Sitting of 2 March 1982

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

  LLOYD'S BILL
  Order for Third reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

  SAINT THOMAS' BURIAL GROUND BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    "A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action"
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has received to his White Paper entitled "A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action"—Cmnd. 8455.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I have received an encouraging response to our proposals, which reflects the broad measure of support which the objectives of the new training initiative have received from employers, trade unions and others concerned. I am also encouraged by the extent of commitment to achieving essential long-term reforms in our training system.
    Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his otherwise imaginative and constructive programme to improve the training of young persons is deficient in respect of the young disabled? Will he allow me to bring a deputation to see him on that point?
    Mr. Tebbit: I should be only too pleased if my hon. Friend did that.
    Mr. Ashley: What does the Secretary of State mean by a "broad measure of support"? Does that include the trade unions? Is he aware that, under these proposals, the extent of trade union participation will now depend on the employers? Is he further aware that the employers' role will no longer be to train workers but to poach them from good employers? Will that not sour industrial relations?
    Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. The whole of the new training iniative, with minor exceptions round the edges, is common ground between the Government, the Manpower
    136
    Services Commission and most of the trade union movement. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen may want to stir up trouble, but there will be no trouble unless it is stirred up.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in his former constituency around Waltham Abbey, young people are requesting more facilities? We cannot, of course, have centres everywhere, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are adequate centres in Enfield and other areas serving that part of the country?
    Mr. Tebbit: If there are difficulties, I should be happy to consider areas in my old constituency, to which my hon. Friend referred. However, in general, employers and others have been very good in coming forward with offers of places for the YOP. I hope that they will be similarly well disposed towards the youth training scheme which takes over in September next year.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the right hon. Gentleman bungled the introduction of his scheme by including the wretched £15 a week and an element of compulsion? Will he confirm that his proposals have been humiliatingly and overwhelmingly rejected by the MSC's task group of union, education and commercial leaders? Has not the right hon. Gentleman failed the nation and missed a golden opportunity?
    Mr. Tebbit: The short answer is "No, Sir". There has been no bungle and there will be no compulsion. The proposals have not been rejected by the MSC's high level working group, which is not due to report until April.

    Minimum Wages
    Mr. Cadburyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the role of the wages councils and minimum wages legislation in the light of the serious problems of youth unemployment.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The workings of the Wages Councils Act are kept constantly under review. The councils, which are independent of the Government, set minimum rates. They comprise employers, trades unions and independent members. The Government have made plain to all negotiators their view that excessive wage awards can only damage the employment prospects of young people.
    Mr. Cadbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many industries wages councils have set minimum wage levels above the rates that enable people to qualify for the young workers' scheme? Is there not a danger that that scheme will be undermined by the activities of the wages councils? Does he further agree that the employment prospects for young people in general would be greatly improved if minimum wages legislation for young people were done away with?
    Mr. Alison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the young workers scheme holds out real and positive prospects for job opportunities for youngsters. I am glad that he endorses and welcomes that scheme. I assure him that very few wages councils of which I am aware have set minimum rates for youngsters that have the effect of excluding them from the young workers scheme. However, there are one or two. The attention of all wages councils has been drawn to the young workers scheme
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that the 3 million people now covered by wages councils represent some of the lowest paid workers in Britain? Does not his decision last year to reduce by one-third the number of his Department's inspectors mean that even those low wages may not properly be enforced?
    Mr. Alison: Many of those whose wage rates are fixed and covered by wages councils are paid well above the wages councils' minimum rates.
    Mr. Cockeram: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many wages councils, such as the retail trade wages council, which covers the largest number of employees, decreed that a school leaver is automatically worth 60 per cent. of the weekly wages of a fully fledged experienced adult? Does he agree that that high starting percentage rate mitigates against youngsters?
    Mr. Alison: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety and endorse the point that he made. It is one reason why all wages councils have had their attention drawn especially to the vulnerability of young people to statutory wage rates that effectively exclude them from any job opportunities.
    Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that most wages councils award a minimum for youths of between only £30 and £40 a week, that during the past two years, when youth unemployment has increased, the differential between youth and adult wages has widened, and that in 1980 a working paper from his Department dismissed the importance of the role of wages in youth unemployment? Is there any hard evidence of the connection between youth wages and youth unemployment?
    Mr. Alison: Common sense would decree that there is such a connection. The hon. Gentleman should consider the margin between rates for those under 18 and adult rates in the contract cleaning and laundry industries. The differential is only 10 per cent. Young people are paid about 90 per cent. of the adult rates. He should also realise that employers will not take on inexperienced school leavers aged 16 or 17 at wages close to the adult rate. We are convinced that the young workers scheme, which pays a premium to employers who take on young people at under £40 a week, will have a real and positive effect in giving job opportunities to youngsters.

