the law, as it will be when the regulations come effect, but because I believe in wearing a front seat belt. I am a passenger in a friend's car. I cannot ride in the front seat because someone else is there. I am used to a front seat belt and I want to continue wearing a seat belt in the back of the car. But there is not one there because it is not a standard fitting. Surely logic is on my side? It is freedom of choice. I want to wear a seat belt but it is not a standard fitting.
I shall to look carefully at what the noble Lord the Minister has said about the wording of the amendment. In view of the strong logic on my side in regard to freedom of choice for the passenger in somebody else's car, we shall look to see whether or not we can find for Report stage an amendment that fits in with what the noble Lord has said about the regulations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 112:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Laminated windscreens.
. In section 40 of the 1972 Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2A)—
"(2C) Regulations under this section shall require, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, windscreens in every motor car manufactured on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985 to be laminated meeting prescribed standards.".").
The noble Lord said: This deals with windscreens. The amendment seeks to modify Section 40 of the 1972 Act so that laminated windscreens shall be a mandatory fitting on all cars manufactured on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985. I am advised in this matter that a laminated windscreen is basically a piece of plastic with glass on either side. The argument for the high penetration resistent laminated glass is that it does not shatter. It is estimated that in Britain about 1,000 serious eye injuries are caused each year by the use of toughened glass, not laminated glass. This is because the toughened glass has shattered as a result of the collision.
Members of the Committee will no doubt have had experience of a windscreen shattering without impact. I have two personal experiences. One was leaving a car in a garage overnight and the next morning finding the windscreen shattered. Obviously, a pebble must have hit the glass and the change of temperature overnight caused the windscreen to shatter. The other experience was while travelling on a main arterial road. Again, a pebble must have hit the glass and it shattered in front of me. There was glass all over the place. Fortunately, I was not one of the thousand cases with serious injury.
At least nine countries already have legislation for
522
the compulsory fitting of laminated windscreens by manufacturers. These include the United States, which I believe is still the world's largest car manufacturer, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, USSR and Italy. My information is that these countries all report no incidence of eye injuries of any consequence following the mandatory fitting of laminated windscreens. That is a very important point.
This principle was raised in a different amendment at the Committee stage in another place. The Minister on that occasion was very sympathetic but put the view that there had been insufficient research work on the issue. The Under-Secretary, Mrs. Chalker, confirmed that in four years the cars manufactured in Great Britain with laminated windscreens had increased from 10 per cent. to a current 70 per cent. Presumably the manufacturers of cars in this country must themselves be satisfied with their own research into this, otherwise we would not have the figure of 70 per cent. windscreens installed by car manufacturers.
The problem is that once again it is the cars at the lower end of the market, the cheaper end of the market, which tend to be fitted with toughened glass windscreens, I understand that the car manufacturers seem to have varying policies with different models. At least one car manufacturer, I understand, has all the models with laminated windscreens. The issue is how to close the gap from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent. so that everyone has the protection of laminated glass windscreens. It appears that this can only be done by legislation. Obviously, there is no problem with the British glass manufacturers because they can already cope with 70 per cent. I understand it presents no problem at all to them.
In the Committee in the other place the Minister questioned the drafting of that amendment. The amendment before your Lordships this evening has been redrafted to meet some of the criticisms that were made. The amendment does not seek to lay down any actual specification for the laminated glass and its installation. This is a matter which the amendment would leave entirely for the Secretary of State to prescribe; but there would appear to me to be a sound case for this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I shall wait to hear my noble friend the Minister regarding whether or not this should be mandatory. I very much favour the fitting of laminated windscreens. Whenever we, our own family, buy a car which we find is not fitted with a laminated windscreen, we have it altered before we drive it.
On several occasions a stone has hit the windscreen but it has not shattered—we still have a chip on the windscreen to show that that is what happened—whereas with the normal windscreen there would be a million pieces of glass flying into one's eyes. I am interested to hear Lord Underhill's statistics of the increase from 10 per cent. to 70 per cent. That in itself is encouraging. I should like to see it reach 100 per cent. I shall await to hear from the Minister before deciding whether to support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to support this amendment. It is perhaps even more important now that seat belt legislation is coming in. Very

523
often when there is an impact of two cars the windscreens fall in on top of the passengers. When they are wearing seatbelts they will be held in position and maybe they will not slip down underneath the dashboard, which sometimes happens when they do not wear a seat belt. The risk of eye and facial injuries could be greater. Therefore, I think that laminated windscreens are essential. I strongly support this amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I, too, should like to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, forgot to mention one fact. This covers two aspects, one is the production of new cars and the other is the refit to existing cars. I do not think that he has said what it will cost for existing cars to have a refit of their windscreen or whether there have been other investigations by the industry as to whether the laminated windscreen can be further improved. His evidence on the medical side and the fact that other countries have introduced this element shows a great deal of common sense. I hope that my noble friend will give this amendment a fair wind.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Not for the first time—nor I suspect for the last—I wish to oppose an amendment. We are wrong in making it mandatory to fit a laminated screen. I do not disagree with any of the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has produced. There are, however, some very serious drawbacks to making this matter mandatory. The first is that there is a growing practice with even the lower priced motor-cars to go for electrically-operated windows. In the unhappy event of there being an accident—and there is a documented case of this—if the doors jam and the electric system fails, a large person, if he has the wit and presence, may break the side windows but would still be unable to get out of the car. The laminated windscreen would make it impossible for a person to get out.
If one moves to a mandatory system in a motor-car it would not be very long before we had it in a truck. Truck drivers are always extremely nervous of fire breaking out in a cab. How do they get out? Normally it is by breaking through the windscreen. Furthermore, we have the matter of cost to consider. It costs about £8 wholesale to fit a toughened screen in an average motor-car. It costs around £16 to fit a laminated screen—that is, wholesale, on the production line. The doubling of price is reflected at the retail end; so that if you buy a laminated screen for an average car it is something like £70 and a toughened one is £35. It is not true to say that in an accident or crash a toughened screen shatters so that you are showered with little pieces of glass. I do not know of a toughened screen that has not got, in front of the driver at least, a safety zone, and that crazes in rather a different manner and in different sizes.
There is another drawback, I believe, to this amendment. It says "laminated", and while the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained what he means by "laminated", and I think that description is probably very acceptable, if one accepted that as the description, even though the amendment says "so prescribed", I believe it could inhibit the development of other types
524
of safety glass. The Committee are probably aware that Pilkington and Triplex did develop a screen known as the 10–20. It was a highly advanced screen. It was extremely effective, but it was also extremely expensive; and purely on commercial grounds production has now ceased for mass-produced motor-cars. There is a French screen which has been developed and which I understand is made of glass with one skin of plastic on the inside. It is not quite so strong as a fully-laminated screen but it has some of the safety elements the noble Lord talked about.
I believe that we should move towards more freedom. Custom does change. Thirty years ago a laminated screen was the rage, so to speak. Laminated screens were fitted very popularly and it was found that on certain impacts the inside glass did in fact splinter. It is generally recognised that chunks of toughened glass do less damage than splinters of laminated glass, and this can still happen. So I believe there are very good reasons for not altering the construction and use regulations to accommodate this.
I know that the industry is prepared to fit glass if demanded, and Triplex tell me they could move from a position of five years to supply to something like 12 months. However, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders tell me there has been no clear evidence—a number of papers have been written but they are rather contradictory—to support a legal requirement for laminated glass in place of the currently used toughened glass. So until there is greater proof of the necessity for bringing compulsion into this area, I think it is better left to the industry and to the individual choice of the consumer, which is there, as we can tell from what my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said: she chooses it and she pays for her choice. I think that is where the matter should rest.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? If people in lorries are worried about being trapped, and other people about the possibility of being trapped in cars with electric windows, would it not be a good idea for a little hammer to be fitted such as one has in a sleeping car on a train? Following the tragic disaster when the sleeping cars went on fire and many people were killed, it is now statutory to provide a hammer with which one could break a window. When the noble Lord mentioned this point, I thought as I sat here of my noble kinsman, who has a Mercedes with electric windows, and it seemed that perhaps it would be a good idea to supply him with such a hammer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I just respond. It is my understanding that apart from the sliding glass in the door of a railway carriage, which is laminated, other glass is either toughened glass or annealed glass, and the little hammer is there to save you from actually putting your fist, your shoe or whatever it may be, through the glass. But that little hammer will not go through a piece of laminated glass. Even if your noble kinsman were to have one attached somewhere in his car, he would not be able to get out with it. He would have to cut his way out, and it might be too late.
Lord Airedale: In the course of this short debate we have heard the two sides of this argument and we have

525
heard much expertise from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but we are surely entitled to say that this is indeed a very serious problem and to hope that before too long the Ministry, having continued its research into this question, will arrive at proper prescribed standards for windscreens—but probably not, or possibly not, within the time-scale laid down in this amendment. The situation that I think we want to avoid is one in which the Minister, wanting to prescribe standards for windscreens, finds that he has no power in the existing legislation to make regulations and that he has to await the opportunity of a future transport Act before he gets that power. If that is the case, let us at least take the opportunity in this Bill to enable the Minister to make construction and use regulations about standards for windscreen construction, so that as soon as he is satisfied that prescribed standards can be laid down they can be put immediately into regulations, without having to wait for a parliamentary opportunity for another enabling Act.
Lord Bellwin: Let me explain the Government's view on this matter, if I may. This clause attempts to compel the Minister to introduce regulations outlawing toughened glass windscreens and making only laminated ones lawful. I am sure the intention is to be helpful in so far as it is based on the commonly held but nevertheless mistaken view that laminated glass is always superior on safety grounds to toughened glass. The evidence, on the contrary, is inconclusive. At present there is insufficient data to show beyond reasonable doubt that in British operating conditions laminated glass is superior. I should say straightaway that investigations on this matter are being made by the Transport Road Research Laboratory and by the department's engineers. The first investigations are almost completed and the latter ones are well under way. A report will be made in September of this year. If I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I can reassure him that there are powers already under Section 40 of the 1972 Act so that if action needs to be taken, action can be taken. I think that was really his concern.
The views of manufacturers, users and research bodies regarding the relative safety merits of both types of glass are divided. As my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, hauliers, in particular, stress the advantages of toughened glass in an accident, when the simplest means of driver-escape may be through the windscreen. This could indeed be a vital escape route should a turned-over lorry be carrying highly inflammable or toxic loads. I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is the fourth public figure—I should be fascinated to know the definition of that—who has been involved in an incident and came out unscathed. I am glad to add myself as the fifth who has had not one, but several, such incidents. I happily confirm that, although it was a frightening experience, with the enormous bang and everything going opaque, I did not suffer any ill effects.
That is not in any way an attempt to say that that makes the case for toughened glass as against laminated glass. I am not saying that at all. Nevertheless, it is a point which should be made. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there is an increasing trend towards fitting laminated windscreens in motor-cars,
526
and a leading glass manufacturer estimates that by 1984 voluntary fitment will be in excess of 80 per cent. in new cars. This is despite the financial drawback that laminated glass is more expensive than toughened glass, although increased use should lead to marginal diminishing costs.
As I have said, the Government have recently arranged for fresh research to be made into the merits of toughened and laminated windscreen glass. Although the majority of newly manufactured motor-cars are fitted with laminated glass windscreens, most existing ones are fitted with toughened windscreens. Accident data findings are inconclusive and the research tests should be helpful in enabling the Government to decide what further action is necessary.
To sum up, I say again that investigations carried out in the past have not indicated a clear preference for either laminated or toughened windscreens on road safety grounds. But there have been significant changes since those investigations were made. For example, it is estimated that, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, properly reminded us, over the last four or five years the fitting of laminated screens to British-made cars has increased from some 15 per cent. to over 70 per cent., and this figure may go up to 85 per cent. by 1985. However, the majority of cars on the roads have toughened glass windscreens and the effect of this change in accident terms has yet to be assessed.
On the point about the position in other countries, I am advised that developments abroad show that feelings about the merits of either type of glass are not unanimous. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned France, which will require laminated screens from next year, although I noted the qualification which he added on that. But, as yet, they have not published their reasons for doing that. On the other hand, a recent Dutch-report concludes that there is little to choose between the two types. That is why the Government feel that they should await the results of the the test, which are not far away. In order to assuage any anxieties, may I again confirm that, if the case is made out, then the powers are there for something to be done. In those circumstances, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether his department will publish the report of the tests which they are at present carrying out? Secondly, what triggered off this report?—because it seems fascinating that other countries have taken a different view from that taken by the Ministry.
Lord Bellwin: I am sure that there will be no problem about publishing the report. It is a matter of such general interest that it is surely only right that it should be published. As to why we are not, as yet, taking a line, I hoped that the reasons I gave would explain that. Here is something which, in our view, is not clear-cut. I am sure that those who argued the case for either side do so with absolute conviction and sincerity. But we feel—not least in the light of other people's experiences—that the case has yet to be made firmly, one way or the other. But the report should not be long now.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wonder whether the Committee will allow me to correct a response that I