    OECD Employment Levels
    Mr. Doverasked the Secretary of State for Employment when next he expects to discuss employment levels in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with European Economic Community Ministers.
    Mr. Tebbitt: I shall be discussing current employment issues with my European Community colleagues and other OECD Labour and Social Affairs Ministers at a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Manpower and Social Affairs Committee on Thursday and Friday of this week.
    Mr. Dover: At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend point out how the level and rate of increase of unemployment in the United Kingdom compare favourably with other countries?
    Mr. Tebbit: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The rate of increase in many other countries, including
    138
    Germany, the United States of America and Sweden, is now rising very much more quickly than here, as those countries hit the problems that we are already resolving.
    Mr. Varley: Why does the Secretary of State not give the true facts about United Kingdom unemployment compared with other leading OECD countries? For example, during the two and a half years or more that the Government have been in office, has not unemployment in the United Kingdom risen much more quickly and sharply than in any other leading industrial country? Is that not because the Government, in every economic and industrial decision that they have taken during the past two and a half years, have attacked jobs and investment?
    Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman must not confuse shouting and being aggressive with making a sensible point. If he considers the figures for the last three months on the previous three months, he will find that the rate has increased more quickly in Germany, the United States of America, Sweden, Canada, Austria and Ireland, to name but a few. Those countries are now running into some of the problems with which we have been dealing for some time, some of which we inherited from the Labour Government.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Secretary of State point out to those at the meeting on Thursday that the one person who kidded the British public that once we entered the Common Market everything would be lovely and the land would flow with milk and honey, and the only person who has benefited and done well from the Common Market, is the so-called leader in anticipation who will fight the Glasgow, Hillhead by-election—Mr. Roy Jenkins?
    Mr. Tebbit: I shall not mention that in Brussels, because very few Hillhead electors will be there to listen to me. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman said has been heard in Hillhead. I do not share his view that no one except Mr. Jenkins benefited from our entry into the Common Market, but I certainly noticed that he did.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why the unemployment figures in Germany are changing is that, until now, the position was disguised by the fact that the Germans returned their guest workers? Therefore, only now is the true unemployment position beginning to emerge.
    Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Perhaps another reason is that our export performance is extremely good and we are taking back orders which formerly were won by the Germans.

    Wages Councils
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received representations about the level of awards that may be decided by the wages councils.
    Mr. Alison: Representations about wages councils proposals are usually made direct to the wages councils, which must consider them before confirming or amending proposals. I have recently received a number of letters from hon. Members and employers about proposals issued by the retail councils.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems that the wages councils are creating for the retail industry and the distributive trades generally? Does he