527
made to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I am fairly sure I said that the glass in the sliding window of the door of the car was laminated. That is not so; it is more probably toughened. The side window is likely to be toughened glass or double glazed soft annealed glass.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am mainly disappointed with the Minister's reply, but encouraged in one direction, that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory are conducting an investigation and, with with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I hope that it will be fairly quick in reporting. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I believe that, of the six speakers who joined in the debate, four supported the amendment. It is said that there is no conclusive evidence. Why have British car manufacturers installed laminated windscreens to the tune of at least 70 per cent.? Surely, they have done that based on their research—and the British car industry has done quite detailed research. Why do practically all models of one British car manufacturer have laminated glass windscreens? They must be satisfied that it is a great improvement and a development which ought to be encouraged—
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether there are some historical reasons for the development of this process. It seems to me that about 25 years ago many windscreens had laminated glass. One of the problems was that if, in an accident, people put their heads through the windscreen, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the way in which that glass shattered was much more damaging, because it tended to go into long slivers or daggers which were very destructive. I remember later being quite pleased at the thought that in front of me was a windscreen that would break into small pieces, and would not do so much damage. With seat belts, and the hope that fewer people will be going through their windscreens in future, it may be that the move should be back to laminated glass. These are considerations in a dynamic, developing situation in the technology of windscreen manufacture.
Lord Underhill: I do not think the Committee would wish me to re-open the debate. I am just trying to deal with the points which have arisen. Both the Minister and I referred to personal accidents, and I believe that his was the same as mine. Mine was not as a result of impact; it was as a result of splinters on the road. If there is impact, the small pieces fly towards you, and that is why there are so many cases of very serious eye injuries. Another factor is the inconvenience of driving through rain without a windscreen and trying to have a new one fitted on a Sunday. That can be very difficult. There is also the fact that small pieces of glass may get into the heating apparatus of the car and do considerable damage.
I have already referred to the fact that there is a considerable amount of evidence to justify this amendment. We shall await the TRRL report. I did not refer to France or the Netherlands. The nine countries which I mentioned did not include them, but there are another two which are considering this matter. Therefore, the figure is going up. The point
528
I was making was that none of the nine countries has stated that there have been any serious eye injuries since the compulsory fitting of laminated glass, and that is a very important consideration.
The Minister has made it quite clear that the Government do not wish to act on this matter at this stage. This is another case where I believe that Parliament has the right to say to the Government: "We want you to do it". They have the powers and I am very pleased to know that. I shall consult further on this matter and take into account what the Minister and others have said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.59 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I rise to acquaint the Committee of a rather technical inclusion in this Bill—what I might almost describe as a pretty sneaky piece of practice. Clause 54 removes from the 1967 Act the imposition of a speed limit on a trunk road or a classified road by virtue of street lighting being put into place. May I refer to Section 71 of the 1967 Act? It says:
"(1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour".
Subsection (2) provides that the Minister and the Secretary of State can alter that speed limit. Subsection (1) of Section 72 provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, a road is a restricted road for the purpose of section 71"—
that is the speed limit to which I have referred—
"of this Act if there is provided thereon a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart".
Subsection (2) says:
"A trunk road or classified road is not a restricted road for the purposes of the said section 71 by reason only of the provision thereon of such a system of street lighting as aforesaid unless such a system was provided thereon before 1st July 1957".
Clause 54 of the Bill reverses that position. At this stage I cannot see any reason for this clause to be inserted, particularly as the 1967 Act quite specifically exempted the trunk or the classified road. This was no accident. It was included on purpose in the 1967 Act. Looking back over the record, a good deal of debate and thought went into the matter.
If we reverse the 1967 Act—and it appears to me that this clause does that—we arrive at the paradoxical situation of ensuring that certain stretches of road which are currently free of speed limits will be brought under a speed limit provision while at the same time they will be made safer only by the provision of increased lighting. It might be argued that if the road to be improved was previously not a restricted road, such an improvement should allow the non-restriction to obtain.
If Clause 54 stands part of the Bill, I understand that this would allow the authorities to impose speed limits, purely by providing lights, without having to go through all the safeguarding regulatory procedure of applying for an order. That seems to be wrong and that is why I say that it looks, on the surface, as

529
though it is a pretty sneaky thing to put in. I suppose it is not unfair, on the same argument, to suggest that there will obviously be much more administration and public expense in connection with action to be taken, as provided for by Clause 54, which is not going to have to be proved to be necessary or justified.
That is what I understand Clause 54 to mean. I should be obliged if my noble friend the Minister would tell me whether I am correct in my understanding of Clause 54 and why it has been put in.
Lord Airedale: When a clause like this links speed limits to the provision of street lighting, it is rather important that the street lighting should be working properly. This enables me to mention briefly an experience of mine which I feel sure is shared by other noble Lords. I regularly travel on a certain route and I can be fairly certain that on a given evening one or other section of the street lighting will not be working and that that section of the road will be in total darkness. This affects not only road safety. It also plays into the hands of muggers. When I make the journey in the opposite direction the next morning, the chances are that that particular section of street lighting will be ablaze, competing with the bright sunlight.
I have mentioned this problem to senior police officers. They point out that, whereas the motorist commits an offence if he does not display the lights on his vehicle, a highway authority is not guilty of an offence if it fails to ensure that the street lighting is working properly, and no officer of the authority is guilty of an offence, either. Perhaps it would not be much sense to make it an offence, because the bill would presumably be footed by the taxpayer or the ratepayer. However, this is a serious problem. I would urge the Government to investigate the frequency of street lighting not working on our roads and seek a solution to this problem. I do not pretend to know the answer, but it is a problem which I think that the Government ought to try to tackle.
Lord Davies of Leek: Clause 54 is a little ambiguous. One does not know where one really is once one starts driving around. The position now is that, where there is street lighting, 30 miles per hour is generally the maximum speed. As has just been pointed out, there is no penalty imposed upon a local authority if lights are not working. However, lights may not be working in most dangerous places. But if I drove my car with one lamp out of order, although in 99·9 per cent. of cases police officers, who are intelligent individuals, would just say that I should get my lights put right, nevertheless I should technically be liable. No penalty, though, is imposed upon local authorities who neglect in some places—indeed, in some very important places—their lighting system. I do not want to be awkward or to make a long speech, although I could easily do so, but this is a vital point. I do not expect cataclysmic changes to the Bill as a result of our discussion this evening, but I think that the Government ought to look again at the matter and try to find a constructive answer.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for raising this point,
530
because the Committee will want an explanation from the Minister of exactly what it means and what its effect will be. I am the last person to want to increase speed limits where they should not be increased. All those of us who are motorists know that there are many roads on which there is a 40 miles per hour speed limit. If you have to go down to 30 miles, you will be the only one doing it, but you will get a fixed penalty notice if the police are around.
We want to know what the effect of this clause will be. I was very grateful to the Minister for the notes on clauses, which are detailed and very helpful on this point, but they still do not tell us exactly what will be the effect of the clause. It seems to me that there will be a vast number of roads where the position will change. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made was that you can have a road which has now got a 40 mile per hour speed limit and no street lighting. What will happen if street lighting is installed? Will it still have a 40-mile per hour limit, or will the limit come down to 30 miles per hour? We ought to know exactly what will be the effect of this. Where a 30-mile per hour limit is essential there ought to be a 30-mile per hour limit, but where that is unnecessary, on roads where one can travel quite comfortably at 40 miles per hour or even 50 miles per hour, where there may be street lighting, we ought to know what will be the effect of this. On the last page of these notes on the clauses, reference is made to local public opinion which is often biased in this direction.
Lord Davies of Leek: Will my noble friend give way for one moment? A concrete example of the point he is raising occurs in that famous little town of Banbury. If one is driving through Oxford to Warwick and once gets on the Banbury road, watch out! There is one stretch of it where there is a sign showing "30 miles per hour" in great big letters. In your car, purring away on a lovely evening when the sun is still shining or the moon is bright, you come, within a distance of a few hundred yards, into a 40 mile per hour area—although both stretches of road are lit all the way along. There will be a lot of expense on local authorities rushing to change 40 mile per hour signs to 30 mile per hour signs. They had better be forewarned about the cost of this clause.
Lord Underhill: My noble friend has almost concluded my speech for me. I will just draw attention to the last few lines in these notes on the clauses, where it says:
"The drawback is unlikely to have consequences anything like as serious as those which led to the introduction of the distinction between unclassified and other roads in 1956".
So the Government recognise that there are going to be drawbacks; they just say that the drawbacks will not be as serious as those of 1956. If it is obvious that there are going to be drawbacks, we ought to know the scope of them.
8.12 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: As my noble friend said in his speech, this is an extremely complicated amendment. I would say right away that there is meant to be nothing sneaky about it and I am surprised that it has generated