    139
    agree that it is possible for people to price themselves out of work and that the wages councils are effectively doing that now?
    Mr. Alison: I have received a deputation from the British Multiple Retailers Association, whose representatives forcefully made the same point as my hon. Friend has made. I take fully the point that wages councils are capable of pricing youngsters and adult workers out of jobs, and I have made the point to them in written submissions.
    Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that there is some confusion both in his mind and in that of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey)? Surely the job of the wages councils is to evaluate what a job is worth in a certain area, not to assess whether the businesses in that area are being run properly.
    Mr. Alison: The wages councils have a statutory and independent role and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they incorporate representatives of both the trade unions and the employers. A neutral third party also acts as arbitrator. They consider all those factors, but it is fair and reasonable for many people who are affected by their decisions to make representations on the proposals. Representations and submissions are coming thicker and faster in protest at recent proposals than we have known for many years.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Minister not fall into the trap of assuming that wages councils protect only employees? They can protect employers as well inasmuch as they ensure that employers are required to pay a fair wage for a job and thereby compete with each other on fair terms. The Minister should keep sight of that point when considering wages councils.
    Mr. Alison: Employers have as much opportunity as employees in the wages councils for evaluating, in discussion under neutral chairmanship, where their real interests lie. I hope that I have not fallen into any trap in suggesting that invariably one side or the other is led astray or fails to get a fair deal out of the council's fund. Those concerned are human and fallible. For this reason, it is necessary for a council to circulate widely the proposals that it is thinking of incorporating and finally enacting. It is in the context of these proposals that we have recently received a large volume of protest.

    Industrial Tribunals
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the workings of the industrial tribunal system.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): In general, yes.
    Mr. Spicer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the body of precedent and law building up around the industrial tribunal system is becoming so complicated and cumbersome that there is a real danger that the interests of the layman, for whom the whole system was started, are being threatened?
    Mr. Waddington: Obviously this is a danger, and we want to try to avoid legal complications. However, two-thirds of all the applications brought are settled or withdrawn. Only the complicated cases go to tribunals. It is inevitable, if there is a statute to be applied, that there will be legal refinements.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Would it be possible for these tribunals to cover employers who normally operate within the context of the wages councils, because last year in Scotland almost 1,000 such employers did not pay the statutory wages? In effect, they were breaking the law, but not one of them was prosecuted. Is that not a disgrace? Apparently one can frighten the Queen's horse and get five years in gaol, but it is all right to rob the working class.
    Mr. Waddington: Inspectors ensure that the Act is enforced. Industrial tribunals have more than enough to do already. We should not give them the additional job of enforcing wages councils orders.

    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Mr. Squireasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the skill content of the present youth opportunities programme.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am satisfied that the training in basic skills in the youth opportunities programme is constantly improving. In 1982–83 the programme will contain around 100,000 new comprehensive training places as a bridge towards the youth training scheme that starts in 1983.
    Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the key elements in the health of an economy is the degree of training or skill that school leavers are able to acquire? In that connection will lie undertake to ensure that the highest degree of skill or training is available under the recently announced youth training scheme?
    Mr. Morrison: The answer to both questions is "Yes".
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there are some good employers who, at the end of the journey, give youth opportunities programme workers the chance to carry on? Is he also aware that there are many bad employers who must be monitored and given certain guidelines, because in many instances our young people are being exploited? That was not the intention of the scheme that was introduced by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Morrison: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the MSC monitors all the schemes and all the sponsors of those schemes. In some cases, they are rejected.
    Mr. McNally: Is the Minister sattisfied that the monitoring is adequate? There is too much evidence for it to be anecdotal of young people going into jobs as skivvies and leaving feeling bitter and cynical. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the scheme is properly monitored? If employers are using the scheme for cheap labour, will he also ensure that they take no further part in it?
    Mr. Morrison: I am satisfied that the scheme is monitored properly and that, wherever there is a complaint, the MSC investigates.
    Mr. Watson: In view of the attention frequently drawn by Labour Members to the proposed reduction in the weekly allowance from £23·50 to £15 per week, will my hon. Friend make clear whether, under the new scheme, the total sum available per young person, including the crucial training element, will be going up or down?
    Mr. Morrison: The amount spent on the average week's course is about £38, including the allowance. The

    141
    amount that will be spent on the youth training scheme per trainee per week is £53 for 16-year-olds, going up to £63 for 17-year-olds. As my hon. Friend said, there is a substantial increase in the amount being spent per trainee.