531
so much discussion. Clause 54 does serve a useful and desirable purpose and I will try to explain why. It would eliminate the existing divide as regards the relationship of lighting to speed limit status—a divide which the ordinary road user can hardly be expected to appreciate—between on the one hand unclassified roads and trunk and classified roads lit before 1st July 1957, and on the other trunk and classified roads lit after that date.
It would do this without altering any speed limits as shown at present to exist by the speed limit signing of the road in question. And it would do away with any doubts as to the legal status underlying such signing. Here I might say that, without Clause 54, the only means of removing such doubts would be by the making, in every case of doubt, of an individual order to impose—I stress the word "impose"—the limit already signed on the road. This would entail a considerable extra demand on the resources of local authorities and also on my right honourable friend in his capacity as highway authority for trunk roads. This is why we need it.
Now to try to get rid of some doubts. This clause should not result in any application of 30 miles per hour limits on trunk or classified roads where such limits would be inappropriate to the particular road. On roads that are already lit, of course, it would not, because of the clause would establish the existing speed limit status of these roads as already signed. This issue could arise, therefore, only on new trunk and classified roads lit from the start, and on existing ones which are currently unlit but on which lighting is installed in the future. As regards trunk roads, I can of course say positively that it will not; my right honourable friend is highway authority for these, and will see that the speed limits upon them, whether they are lit or not, will be those appropriate to the conditions of each.
The speed limit which is appropriate to any particular road depends on many factors, including the volume of traffic using it, the speed of vehicles, the accident record, the environment through which it passes, the frequency of junctions, and so on. The national limits—30 miles per hour at one end of the scale and 60 or 70 miles per hour at the other—are simply the starting points from which authorities make any adjustment that may be necessary. The department has supplied local authorities with guidance as to how to determine the speed limit appropriate for any length of road. It has also, for many years, reminded local highway authorities of the importance of keeping their speed limits under constant review and of adjusting them if necessary, whether up or down, according to the requirements of individual roads, which needs to be done if speed limits are to make the most effective contribution possible to road safety. These principles will apply to newly lit classified roads—and to trunk roads, on which we practice what we preach—just as they already apply to all roads.
Here, perhaps I might point out that they apply equally to lit unclassified roads—which are subject by virtue of the lighting to 30 miles per hour limits unless and until different limits are imposed. Many lit unclassified roads have notwithstanding this automatic restriction had their speed limits raised above the 30 miles per hour limit—because, we must assume, the
532
highway authority has deliberately and conscientiously considered what is the right limit for the road, and applied it. We have no ground for expecting that authorities will do otherwise with newly lit classified roads. We shall of course be reminding local authorities of the need to look carefully at the speed limit consequences of installing lighting—on classified roads, in future, as well as, at present, unclassified roads.
I do not think there is anything very much in this clause except a tidying-up measure which is highly complicated and relates, as the Committee can see, to the legal standing of the roads before 1st July 1957. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has read this I shall have assuaged his doubts. If he wants to come back to me on it, I know he will do so. I recommend this, I think, fairly harmless clause.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl the Minister was good enough to mention the words that this was a "tidying-up" clause. May I beg of him, in the name of the Committee, to tidy up the wording of the clause, if it is meant to be a tidying-up operation? May I give him just one example of really dreadful draftsmanship from the point of view of interpretation? I will choose the shortest and simplest example but I could refer him to other parts of this clause. Will the noble Earl and other members of the Committee look with me at subsection (4), which could obviously be worded in a very simple way. I will just take the Committee through its three lines:
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above, a maximum speed limit is one in respect of which no sign is required if it is one in relation to which Section 75 of the 1967 Act does not apply"
I, as a humble pupil of English at school, was taught to avoid a double negative if I possibly could. That is only because a double negative taxes people's brains in finding out what the affirmative is. I do not believe that members of the public ought to be taxed to this extent, nor should our courts, nor should the poor person who is trying to read this clause, even if he does not have a professional training in order to do so. I ask that before Report stage, whether this clause stands part of the Bill or not, the tidying-up operation to which the Minister referred be extended to its wording.
The Earl of Avon: I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says. I would equally like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his kind remarks on the Notes on Clauses where the explanation of subsections (3) and (4) is not much clearer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation. He and, I am sure, the Committee will appreciate that I could not take in the whole of that verbal explanation and I shall want to read it. One thing worried me very much—and the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, just touched on it. My noble friend used the expression "tidying up". I do not like tidying-up operations because they usually mean sweeping things around and sweeping things under other things. A little shiver went through me when my noble friend said that some trunk road speed limits may have changes but that this was not greatly material. What does he mean? What are "some"? What are "not very material"? What are the changes? I shall want to have a careful look at

533
this clause. I cannot say I am very happy with the explanation the Minister has given, but I can do no more at this stage than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 54 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
8.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Speed measuring devices.
. In section 78A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (Speeding offences generally) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—

"(2A) where proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) are commenced after the coming into force of this subsection, evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle ascertained by means of a reading from a radar speed measuring device shall not be admissible in evidence against the person so charged unless the device used is of a type approved in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and operated and maintained in accordance with requirements specified in those regulations.

(2B) Regulations made under subsection (2A) shall—

(a) provide that radar speed measuring devices shall conform to a prescribed British Standard Specification;

(b) provide that radar speed measuring devices shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions as specified in the current edition of the manufacturers' instruction manual;

(c) make such provisions as are necessary to ensure that radar speed measuring devices are not susceptible to any interference which may affect the accuracy of the readings produced by such devices, whether that interference results from the operation of a device of from any external source.

(2C) without prejudice to subsection (2B), regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section may include provisions generally as to any matter incidental to the manufacture, use or maintenance of radar speed measuring devices.".").

The noble Lord said: I hope the Committee will bear with me. This is a very important amendment. While I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, I shall have to explain exactly the reasons why it has been introduced. It proposes a new clause and it relates to the speed measuring devices commonly known as radar guns. Hand held radar guns are used by many police forces to provide corroborating evidence in prosecutions for speeding offences. Each individual chief constable selects the type of device to be used by his force from the variety of guns of different design which are currently available. No standard has been laid down to govern the accuracy of these devices, and tests have shown that certain guns are susceptible to interference. The effect of interference, or the incorrect use of the device, may result in the display of an inaccurate speed reading which, if not dected by the operator, may lead to wrongful prosecution and conviction. Therefore this issue is one of justice.
The amendment in no way seeks to prevent the use of radar guns. Its purpose is to provide that evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle obtained by means of a radar gun or any other speed measuring device should not be admissible in court proceedings for speeding offences unless the device used is of a type approved by, and operated and maintained in accordance with, requirements specified in regulations made by the Home Secretary. Such regulations would introduce a British standard for speed measuring devices, regulate
534
their operation and maintenance and ensure that such equipment is adapted to eliminate suspectibility to interference. I again emphasise that at present there is no standard whatever laid down.
In the absence of a common and approved standard it seems necessary for a motorist disputing the accuracy of the gun to arrange for an electronics expert who has examined the device to give evidence. For example, I have here a newspaper report of a recent appeal against a speeding conviction in which a Mrs. Ann Skelton of Whity successfully applied to the Teesside Crown Court for an order requiring the North Yorkshire police to allow a Sheffield University electronics expert to test a radar gun. It has often been difficult to obtain a radar gun for such testing in this type of case. Both the AA and the RAC have, I understand, arranged legal representation of members in cases which have resulted in decisions of courts not to accept the evidence in support of prosecutions, or have led to the abandonment of the prosecution, when the accuracy of the evidence of radar equipment has been challenged.
I have the transcript of a judgment by His Honour Judge Pitchford in R. v. Desmond Hughes on 24th March 1981 at the Newport Crown Court. This case was referred to in the other place, and it is a very important judgment. It was an appeal against conviction for speeding by the Newport Magistrate's Court when considerable attention was given to evidence on the radar equipment. Evidence for the Crown was given by Mr. Selby, and by Mr. Halford for the defence. I am assured that both these gentlemen have great experience and high qualifications in radar electronics.
I would like to refer to two statements made in the judgment. I am quoting from page 8:
"The result of their evidence"
—that is the evidence of Mr. Selby and Mr. Halford—
"is this: not only can moving objects give readings upon this radar device but also things that are not objects and are not moving, namely, radio impulses of different frequencies and nature, in particular, wireless transmissions. It has been abundantly shown and proved beyond a shadow of doubt that a wireless transmitter, either by a voice or by electronic sound, can induce a reading of speed in the Muniquip …"
that is one of these devices. Another statement made by the judge was:
"Both Mr. Selby and Mr. Halford agree that if in this patrol car parked at the bottom of Waterloo Road the wireless transmitter was being operated at the time when Constable Knight was taking his reading, they it is possible that a false signal could have been produced in the Muniquip. It would have overcome in intensity the signal give out by the Ford Capri towards the limited range of the device".
If I may make one other quotation from page 12, the judge said:
"We find that the machine may have been showing a false reading in the circumstances, and therefore it could not corm-borate his impression of the speed. It is very important that the machine should be reliable and not make mistakes."
He allowed the appeal.
The Under-Secretary, Mrs. Chalker, said in Committee that, in her view, the judgment was because of the manner in which the equipment was used and not necessarily the nature of the equipment. But the judge did say that a machine may misbehave in tracking moving objects even though it may not misbehave in the laboratory when tested. Then again, he referred

535
to the source of interference in the air and the need for greater insulation of the equipment. Therefore, he was drawing attention to two points of the actual equipment, as well as making other references to its use.
There have been made various independent tests, and I know that the AA, for instance, has carried out considerable testing of radar equipment, and its views have been based on the results of this particular research. Since 1978, the AA has persistently sought to persuade the Home Office to take action to implement a common standard specification which such devices would have to meet before being approved for evidential use. As recently as 19th March this year, the association wrote to the Home Office that, following discussions with other organisations and in the light of recent developments, the Home Office should arrange for representatives of all those directly concerned to meet to discuss the need for a standard. I will not read the whole text of the Home Office reply, but it is to the effect that the Home Office take the view that it is not appropriate for them to be involved in testing radar devices, that this should be left to the individual chief officers of police, and the responsibility for evaluating particular equipment is left in their hands.
The subject of speed check equipment was raised by Mr. Donald Anderson in an Adjournment Debate in the other place on 24th April this year. During that debate Mr. Anderson also advocated the introduction of a common standard, and the Minister of State, Home Office, replied that the Association of Chief Police Officers working group recognised that confirmation by a BSI standard would enhance public confidence, and consequently the Association of Chief Police Officers' had contacted the BSI to see whether a standard could be devised.
The matter was raised again during the Committee stage of this Bill in the other place, when the Under-Secretary stated that such equipment, "must be properly used by a trained officer". But she went on to say that she hoped that,
"we shall see a speedy move to a device which everyone respects, resulting from the meeting between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the BSI."
Although discussions have taken place since then, as far as I am aware, no progress has been made. All this seems to confirm the need for the terms of the amendment which I am now proposing. I should also like to point out that Amendment No. 124 is consequential to this amendment.
What is against having a standard approved by the Home Office in this matter? It is argued that it is not the job of the Home Office and that it should be left to chief police officers. I ask the Minister why, in the Transport Act which we passed last year in this House, I find Section 8(1)(a) referring to what we commonly term "breathalysers":
"to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State".
Parliament considered that it was such an important matter in the course of justice that the breathalyser machines must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State.
All we are asking for in this amendment is that there shall be a national standard and that the interests
536
of justice are such—and I refer your Lordships to the case which I have mentioned—and that this should not be a matter that is just left to the chief police officers to determine but there ought to be a national standard. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is very correct in saying that this is a serious matter. I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to him for bringing forward the amendment. We are dealing with a criminal offence; we are dealing with convictions which are entirely based on the supposed accuracy of machines. We are dealing with machines which have no conformity throughout the country. We are dealing with evidence which has been challenged in the courts. Doubts have been expressed and cases have been dismissed. I hope that my noble friend will now see that it is no good saying, "We are considering the matter; we are taking more evidence and we are having further discussions". He should either accept the basis of the amendment in the Bill now, or he should withdraw for the time being the use of the radar gun. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Leek: I should like fully to support my noble friend's amendment dealing with these speed measuring devices. The amazing thing about man is that he is a gullible creature. Murphy's Law tells us that nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. I am sure that many of us have had elementary dealings with electronics. I knew an old woman who used to say that she could get Austria on a cooking stove at certain times when she was boiling something. It was quite true. Nobody could explain it. It was one of the idiosyncrasies of the electronic and mysterious world in which we live.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He was referring to the gullibility of the human race and I was wondering whether what he was saying possibly had a bearing on that?
Lord Davies of Leek: Yes, I was referring to the gullibility of people who believe that machines are always accurate. We now find that millions of pounds are being made by men who know how to use computers and diddle the public. Let me explain a little bit about this. As the RAC and AA say, there has been considerable controversy in recent months and years about the use of radar speed measuring devices, because that is what they are. During the Committee stage in another place, unfortunately, an Opposition amendment to require such devices to comply with a British standard—and, as my noble friend said, to be approved by the Home Office—was defeated on a Division. That was rather sad.
The RAC has arranged legal representation of members in cases which have resulted in decisions by the courts not to accept such evidence in support of prosecutions or abandonment of prosecutions by the police when the accuracy of the evidence has been denied. This has attracted widespread publicity and widespread knowledge of the fact that these things can go wrong.

537
These machines increase the aggro between the motoring public and the police—of that I am quite convinced. A little more courtesy on the roads on the part of the motorist and a little more courtesy on the roads on the part of the police, always helps. But when we have a machine like this that is outside the judgment of human beings, we are confronted with something that needs attention. One does not need much knowledge to know about this. If one drives down to the House day in and day out there are motorcycles around without suppressors, then the reception on one's radio of music or whatever, is altered. I have heard may a policeman say how right that is.
I assure the Committee that one's future, when one is brought before a court for speeding, should not depend solely on these radar instruments. Whether or not we force this matter to a Division—which we may not do—I hope the Minister will say that the matter will be looked into in depth. It is a matter which the police, representatives of bodies like the RAC and the AA and representatives of the Government and the motoring public, should look into in depth if it is only to do one thing for us all; namely, to increase the confidence between the motorist and the police.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may briefly add a bit of technical interest. As an ex-naval signals officer who did some time in a research establishment in liaison between the Navy and its scientists, I can assure your Lordships that what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was saying about the possible interference between radio transmitters and radar sets, is very real. Therefore, I very much back up paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment.
As regards the question of accuracy and the British standards, that is obviously essential. I am absolutely appalled, if it is true, that the Home Office is saying, "Leave it to the chiefs of police to buy it off the shelf". If we do that, we cannot get a standard which is common throughout the country; we cannot guarantee it. It is extremely important from the point of view of all the factors that other noble Lords have mentioned that there is a central authority like the Secretary of State, and the device must have a scientifically proven basis like the standard produced by the British Standards Institute. It sounds to me absolutely appalling to take a type of laissez faire view and to say, "Let the chief constables go and buy them in the shops". It is quite dreadful.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I rise to support the amendment. In everyday life, a housewife or a husband buys an appliance or a piece of clothing which complies with a British standard. Even in hotels we have standards—British standards. We have those standards in electrical appliances; in every field of life we have British standards, and I do not see why we cannot have that as regards this gun.
Lord Mishcon: I referred a moment ago, when I addressed the Committee, to what I learnt as a pupil at school in regard to English. I also learnt as a pupil in the law that if you find that the court is with you, then for Heaven's sake shut up and do not go on
538
speaking. It looks as though, from the views which have been expressed so far, that the court, as it were, or the Committee, is with the mover of the amendment and, therefore, I want to add very little in case something I say disturbs the unanimity in the Committee in a wrong direction.
I want to emphasise only three short points. First, it must obviously be wrong for chief constables to be allowed to choose for themselves a type of equipment upon which a conviction can follow, which conviction obviously—and we have been referred to this very often in our discussions—can lead to a disqualification, quite apart from ruining a driver's reputation if he has a clean licence.
The second point I want to make—and I was glad to hear the expert voice of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, tonight, in the most courteous terms, leading the Committee in the right direction—is that it is obvious that the technical faults that occur here have made courts decide that certain devices are not fair. The third point I want to make is a fresh point. Discussions have gone on and have so far achieved no results. The Minister may well be tempted to reply that while those discussions are going on—and they are going on—this Committee ought to be content, the amendment ought to be withdrawn, because no doubt regulations will come out of the bag one day.
We have a duty. We have come across, not for the first time, something which ought to be put right. There is nothing to stop the Minister, if this is what is in his mind—if I may be permitted the impertinence of endeavouring to read it in advance—from saying that he would agree to this amendment if this subsection was not put into force for a reasonable period—and it could be six months—in order to allow those discussions between the British Standards Institute, the Chief Constables' Association, the Home Office and anybody else who wants to be brought into it, to be finalised and for some positive result to be achieved from those discussions. So I hope we shall not hear that discussions are going on, therefore the Committee's mind can be relieved and there is no need to deal with this subsection.
Lord Elton: I am already aware that the noble Lord's amendment touches upon a matter which is the subject of very widespread and real concern. I am aware of that, not only from the careful and persuasive speech with which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, introduced the matter and from those noble Lords elsewhere in the House who spoke in support of his amendment, but also from the very considerable post bag which I have received on the subject. Another indication, of course, was the extensive debate held on this subject in another place. Indeed, I must ask those of your Lordships—and they may be many—who have read that debate, as I have, to forgive me if a little of what I say seems to be somewhat familiar and repetitive for that very reason. For the benefit of noble Lords, whether in the Chamber or reading Hansard tomorrow, who have not read those interesting clauses, I must repeat some of the vital and important points made by my right honourable and learned friend in another place. It would be incomplete if I did not and my case would go by default.
It is very undesirable for either Parliament or the public to lose confidence, and I am anxious to lay to

539
rest the doubts that have been expressed about the equipment—doubts which have inspired the amendment. As the House will know, radar speed checking devices have been used by the police for some considerable time. This is perhaps the first important point to get across: we are not talking about new technology in the way, for instance, that we were then we considered the introduction of evidential breath testing equipment in last year's Bill. Similarly, it would be quite wrong to assume that things were appearing to go smoothly in the past simply because nobody could tell that they were going wrong. It cannot be emphasised too often that the case of Mr. Desmond Hughes, which was the starting point of the concern that has been expressed and which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, demonstrated not that the equipment was not working properly, but that the operator had made at least one, and possibly two, mistakes in his use of the device. Indeed the judge in the case did not recommend withdrawal of the device. Instead he recommended four guidelines for the police to use when operating it. Three of these were already included in the ACPO's Instructions; the fourth, that the equipment should be checked against a vehicle travelling at a known speed, was adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, although they did not feel that it was technically necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has quoted the judge as saying that it is very important that the machine should be reliable and not make mistakes. We are not at variance on that.
This brings me to my next main point: no matter what equipment we use, we shall always be dependent on an operator; this is something which goes far wider than speed-measuring devices. Certainly we must give the police the best equipment we can; certainly we must make sure that they receive proper training in its use, but beyond that we have to leave it to the individual officer. You simply cannot legislate out human error: the last time we tried to do that in this field we found ourselves in a morass of unmeritorous technical defences to the drink and driving law. Subsection 2B(b) implies that we should take that fruitless path again, with the consequence that the slightest defect almost in the style of an officer's conduct of the speed check will render the evidence obtained from the device invalid. Surely what the case of Mr. Hughes shows is that the courts are quite capable of discriminating between good evidence and evidence which is not so good but which has been obtained by the same hand-held radar. We do not need to make regulations to achieve this, and, as I have said, we may make difficulties for good law enforcement instead if we do.
My next point is the question of radio interference, at which subsection 2B of the amendment is aimed. As my noble friend, in his customarily courteous manner has said from behind me, it is quite true that radar devices can be affected by nearby radio interference. It does not happen that often and, indeed, I have tried to procure this effect myself in London's streets with this equipment, in order to satisfy myself, but without success. But when it is procured, it produces a quite different and easily distinguished signal on the machine. It operates in a different mode and you do not actually
540
read the radio signal as if what we you are reading was bounce-back from an approaching motor car.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the Minister, with the usual courtesy which he shows and which he ascribed quite correctly to the noble Lord behind him as well, would kindly deal with this point. He is talking about having used a machine. I have no doubt that the machine he used was a very good one. The point of this amendment is that there is no standard machine and there is, therefore, no point in the argument that some machines are very good and some machines are very bad. The noble Lord, the Minister, has been using some very good ones, I have no doubt. I want to see a standard, good machine. At the present moment diverse kinds are being used.
Lord Elton: I take the noble Lord's point absolutely. It was, in fact, the sort of machine that was used in the Hughes case, which I thought was the most appropriate. But I shall come to the noble Lord's point in due course. I shall doubtless flounder a bit, because I think I have taken off the cuff, as it were, a bit of speech that lay further ahead.
As I was saying, what has not perhaps been given sufficient prominence in previous discussions is that the false speed reading which shows as a result of radio interference is highly characteristic and easily detected by a trained operator. Indeed, the standard procedures approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers require him to make sure that the reading is not attributable to radio interference. It is most unlikely, therefore, that false readings will lead to prosecutions. In spite of this, however, the issue of the accuracy of the device and its use have caused the anxieties that have been expressed here tonight.
But we and the Traffic Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers recognise the need to raise public confidence in this equipment. Some of the committee will be aware that to that end the Association of Chief Police Officers Traffic Committee decided to hold discussions with the British Standards Institute to see whether a standard could, in fact, be devised for the equipment. The Committee will be aware of the high esteem in which this organisation is held; indeed, the amendment before us acknowledges as much. These discussions have been taking place, and the Traffic Committee was able recently to put their preliminary findings before the full Council of ACPO for its view. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Council has formally accepted the need for impartial evaluation of the devices and has instructed the Traffic Committee to enter into discussions with the Home Office about this. In the light of this, I hope that the noble, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We are all concerned with road safety. I entirely accept that the supporters of this amendment are concerned to see justice done. I hope that I have persuaded them that justice is, in fact, being done, and that steps are being taken to reassure the public on this point, that they can see it is being done.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I ask my noble friend a question, since I am a signatory to this amendment?

541
He said, in effect, precisely what his colleague said to me last year during the passage of the 1981 Act, when I had down a somewhat shorter amendment in exactly the same terms, and argued in similar terms to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I do not disagree with any additional argument he has volunteered. My noble friend the Minister gives an explanation, on the face of it very acceptable, but he has done nothing more than to repeat the promise, "Yes, we are moving forward, and, yes, steps are being taken, and I am quite sure that the public will in the fullness of time be totally satisfied".
The public are not satisfied now, and I do not think that it is reasonable that we should be put off with what I can only describe as a delaying tactic. If my noble friend would care to say to the Committee, "Yes, recognise there is now a great urgency in this matter. I will deliver some goods this time next year"—let us put a time on it, six months hence, or something of that nature—then I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may feel justified in withdrawing his amendment. I do not know; I cannot answer for him.
I am not worried about BSI. What I know is that there are experts in the Home Office, because I have been to Aldermaston and seen some of the work they have done on evidential breath testing devices. They can establish a machine that has a variable tolerance which is acceptable. They can invite quickly, within a matter of weeks, all the machines available in the world, perhaps 40, or 100. Twenty may come up. Within a matter of weeks they can produce three which have the characteristics which the RAC, the AA, and the police and everybody else wants. It can be done if there is a will. My noble friend should show a little more willingness to meet the Committee's genuine anxiety on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having paraphrased what I tried to say in regard to what I anticipate might be the Minister's reply. I now direct a question to the noble Lord the Minister, which I hope he will be able to deal with in a helpful way. I think the Committee expects this.
In view of the fact that we have now been informed that it looks as though there will be a conclusion to these discussions leading to an acceptable standard for the device we are talking about, what is the Minister's objection, if any, to this amendment being passed, this clause being put in the Bill, subject to such time limit that he might wish to suggest for the subsection to come into force? I take Lord Lucas's period of time, which I myself suggested. If he wanted to make it six months, or nine months, or whatever it was, we would then know that the public were being satisfied, that the Minister had been positive and helpful and that these continual discussions which have been before Parliament have under his reign ended in a satisfactory manner.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: If we are talking about the relations between the police and the public, would the Government consider withdrawing these machines until there is a standard?
Lord Elton: My noble friend always urges difficult courses as though they were easy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, always makes what may be a thorny
542
path appear rosy. I have told your Lordships that progress is being made in the search for an acceptable standard. I cannot put a date upon its conclusion because the question of a standard has to be achieved by consensus.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggests that if we achieve the consensus and a satisfactory standard—there is no earthly use in having a standard which is unsatisfactory and does not cover all the aspects of the operation of the equipment which at present give rise to concern among not only your Lordships but many motorists—it would not be appropriate then to proceed with the regulations unless we were so convinced. Furthermore, it is debatable whether the regulations then would be necessary.
The precedent has been quoted of the breath testing equipment. That is not entirely apt. First, the equipment is not itself subject to regulations, merely to approval, which is a much less laborious process. Secondly—and perhaps I did not emphasise this enough at the opening of this debate—unlike the radar equipment we are now discussing, the evidential equipment would be the sole evidence given on which a conviction is based. The function of the radar speed checking gun is to confirm, or otherwise, the estimate of the speed of the motorists made by the policeman carrying out the check, or by his associate or colleague by any other method, whether by the subjective method of an experienced eye or a stop watch, or a pneumatic line across the road, or whatever, The penalty, moreover, is much lighter, and the evidence from a gun is merely corroborative. So it is quite open to a court to accept evidence from a stop watch or another officer, or whatever.
I must also address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, who suggested that the equipment should be withdrawn. I cannot accept that the equipment is as defective as your Lordships seek to suggest. Nor can I accept that courts are not quite capable of distinguishing between cases where there is proper evidence and cases where there is not proper evidence. Therefore, I do not propose that such devices should be withdrawn, whatever the interim period may be.
I should like to hear the reaction of the noble Lord to what I have said to the point that we are approaching, I hope, a consensus and consequently a British standard and that that standard will be satisfactory for the purposes we want, and that having that standard, regulation will be elaborate and costly and unnecessary and that it therefore would be rather precipitate to put this into this Bill at this stage.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for putting his position clearly. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have given support to this proposal, and, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, to have the expert confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of what the radar electronic experts said in the case to which I have referred. The Minister said that Judge Pitchford was dealing mainly with the method of use. I do not want to weary the Committee but I have three places marked where the judge referred to the equipment itself and not its use. He referred to the way it was used as well, but he referred to possible defects in the equipment.
While it may be that the courts will use the radar gun evidence as additional corroborative evidence,

543
surely the fact that we have instruments—and it need not be one instrument, there could be a number of instruments approved as standard—makes it easy to determine that the regulations, or any additional amendment, could still enable them to be used as corroborative evidence. I am not happy with what the noble Lord suggests.
The fact that discussions are taking place confirms what I have said and the advice I have been given about that. But even if those discussions had, as we were told tonight, resulted in the Association of Chief Police Officers and the BSI agreeing on two or three pieces of equipment as standard, why cannot it be written into the Bill that the the equipment used must be that approved by the Secretary of State? If my amendment is too detailed, then so long as the Minister will say that he will bring forward an amendment on Report which, if it does nothing else, says the equipment shall only be that approved by the Secretary of State, or words to that effcet, that would be acceptable. And if he wishes to attach to it a date in the future for when it will apply, I shall be happy about that.
I do not want to divide the Committee on an issue of this kind, but unless I am given a firm assurance that something will be written into the Bill—I do not mind if the whole of my amendment is taken away, so long as such an undertaking is given—which will lay on the Secretary of State the responsibility for approving whatever the standard is, that will be the only way to satisfy us and the public on this issue. It should not be left to the chief police officers and the BSI together. We want the seal on this to be the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving me an opportunity to reply to what he said in conclusion to the debate on this amendment, and I would refer first to his reference to the words of the learned judge in R. v Hughes. He referred to the performance of the machinery in the context of its inaccuracy induced by other influences not having been detected because it had not been properly used. The noble Lord has given a fairly clear map of what he would and would not find acceptable in the way of a modification of his amendment, and I hope he will be kind enough to give me from now until Report to consider whether it would be possible to move some distance towards what he wants, and to decide at that stage whether to divide, having seen whether what we can come up with will satisfy him.
Lord Underhill: I should be ungenerous and unwise not to accept that offer. I will consult those advising me and I may as a precaution, have to table a suitable amendment on Report in case the Minister finds he cannot do anything. I wish to make it clear that I want the Minister to come forward with a proposal, but I give notice that we shall probably table a precautionary amendment at Report in case he decides not to move. I hope his attitude tonight means that he will.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I could take the noble Lord's mind on one idea, which would be some form of procedure
544
such as he suggested, or part of it, based on a satisfactory BSI certificate. That, presumably, is the sort of thing he is talking about? I am not making an offer—I should be rash to do that—but trying to take his mind so that, in the relatively short time that remains to me, at least I know in which direction he is thinking.
Lord Underhill: If it were a BSI certificate approved by the Secretary of State, we might possibly approve that; but I want something in the Bill to the effect that the Secretary of State approves the equipment, be it BSI equipment or otherwise. I think the Minister understands my view on this and that of noble Lords who have supported me. We hope there will be movement but, as I say, we may have to table an amendment for Report as a precautionary measure. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 114A:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Temporary speed restrictions.
. In section 12(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, after the words "of this Act" or there shall be inserted the words", where there is considered to be a likelihood of extreme danger to the public,".").
The noble Lord said: To avoid delaying the Committee, I am wondering whether my noble friend, who is aware of the substance of what I wanted to discuss, agrees that we could possibly resolve the point outside the Committee, so enabling us to move rather faster.
The Earl of Avon: I think that would be entirely satisfactory.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Amendment of certain penalties in the 1972 Act]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 65, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In column 5 of the entry in Part I of Schedule 4 relating to section 1(1) of that Act (causing death by reckless or dangerous driving) after the word "obligatory" there shall be inserted the words but not less than two years to commence after the completion of any period of imprisonment ",").
The noble Lord said: This arises from correspondence referred to me by a Member of Parliament, one of whose constituents had been in touch with him over the prosecution of a driver responsible for the death of her brother. I understand that the Member has been in touch with the Secretary of State for Transport on the matter in relation to the general question of penalties for causing death by reckless driving. The Secretary of State, if I may respectfully say so, correctly stated that it would not be proper to comment on the particular case, but he pointed out that a person may be imprisoned for up to five years, or two years if convicted by a sheriff court in Scotland, and fined an unlimited amount. Disqualification is obligatory for

545
at least 12 months, and the licence must be endorsed unless there are special reasons why the offence was committed. The Secretary of State added that if the court decides to order imprisonment, it will be for them to judge the appropriate length of disqualification bearing in mind the period the offender spends in prison.
The amendment would require the court to impose a driving ban running for not less than two years beyond the period of imprisonment. There are many cases where Parliament decides on minimum sentences and the amendment seeks to do just that. In other words, when a man has served whatever period of imprisonment it may be, there should be a driving ban of at least two years after that in order to protect the public. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would the amendment include children? I have known of cases where children have taken a car, sometimes their parents' car, and might have this type of accident. Does the noble Lord mean to include children?
Lord Underhill: I must bow to the greater knowledge of the Minister in answering that. The amendment refers to those who are liable to imprisonment, and a child would not normally be so liable. As to the age limit of those liable to be affected, perhaps the Minister could give the Committee some guidance.
The Earl of Avon: It is always saddening to hear of tragic accidents, and of course I am aware of the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has referred. However, I should like to confine my remarks to the amendment before the Committee. Disturbing though any fatal road accident is, the court has a duty to consider the individual circumstances of each case, to reach a conclusion on that basis, and to impose the penalties that it sees fit within the range available to it.
I think the Committee will agree that it is a fundamental principle of our system of justice that within a maximum fixed by Parliament for each type of offence (not only traffic offences), the courts have the discretion to determine appropriate penalties according to the individual circumstances. As the noble Lord has said, the effect of the amendment would be to direct the court in the punishment that it may impose by determining when a minimum period of disqualification should commence. Clearly that could not be easily reconciled with the principle which I have just mentioned.
The penalty available to the courts for the offence in question is substantial; the noble Lord has stated what it is. A person may be imprisoned for up to five years (or two years if convicted by a sheriff's court in Scotland) and fined an unlimited amount. Disqualification is obligatory for at least 12 months, but many courts disqualify for longer periods, and the licence must be endorsed, unless there are special reasons why the offence was committed. In 1980, of 226 cases where disqualification was imposed for offences involving death or bodily harm, only 34 were for a period of one year or less. The remainder ranged up to a life ban, though most lay between three and 10 years. It is our view that there are sufficient powers to enable the courts to deal effectively with offenders according to
546
the degree of seriousness of the particular offence. I do not think that we can go further than that in directing the sentence that the court should impose; only it can judge what is appropriate according to the individual circumstances, which can of course cover a very wide range.
If the court decides to order imprisonment, it will be for it to judge the appropriate length of the disqualification, bearing in mind the period that the offender spends in prison. It is unlikely that any court would order a period of disqualification to run concurrently and for the same length of time as a period of imprisonment.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the penalties available for the offence are adequate and that any attempt to direct the courts in the sentences that they impose would not be acceptable to us in principle. I shall be interested to hear his reaction to my remarks.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation. Of course there are some offences for which there is laid down a minimum period of imprisonment, and, if we were to refer to various Acts, we should find that clearly stated. Naturally, I shall have tomorrow to read very carefully in Hansard what the noble Earl has said, to see whether his explanation is as satisfactory as it seemed when I heard it just now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Proceedings in respect of offences in connection with Crown vehicles.
.—(1) In section 188 of the 1972 Act (application to the Crown), for subsections (8) and (9) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(8) Where an offence under this Act is alleged to have been committed in connection with a vehicle in the public service of the Crown, proceedings may be brought in respect of the offence against a person nominated for the purpose on behalf of the Crown; and subject to subsection (9) below, where any such offence is committed any person so nominated shall also he guilty of the offence as well as any person actually responsible for the offence (but without prejudice to proceedings against any person so responsible).
(9) Where a person is convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (8) above)—

(a) no order may be made on his conviction save an order imposing a fine;

(b) payment of any fine imposed on him in respect of that offence may not be enforced against him; and

(c) apart from the imposition of any such fine, the conviction shall be disregarded for all purposes other than any appeal (whether by way of case stated or otherwise)."

(2) The subsections substituted by subsection (1) above for subsections (8) and (9) of section 188 of the 1972 Act (referred to below in this section as the 1972 Act subsections) shall also be substituted—

(a) for section 97(4) of the 1967 Act; and

(b) for section 102(3) of the Transport Act 1968; renumbered in the former case as subsections (4) and (5) and in the latter case as subsections (3) and (3A) (and taking the reference in each of those subsections to the other as correspondingly renumbered).

(3) As inserted by subsection (2) above in section 102 of the Transport Act 1968, subsection (8) of the 1972 Act subsections shall have effect with the substitution of the words "this Part of this Act" for the words "this Act".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to put right an unsatisfactory situation whereby, through no fault of his own, an officer nominated as departmental representative in court proceedings in respect of a Crown vehicle in the service of the department may be personally prejudiced. In the normal course of events, an employer who owns a vehicle driven by an employee may be prosecuted—for example, for defects discovered during the vehicle's use on the employer's business. The employer may be convicted, and penalties, which may include endorsement of the employer's licence, or even disqualification, may be imposed. Where a corporate body, such as a limited company, is the employer, the penalties will attach to the body, and cannot therefore include licence endorsement or disqualification. Where however a specific individual within the organisation can be shown to have had personal responsibility, it is open to the authorities to prosecute the individual in his own right.
However, because the Crown is immune from prosecution, the position regarding Crown vehicles needs to be specifically provided for. Section 188 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, and similar provisions in other Acts with which the amendment deals, provide for the department in the service of which the vehicle is used to nominate a representative for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act. In effect, that puts the Crown in substantially the same position as any other corporate employer. Unless the courts are satisfied that only the driver was responsible for the offence, the person nominated is deemed to be the person actually responsible. Because he stands before the court in his own right, he may have fines imposed on him personally, as indeed has been the case, and that could have the effect of putting his personal motor insurance at risk. Indeed, he could even find that his own driving licence was endorsed for certain offences. As your Lordships may imagine, there are not many volunteers for that dubious privilege. It is clear that a better way needs to be found of solving what is essentially a procedural problem. I think that the amendment provides a better way, and I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: May I ask the Minister just two questions arising on this Government amendment? First, in subsection (8) of the proposed new clause it says that the person so nominated (which is, of course, the notional defendant)
"shall also be guilty of the offence as well as any person actually responsible for the offence …".
That could mean that the driver as well as the notional defendant could, in certain circumstances, both be held responsible.
The other point arises on the new subsection (9), where paragraph (a) says:
"no order may be made on his conviction save an order imposing a fine".
Does this whole clause in any way affect or limit the rights of any other driver, a third party, who may be involved in an accident in respect of a Crown vehicle? Would it not be advisable that under paragraph (a) to which I have referred, in addition to the words "save an order imposing a fine", there should be added, "or compensation to any injured party", or
548
words to that effect? Because, surely, a court should have the authority to do that as well as to impose a fine.
Lord Bellwin: I am not sure whether I can clarify the matter to the extent that the noble Lord requests. I think the answer to the first point he made is, yes, that is so. At least, that is the interpretation I would give. On his second point, I would think the answer is, no, because it really has nothing to do with civil liability. That is the interpretation I would give, but if it should prove to be otherwise, then of course I will tell the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 117:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Builders' skips.
. In section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of builders' skips) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (4)—
"(a) that the skip is properly lighted during the hours of darkness and is equipped with such fluorescent and retro-reflective diagonal markings as may be prescribed in regulations made under this Act by the Secretary of State in such positions as may be prescribed;".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of builders' skips, and I think I can save the time of your Lordships as this seems to be such an obvious thing that ought to be dealt with. I am referring to the skips that people have outside their houses while building operations are going on. Many noble Lords will have used them. Only a few months ago I used a builders' skip to take away lots of rubble which I had. These often cannot be distinguished at night. I know that they are supposed to have lights attached to them after authority for them is given by the local authority, but lights can go out. All we are really asking here is that there should be the fluorescent and retro-reflective diagonal markings—the type of thing one has on lorries. It seems such a sensible thing in my view that I will not elaborate on it. I hope the Government will accept it or decide to do something about it. Therefore, I will refrain from saying anything more until I hear the Government's view.
Lord Bellwin: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment, which, as he says, seeks to improve the conspicuity of builders' skips left on the highway at night. We think there is much merit in this amendment. As drafted, the clause is in fact deficient in one or two respects, but without going into detail as to what and why, may I say that we shall be glad to draw up a revised provision to cater for the object which really both we and the noble Lord seek to achieve. Therefore, if he would agree to withdraw his new clause, I will undertake to table a suitable amendment for consideration by the House at Report.
Lord Airedale: One thing that the Minister may have in mind is: do we need to use the word "builders'"? There are skips which are run by people who organise what I believe are called bottle banks for collecting non-returnable bottles, and their skips ought to be covered by the amendment. That can be done by not insisting on the word "builders'".
Lord Bellwin: We shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord says.
Lord Underhill: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving the assurance that he has, and welcome it. I very much appreciate his decision on this matter on behalf of the Government, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Provisional licences for motor-cyclists.
. In section 23 of the Transport Act 1981 (provisional licences and driving tests) in subsection (5) after the words "remain in force for such period" there shall he inserted the words "not exceeding one year".").
The noble Lord said: I am certain the Committee will appreciate that on some of these matters I am advised by different organisations, and on this one I am advised by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety, known as PACTS, who have looked into this matter with a great deal of serious consideration. A two-part motor-cycle driving test was introduced on 29th March this year. The 1981 Act will allow a person to ride a motor-cycle with a provisional licence for up to two years before passing both parts of the test.
The two-year period is unlikely to decrease significantly the number of motor-cycle accidents, about which many noble Lords have expressed serious concern in various debates in your Lordships' House. Surveys have shown that riders are most likely to be involved in an injury-producing accident within their first six to 12 months of riding. I am sure that there is general agreement on this. There is much evidence available. I was going to quote from the TRRL, from their Working Report numbered 913. But the Government will well know the contents of it and therefore I will not do so. That makes quite conclusive the points that I have made; that it is the lower age groups that suffer from these serious motor-cycle accidents, and it confirms that most of the serious accidents take place in the six-months to 12-months period.
For myself, I am concerned—and I expressed this when we debated the 1981 Bill—with the first-time rider, and I should like to see some training provision before a new driver takes a motor-cycle on the road; because they do not have to be accompanied by a proficient driver as does a person with a provisional licence for a car. I had a probing amendment to that effect to the 1981 Bill. The PACTS which advised me on this matter consider (and I support them in this) that the urgent necessity, one capable of realisation, is the reduction of the testing period to one year as proposed in the amendment.
If we are serious on the need for training and testing new riders during the first six to 12 months, then it is wrong to adhere to the two-year provision. Therefore, in dealing with the amendment I would appreciate it if the Government could give the Committee some indication of where we now stand on the question of training and testing organisations.
I was going to give the Committee some information
550
—they may know it—on the working of the scheme of the RAC and ACU which has been going on for the best part of 35 years and for which they have received only limited Government financial assistance. In a Question in the other place on 16th June this year, we were told by the Under-Secretary that for the current year, 1981–82, the amount of financial assistance towards a big training scheme carried out by the RAC and ACU was £69,000. The Minister said that another £80,000 to cover the shortfall in the funds provided by the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation to carry through the STEP scheme had been made for this year. The RAC and ACU said that £350,000 was needed to carry through an effective scheme, and they generously offered to put in £50,000 of their own money to cover the cost. The Government, unfortunately, offered only £143,000, and that on condition that the RAC and ACU accepted responsibility for the Part I testing at their own training centres and emphasised that this would be a once-and-for-all payment and that the scheme must be made self-financing in future years.
I understand that the Government said in respect to another question, that the financial help which was given to the RAC and ACU will now be transferred to the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation because regretably the RAC felt they had to withdraw from the scheme that they had carried out all these years, using enthusiastic motor-cycle volunteers to carry it out, and this money was therefore transferred to the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation. We understand that RoSPA has now offered to come into the motor-cycle training scheme. Therefore I must ask this: Will the money which has gone to the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation be transferred to RoSPA? What will happen in future years?
I want my amendment to be accepted by your Lordships, but we must know where the present scheme is. Is it in operation? Can it carry out the two-year period? I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell me that, despite what I have said, there are good alternative plans and therefore he will be able to accept the amendment so that we can concentrate on the six-month to 12-month new riders, which everybody says is the group at risk.
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: The object of the limit on the duration of provisional motor-cycle licences, together with the introduction of the two-part test, is to ensure that learner riders take training and pass their tests. I am sure no one will quarrel with this objective. We recognise a certain amount of criticism of the means that we have taken to achieve it. Nevertheless, a proposal was passed and we are now in the process of laying the necessary regulations to implement it. I understand some will come out, I think next week. These regulations are necessary because, as the Committee will recall, we did not specify in the Act either an "on" or "off" period. We said that we expected the "on" period to be two years and the "off" period to be one year. We also said that we should prefer not to specify the periods in the Act itself because circumstances could change. The "on" period has to be short enough to encourage a rider to start thinking about the need to take training and pass his test at the outset of his riding career when he needs

551
training most. At the same time, it must in fairness be long enough to ensure that he has a reasonable chance to take his test more than once, given that even the best of riders can for one reason or another fail the first time. And remember that a rider now has to pass two tests: part 1 and part 2.
There is therefore a nice judgment to be made, and making this judgment is not any easier because one factor, the length of the test queues, is changing all the time. At present, the waiting time is, I am glad to say, being steadily reduced. In the Metropolitan area, for instance, it remains at 18 weeks. It only needs an occurrence outside our control, such as a prolonged spell of bad weather, to put it up. Our judgment is that in present circumstances a two-year period is about right. It may be that in future we could reduce the waiting time for tests still further; we could reduce the period to something like that which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggests. We do not think that we have reached that point yet. While I have every sympathy with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment—indeed, I have sympathy with the case that he mentioned about motor-cyclists generally—I should not wish the Committee at the moment to accept this amendment.
The noble Lord went on to ask me about the present situation. The Government have been contributing towards the running cost of the RAC/ACU scheme for the past 20 years. We have never made any secret of our belief, with the introduction of a motor-cycle safety measure in the Transport Act last year, that motor-cycle training can and should operate on a self-financing basis. Training has not been self-supporting in the past simply because of the low throughput of trainees. Only about 15 per cent. of riders have actually taken formal training. However, the Transport Act provides much stronger incentives for new motor-cyclists to take training courses and we therefore expect that in future training will become something which the majority of riders take rather than the present small minority.
We had long and detailed discussions with the RAC about how they saw their role in the new system of training, in the course of which we made an offer for substantially increased grant for the current financial year to help the RAC adjust. Unfortunately, they came to the conclusion that without the assurance of long-term financial support from Government they could not continue to take part in motor-cycle training. We heard of this decision with considerable regret. The RAC have a long and distinguished involvement with motor-cycle training schemes and the RAC/ACU scheme has made an important contribution to road safety.
I should like to express my gratitude to the RAC and the many other volunteers who have so generously given of their time and experience. I hope that they will continue to play just as important a role in training as they have in the past. Many individual RAC/ACU centres have already taken the initiative and applied for appointment to conduct part 1 of the new motor-cycle test in their own right. Over 100 such centres have so far been authorised. There is every reason to believe that we shall have sufficient facilities available to cope with the expected increase in demand for motor-
552
cycle training in the future. Indeed, we have so far appointed bodies to conduct part 1 of the test from over 570 sites up and down the country. They include motor-cycle training organisations, both large and small, local authorities and driving schools. Further applications for appointments to conduct the tests are being considered. More organisations are applying each week now that the scheme has begun.
We recognise that some training organisations, particularly the smaller ones, may have difficulty over the initial cost of participating in the scheme. We have therefore made available to the British Motor Cycle Safety Foundation a significant proportion of the grant originally allocated to the RAC this year, which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned. This will enable the foundation to help defray the initial expenses of those training organisations—and the noble Lord mentioned both RoSPA and STEP—including the former RAC/ACU centres, who would like to take part in this scheme but lack the necessary financial means to do so. I have tried to indicate that the new scheme that we debated last year is getting off the ground and going well. We hope to see a great general improvement in motor-cycle training.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for the information he has given. I am also encouraged by what he has said about the development of the scheme. We shall have to wait for a review—presumably there will be a review presented to Parliament in due course as to whether this has proved successful. I hope that any suggestion of making schemes self-financing will not make it difficult for some organisations to carry this through, because we must get the young motor-cyclists trained as quickly as possible. I still should have liked to see a one-year scheme, because, although the two-year scheme will enable people to take the test more than once if they fail the first time, it is the six to 12-month first-riders that we want to catch and the present scheme may not catch them. In begging leave to withdraw my amendment, I hope that the Government will keep that in mind and, if they find that the present scheme is not really affecting the six- to twelve-month new riders, that I hope they will reconsider the matter of the one-year scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Extended pension provision for members of transport Boards.
. In paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1962 (salaries, pensions etc. of members of Boards of nationalised transport industries), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) (Minister may determine pensions to be paid on the retirement or death of members of Boards), for the words "on the retirement or death" there shall be substituted the words "in the case'..").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to take with this Amendment Nos. 23 and 137. These are technical amendments and are designed to rectify a problem which has come to light in connection with the procedure for contracting pension arrangements made for board members in the transport industries under Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1962 out of the state pension scheme. It has been the policy

553
of each Government since the current state pension scheme came into operation to contract out the pension arrangements made for members of the nationalised industry boards and similar bodies, in the same way that the great majority of occupational pension schemes are contracted out.
I have here some quite detailed notes on this, but I will not go into them fully at this stage unless I am asked to do so. I want to emphasise that these amendments would not provide access to a pension for any person who did not already enjoy it under existing legislation. They would simply remove an anomaly and bring the provisions of the 1962 Act into line with those of more recent legislation applying to the pensions of Board members.
The first amendment would achieve this by replacing the specific reference to "retirement or death" by a more general form of wording. The second would extend this provision to Northern Ireland, in line with the coverage of Schedule 1 to the 1962 Act. The third makes the necessary consequential amendment to the Title. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9.35 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 119B:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Payments in respect of applicants for exemption from wearing seat belts.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments out of money provided by Parliament in respect of the examination of applicants falling within any class mentioned in subsection (2) below, being applicants for medical certificates required as a condition of any exception prescribed by regulations under section 33A or 33B of the 1972 Act (wearing of seat belts).
(2) The classes referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) those in receipt of—

(i) attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975 at the higher rate referred to in subsection (3) of that section;

(ii) mobility allowance under section 37A of that Act;

(iii) disablement pension under section 57 of that Act at a weekly rate increased by virtue of section 61(1) of that Act (constant attendance needed); or

(iv) an allowance under article 14 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1978 (constant attendance allowance) at a rate increased by virtue of paragraph (1)(b) of that article;

(b) those in receipt of—

(i) family income supplement; or

(ii) any benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976;

and their dependants; and

(c) those whose names are in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) so as to omit any of the classes mentioned in that subsection or add to or substitute for any of those classes other classes of any description.").
The noble Lord said: some of your Lordships present here today will remember that last year the noble Lord, the Lord Nugent, introduced a clause into the Transport Act 1981 during Committee stage, which enabled my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to introduce regulations requiring
554
the compulsory wearing of seat belts. The draft regulations were, in fact, laid before Parliament on 6th July—indeed, relaid with a minor correction on 13th July—and we shall be having the opportunity to debate these provisions in due course.
Some of your Lordships will also remember that the Transport Act provides for some specific exemptions from compulsion, and one of these is for medical reasons. For people to be exempt in this category they must hold a valid exemption certificate, signed by a medical practitioner, to the effect that it is inadvisable, on medical grounds, for them to wear a seat belt. The Medical commission on Accident Prevention has produced guidelines for the profession on medical exemption, which we shall be circulating to doctors along with copies of the forms for certificates. The guidelines cover physical conditions, such as pregnancy, and mental conditions, such as claustrophobia. However, the Medical Commission has said that few, if any, medical conditions are aggravated by wearing a seat belt and that exemption is most likely to be necessary because of a temporary condition or the combined effect of more than one condition.
Doctors will be able to charge a fee for examining applicants and the British Medical Association has recommended to its members that this sum should be £19. We expect that most people will apply to their own GPs for exemption, and we hope that GPs will consider applications from those on low incomes or disabled, without charge or, at least, at a nominal charge. However, if this were not possible, it would clearly be wrong for someone to have to wear a belt which might be detrimental to his or her health simply because he or she could not afford the fee for an examination. The Government therefore believe that they should assist certain people who are on low incomes, or who are disabled, so that they may apply for medical exemption. Since this will be an ongoing service, it is not proper for the expenditure implications to be covered by the Appropriation Acts. The Secretary of State is therefore taking powers in this clause to make the necessary payments.
Subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State to make payments for examinations. The present proposal is that this should be done by providing examinations through the auspices of the DHSS Social Security Medical Service. Subsection (2) sets out those people who will be eligible for help. This will, I am sure, be the aspect of this new provision of most interest to your Lordships. It is also the part which has involved the most difficult decisions. Clearly, it would have been inappropriate and excessively bureaucratic and time-consuming to set up new categories of eligibility. We have therefore had to look at existing schemes for those on low incomes and disabled and decide which should be used as "passports" into these new arrangements. In deciding which "passports" should be included, we had to bear in mind the possible number of applicants involved, the time available to process a reasonable proportion before compulsion is introduced, the ease with which eligibility can be checked and the likely cost.
We therefore decided that those eligible for examination on low incomes would be those in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or Family Income Supplement and their dependants. The disabled who will be

555
eligible will be those in receipt of attendance allowance at the higher rate (that is, for 24 hours); or mobility allowance; or a disablement pension with a constant attendance allowance (for 24 hours); or a war pension with a constant attendance allowance (for 24 hours); and those registered as disabled with the Department of Employment.
A total of about 7 million people will therefore be eligible for free examination, although, clearly, only a very small number will be eligible for exemption in view of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention's advice. Subsection (3) of this clause enables the Secretary of State by order to change the list of eligible applicants. Whatever your Lordships' views on compulsion as an issue, and however you think it should be applied in practice—and as I said before, we shall be able to debate the latter point in due course—I hope your Lordships will agree that this clause should be inserted into the Bill, so that, should the regulations be approved, the Government can proceed immediately to make the necessary arrangements. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am certain that there will be general satisfaction that the Government are introducing this clause to provide for exemptions under certain circumstances. I should declare an interest as a retirement pensioner—but one who, I hope, will not have to apply for medical exemption. Retirement pensioners are included in the list of persons who are exempted from payment for medical prescriptions. It might be argued that if a retirement pensioner can afford to drive a car he can afford to pay for medical exemption, but there will be pensioners who wish to travel as passengers who may want to apply for medical exemption. It should also apply to those pensioners who wish to drive themselves. If they want to apply for medical exemption on real medical grounds, £19 is a lot of money for a retirement pensioner with no other source of income. I wonder whether the Government can tell me if there is a special reason why retirement pensioners are not included in this list of exemptions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. There is a parallel with the charges made for dental services. In no way, I understand, will it ever be possible to give people all dentures entirely free. There are people who do not come into the categories listed here and who manage reasonably well on the basic pension which they receive but who would find that a sudden charge for dentures—£35—or £19 in this case might be too much for them. There is a special application form for both dental and medical services. An application can be made to the Department of Health and Social Security specifically for a payment to meet either optical or dental charges. I should have thought that a similar provision would be appropriate for this category. It seems that it may already be covered by the words in subsection (3) of the amendment. The Secretary of State for Social Services could introduce some type of application form which would require various questions to be answered. May I ask the Minister whether this
556
category is already included in subsection (3) or whether words would need to be added to that effect? I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is asking that every pensioner should automatically have it free, because many pensioners have no need for assistance and are well able to meet the charge.
May I take up another point which my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox has asked me to raise tonight, as she is unable to be here? It is whether the orange badge holders will be included in the category of being able to get help if it is needed. I should also like to make the point that if people have already been through a full medical examination for the disabled driver's orange badge which, under the new regulations, will be much more strictly controlled and the badge issued only to cases of genuine need—not rather loosely as might have been the case in the past—it is surely unnecessary for these people to have to submit to a second medical examination and provide a second certificate or other proof of their need for the badge. I should like the Minister to comment on that point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I hope that as few people as possible who are disabled will be asking for exemption. I have already received one or two letters from disabled people who are worried about wearing seat belts. I have written back to them and said how important it is to wear a seat belt wherever possible. I know that there are going to be some problems over this. May I ask the Government whether this will be a once-and-for-all examination and exemption or whether it will be required at regular intervals? Would the Government consider, since the orange badge scheme is to be tightened up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said, including these people?
There is a category which has not been included; namely, the people who drive the three-wheeled invacars. As your Lordships will know, disability is a very expensive thing and if one is just above the supplementary level, life can be very expensive—and this £19 might be a great worry to some disabled people.
One other point that worries me, as chairman of the Spinal Injuries Association, is that people wearing seat belts without the benefit of a headrest can suffer a whiplash injury and break their neck. This is something that some people who are disabled might worry about, and they might apply for exemption because of this. I hope that the Government will encourage makers of cars to include headrests, because this is a very important point. I should like an answer from the Government, especially about the people on the orange badge scheme. RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—covers a large selection of organisations for the diabled and it, too, is worried about this point.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am quite sure that the Committee would not wish to dispute the necessity for this new clause, which deals only with exemption from paying the fee. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the reason why this clause is even necessary. Is it not true that the Government

557
totally abrogated their responsibilities under the 1981 Act? Section 27 of the 1981 Act states:
"(d) The Secretary of State may prescribe cases in which a fee of a prescribed amount may be charged on an application for any certificate required as a condition of any prescribed exception."
In the press release issued by the department on 6th July, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport was quoted as saying:
"I am pleased to say that arrangements are being made for people on low incomes and the disabled to obtain free examinations through the DHSS Social Security Medical Service if they need medical exemption and cannot afford to obtain it from their doctor. The British Medical Association are recommending a fee to doctors of £19 for considering an application for medical exemption. In view of this rather high figure, I believe it is only right that those least able to afford such sums should have access to a free examination."
One does not, of course, argue with the sense:
"In view of this rather high figure,"
says Lynda Chalker,
"I believe it is only right that those least able",
should have some help. Fair enough—but why is this a "rather high figure"?
There is little doubt in my mind, because I have seen nothing to the contary, that the Government have failed to reach an agreement with the medical profession over this figure. I cannot remember how many years we have been discussing seat belts, but certainly we have discussed fees ranging from £1 or £2 to the last figure I can recall, which was £5 or £6. Now we have arrived at a figure of £19. I am almost tempted to suggest that the medical profession have behaved in a manner of which I should not have thought them capable. They have held us over a barrel for £19, for considering—just for considering—a certificate.
It is late. This clause has not yet been to the other place, so obviously it will have to be fully debated there. The regulations to which the Minister referred, of which this is a part, are due to be debated in the other place, I believe next Thursday. I have little doubt that when that Chamber debates the regulations they will have in mind this new clause. I hope they will. Certainly we shall have it in mind when these regulations come to your Lordships' House to be debated. If it were any other body, a commercial body, the Committee would howl with rage. There can be no justification whatever for this figure of £19. The Government should have found a satisfactory sum, which may or may not have needed the insertion of the new clause now before the Committee. I find a grave disappointment in the behaviour of the medical profession and the BMA in this matter.
Lord Bellwin: May I take up some of the points made as to the extensions that would be required to the list of exemption? Of course it was inevitable that there would be groups which would be brought to our attention as perhaps worthy of inclusion in the list. I said that drawing up the list is a judgment, and one always has to bear in mind the possibility that further categories may be included. I should be going beyond my remit if I were to say that the chances of further inclusions are fairly remote; but, having said that, I also hasten to say that I will certainly want to discuss the examples given today.
558
As to the individual recommendations drawn to our attention, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, first of all, asked about retirement pensioners. Well, those pensioners who are on supplementary benefit, as I said earlier, will of course qualify. The remainder come within the category of those where one has to come to a judgment in making the list and putting some limit somewhere. My noble friend Lady Gardner brought to our notice specific cases that both she and my noble friend Lady Faithfull are concerned about. Certainly we shall have to look at those and see whether anything can be done about those. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about drivers of three-wheeled invalid cars. I understand that in any case they would not be within the compulsion list and therefore they would not have the problem of compulsion being applied to them.
Baroness Masham of Elton: But could they not be passengers, like the pensioners the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned?
Lord Bellwin: But even as passengers, if compulsion does not apply to them then the choice of wearing the seatbelt or not would be theirs. Therefore they do not need to have exemption in the form of a medical certificate. So they certainly do not have this problem.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: But because they are disabled should not mean that they should not wear a seatbelt. Surely they must have a special need. Being disabled, one should wear a seat belt.
Lord Bellwin: Indeed, but then if they choose to wear the seat belt, which I agree with the noble Baroness would be a wise thing to do, we are faced with the problem of who will be exempt from a medical charge for a certificate to make them exempt. Therefore, the problem does not apply to them so far as I can see. As regards the other point which she made, she asked whether the list was a once-and-for-all exemption. I would always hope that there is no such thing as "once-and-for-ails" in matters of this kind. That must be right. I have said that it will not be easy to have the list extended for the obvious reasons, but to say that it should be once-and-for-all, is much further than I would want to go. However, I will consult on that and write to the noble Baroness.
I also want to look into the point which she raises about headrests. Before I come to the point made by my noble friend, Lord Lucas—which I shall leave until the end—I should like to refer to my noble friend Lady Gardner, who raised the orange badge point. I said a moment ago that we would want to look at that matter. The difficulty is that not all badge holders need to be exempted. Even so, I undertake to look into that and to take the matter further.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth used terms such as, "the Government having failed to come to an agreement". He said, "the medical profession have held us over a barrel", and, "there can be no justification for £19". He said that it is a grave disappointment. I would not attempt to be so arrogant as to say that this is or is not a correct figure. It is not for me to justify the figure or otherwise. The

559
fact is that it is a figure. It is correct when he says that it has been negotiated and discussed over a long period of time. There always comes a moment when one has to say, "Yes", or "No", this is the figure. As he also says, it will be discussed and debated elsewhere. It will probably come back and be debated here also when we come to the regulations. But I do not accept his criticism in the way in which he put it. Had he put it in another way, I might have felt more kindly disposed towards it. Frankly, I am not kindly disposed when it is put in that particular way, but he
560
will not mind whether I am disposed kindly or not, as he has so readily said in the past when he has not agreed. That is entirely his prerogative.
I think that this is a very good clause. I think that it has the approval of the Committee. I recognise the concern that we should look carefully at the additional suggestions which have been made, and that I undertake to do, although in doing so I stress that I fear that there will be limits on the extent to which I can get further movement. However, it is in that spirit that again I beg formally to move this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Regulations and orders]:
9.59 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 67, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Before making—

(a) an order under section 28(2) or (5) of this Act; or

(b) regulations under section 48(1) of this Act;

the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Earl said: The Government were happy to give an undertaking in another place to bring forward an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult as he sees fit before making orders or regulations in connection with the fixed penalty proposals in Part III of the Bill. This will in fact merely put on a statutory basis what we would propose to do in practice anyway. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I do not want to make a big issue out of this particular question, but I hope that the Secretary of State will keep in mind that any consultations of this kind must be meaningful consultations. Without going into details, I understand that there have been two cases in recent weeks where only two weeks were given for consultation. When one considers that the consultation involves the need to examine very carefully what the regulation is and perhaps the need for some organisations to have their own consultations before replying, two weeks is not sufficient. I hope that this matter will be kept in mind in any future consultations.
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, I shall undertake to do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 68, line 35, leave out ("section 56") and insert ("sections 56 and [Extended pension provision for members of transport Boards]").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 87, line 12, leave out from ("functions") to ("and") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: This is purely a technical amendment, necessary to make Schedule 5 consistent with Clause 8, which was amended at an earlier stage in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 87, line 20, at end insert—
(". The provisions of the Transport Act 1968 requiring transport managers for operating centres for authorised vehicles under goods vehicle operators' licences (which have not been brought into operation and have since their enactment been largely superseded by other provisions) are hereby repealed; and accordingly, in section 85(2) of that Act, for the words "Schedules 9 and 10" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 10".").
The noble Lord said: With this amendmnet I also want to take Amendments Nos. 129, 131, 132 and 136. These amendments relate to the proposed repeal of Section 65 and Schedule 9 and related provisions of the 1968 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 126A:
Page 87, line 21, at end insert—
(". In section 33(6) of the 1972 Act (protective helmets for motor-cyclists) there shall be inserted after the word "headdress," the words "visor or other equipment intended for use in connection with a helmet,".").
The noble Lord said: In order to protect their eyes against grit, insects and other small objects, motorcyclists often wear visors on their helmets, When a visor is sold with a helmet it is regarded as being part of the helmet and must then comply with British Standard 4110 on eye protectors for vehicle users. However, if a visor is sold separately from the helmet, it is not required by law to comply with the British Standard, or, indeed, with any standard at all.
In practice, a visor is often not supplied with the helmet, so the motor-cyclist buys the visor separately. As I have said, this visor may well not comply with the British Standard. Even if the visor is supplied with the helmet, the motor-cyclist will find it necessary to replace the visor quite frequently owing to damage by abrasion from normal wear. Indeed, it is generally considered advisable to replace the visor after as little as six weeks of regular use. So the replacement market is considerable.
It is vitally important for a motor-cyclist to be able to see where he is going. Medical authorities and others responsible for dealing with motor-cycle accidents have identified two major hazards for motorcyclists wearing visors on their helmets, particularly at night. The first is the use of tinted material for the visor. At night, in particular, this can result in a failure to distinguish objects, and certain motor-cycle fatalities are attributable to this. All motor-cycle visors made to British Standard 4110 must be made of clear material. The standard effectively prohibits the use of tinted materials. But visors sold separately

563
from helmets may be of any density of colour or tint that happens to be fashionable.
The second major hazard is the effect on vision of surface scratches on the visor. In the course of even normal wear, visors are liable to damage from scratching. Scratches result in a substantial reduction in clear vision during the day, and at night the motorcyclist, faced with oncoming headlights, can be totally blinded by what is called the star effect, with fatal results. Evidence from the Accident Research Unit at the University of Birmingham provided further corroboration. The unit recently sent to the Consumers' Association who, I might say, are advising me on this matter, two motor-cycle helmet visors. Both, rather macabrely, had been worn by motor-cyclists involved in fatal accidents. They brought them and showed them to me here. One was heavily tinted, the other was made of clear material but badly scratched. The scratched one in daylight, or even in the light of the Peers' Lobby, looked adequate, but you could imagine that if you looked at a light you could see this starring occurring.
At present the Road Traffic Act 1972 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover visors only when they are sold with helmets, but there appear to be no powers under the Act to make regulations to cover visors sold separately from helmets. Such powers could exist under the Consumer Safety Act 1978, which makes provision for safety regulations. Indeed, the Department of Transport in a consultation document circulated in May 1980, has suggested that it might use the provisions under the Consumer Safety Act to regulate visors sold separately from helmets. However, it seems inappropriate to deal with helmets and visors sold with helmets under the Road Traffic Act, and then to deal with visors sold separately under the Consumer Safety Act. It would be far simpler and more appropriate for comprehensive regulations to be made under a single Act of Parliament to include all visors, regardless of whether they are sold with or without a helmet. Hence the need for the present amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: The word "intended" is often ambiguous. In this amendment does it mean intended by the manufacturer or intended by the motor-cyclist? It might be worth considering making it clear in the amendment who is intended.
The Earl of Avon: For some time the Government have been aware of possible shortcomings in this primary legislation. While Section 33 gives the Secretary of State powers to prescribe helmets which will offer protection to motor-cyclists in the event of accident, it does not extend this power to control accessories which may be fitted to helmets. The Government have been concerned that visors which are either excessively tinted or scratched impair vision, particularly at night or during inclement weather. They have been a contributory factor in accidents.
In 1980 the Government considered making regulations, but decided, because at that time the problem of abrasion had not been fully explored, to wait until the standard had been revised to include abrasion resistance. This is now nearly completed. The Government
564
also welcome the proposal to cover other equipment intended for use in connection with a helmet. For example, with the recent developments in CB radio, intercom sets have been produced for use with motor-cyclists' helmets. While the Government have no reason to believe that those at present offered by helmet manufacturers for use with their helmets seriously compromise the protection offered by the helmet, there is the possibility that in ignorance the motor-cyclist may be tempted to remove part of the protective energy absorbing inner lining of his helmet in order to fit the intercom set, and action may need to be taken about such points later.
The Government welcome this amendment, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be happy to know that we would like my noble friend to withdraw it so that we can produce our own amendment at Report stage. The amendment itself does not really fit where it now is, and we should also like to consider combining wearing and selling. Otherwise, I would very much go along with what my noble friend suggests.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend. I look forward to seeing his amendment at the next stage and have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 88, line 22, at end insert—
(".—(1) In section 93(4) of the 1972 Act (extended period of disqualification in case of certain previous convictions), for" 6(1) there shall be substituted 6(1)(a)".
(2) For the purposes of section 93(4), as amended by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 1981 and by subparagraph (1) above to refer to sections 6(1)(a) and 8(7) of the 1972 Act (which are among the new provisions substituted by the Transport Act 1981 for sections 6 to 12 of the 1972 Act), a previous conviction of an offence under the corresponding provision of the old law shall be treated as a conviction of an offence under the new provision.
(3) In the case of section 6(1)(a) of the 1972 Act, as substituted by the Transport Act 1981, the corresponding provision of the old law for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above is section 6(1) of the 1972 Act, as it had effect immediately before that substitution.
(4) In the case of section 8(7) of the 1972 Act, as so substituted, the corresponding provision of the old law for those purposes is section 9(3) of the 1972 Act, as it so had effect.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Its purpose is simply to rectify an anomaly which has arisen from the re-ordering of the drinking and driving offences in Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 by Schedule 8 to the 1981 Transport Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 90, line 46, at end insert—
(".During any period when Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1981 (penalty points for offences) is in force but Schedule 8 to that Act (new provisions substituted for sections 6 to 12 of the 1972 Act) is not, Schedule 7 shall have effect as if for the references in column 1 of Part II of that Schedule to sections 6(1)(b), 7(4) and 8(7) of the 1972 Act (which refer to the new provisions mentioned above) there were substituted references respectively to sections 6(2), 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act (which are the provisions in that Act as it has effect apart from Schedule 8 to the Transport Act 1981 that correspond to the new provisions mentioned above).").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a technical amendment, also intended to deal with a slight anomaly raised

565
by the Government's intention to bring Schedule 7 to the 1981 Transport Act into operation in advance of Schedule 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 91, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 59, in subsection (1) the words "and by Schedule 9 thereto", and in subsection (2) the words "and the said Schedule".

Section 62(3).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 91, column 3, leave out lines 15 to 20 and insert—

("Section 64(2)(b)").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 91, column 3, leave out line 21 and insert—

("Section 65.

In section 67(5), the words from "and a licence" to the end.

In section 68, subsections (1)(c) and (4)(a).

In section 69, in subsection (1)(a) the words "section 65 of this Act or", and in subsection (4)(b) the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).

In section 82(6), the words "or Schedule 9 thereto".

In section 84, the words "or a transport manager's licence" in paragraphs (a) and (d).

In section 87, the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (4) and in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (5).

In section 88, the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (3) and the words" and Schedule 9 thereto" in subsection (2).

In section 89, in subsection (1) the words from "and respect" to the end and in subsection (2) the words "or Schedule 9 thereto".

In section 90, the words "and Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (3)(b).

In section 91, in subsection (7) the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" and in subsection (8) the words "or the said Schedule 9".

In section 92, the words "and Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (5).

Section 94(3).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 91, line 22, column 3, at end insert—

("Schedule 9.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 92, column 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 92, line 49, at end insert—

("1980 c. 34.

Transport Act 1980.

In section 66(2), the words from "and" in the second place where it occurs to the end.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this, and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 92, line 49, at end insert—

("1980 c. 62.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

Section 31.").

The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment. It repeals Section 31 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which is re-enacted in effect in Clause 57 of the Bill. Section 31 is therefore redundant and can be repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 136:
In the Title, line 14, leave out from ("licences") to ("; to") in line 16.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this, and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 137:
In the Title, line 18, after ("defence;") insert ("to extend the power under Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1962 to determine pensions for members of certain Boards;").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Are we not still in Committee?
Lord Sandys: No, my Lords.

British Railways Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
  DEFENDANTS: AVERAGE CUSTODIAL PERIODS AWAITING TRIAL
  DEFENDANTS: AVERAGE CUSTODIAL PERIODS AWAITING TRIAL
  MOSCOW/LONDON TELECOMMUNICATION CIRCUIT CUTS
  MOSCOW/LONDON TELECOMMUNICATION CIRCUIT CUTS
  IRAN: APPLICATIONS FOR BRITISH VISAS
  IRAN: APPLICATIONS FOR BRITISH VISAS
  MADAGASCAR: AID PROGRAMME
  MADAGASCAR: AID PROGRAMME