    Midland Region
    Mrs. Faithasked the Secretary of ,State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the Midland region as assessed by the Manpower Services Commission's paper "Labour Market Trends, Midland Region, 1982–84".
    Mr. Alison: This paper concludes that there will be a very gradual climb out of the recession throughout 1982 and into 1983 and it confirms that in the Midlands region, as in the rest of the country, there are already some signs of improvement. If British industry continues to succeed in its efforts to improve competitiveness, which is the only way to create the new and secure jobs we all seek, I have no doubt that the Midlands region will share in future prosperity as fully as it has in the past.
    Mrs. Faith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. When reading the paper, did he notice that unemployment in Derbyshire, although still too high, was appreciably lower than in the rest of the region? Does he agree that that is because of good labour relations and diversification and, more particularly, because the number of small businesses is appreciably higher than in the rest of the country? If so, will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further assistance to entrepreneurs of small businesses next week in his Budget?
    Mr. Alison: The relatively happy position to which my hon. Friend refers is evident. I take careful note of the point that she made. Her assiduous attention to her duties in her constituency is an important example that should be emulated.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in Derbyshire the latest figures show that, as a result of the Tory Government's policies, bankruptcies are on the increase, as is unemployment? Will he also bear in mind that, as a result of these policies, Richard O'Brien, the previous head of the MSC, recently referred in another paper to the fact that it now costs the Exchequer £12½ billion to finance the dole queue. I suppose that because he had the temerity to say that, he got the sack.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) exposes himself to the charge of drawing aside the veil of reality for the causes of unemployment. That lies squarely with the Labour Government, who, between 1975 and 1980, allowed unit labour costs in manufacturing industry to double in Britain while in Japan they did not go up, in Germany they went up by one-fifth, in the United States by only a third and by a half in Canada. That is the reason for our present high unemployment.

    Training
    Mr. Needhamasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that sufficient training schemes will be available under the new training initiative to guarantee a place for all applicants.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The new youth training scheme includes a guaranteed offer of a training place to all
    142
    unemployed school leavers who leave school at the minimum age. We are working towards this goal now, and we will need the wholehearted co-operation of all concerned to reach it.
    Mr. Needham: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the comments of Opposition Members—particularly the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), who called this scheme cheap and cosmetic, while doing nothing herself when she was able to get a scheme on to the statute book—will or could undermine the work of the Manpower Services Commission, which is desperately trying to get this worthwhile and positive scheme off the ground?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) had ample opportunity to bring in a scheme such as this, but apparently did not desire to do so. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is neither constructive nor helpful for one or two hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to niggle about a scheme that is costing a fantastic amount of money and that will serve school leavers extremely well.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that one of the rules says that refusal of a reasonable offer disqualifies an applicant from benefit? Who decides what a reasonable offer is, and what is a reasonable offer?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the goal is to provide for every school leaver who does not have a job an opportunity of a place on a scheme. We want to make sure that round pegs fit into round holes and square pegs into square holes. I should have thought that
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, under the training initiative, local education authorities are used to the maximum, in co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, because they often have facilities that could be made available within the new initiative, and it is important to maximise those facilities?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, that local education authorities have facilities and resources that the new training initiative and the new training scheme can use. To the best of my knowledge, the co-operation and collaboration between the Manpower Services Commission and the education authorities is progressing well.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Is it not clear that the scrapping of most of the statutory industrial training boards has placed industrial training in many industries under threat of imminent and total collapse? Is it not obvious that the voluntary system that the Government propose is desperately short of volunteers and that Manpower Services Commission is near despair over the consequences of the Government's policies? Should not the Government think again about this lunatic idea?
    Mr. Morrison: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is "No", "No", "No". I am sure that he would agree that industrial training boards per se did not train anybody. They oversaw training that was done in the industries, and I have great confidence that the voluntary organisations will do that, too.
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the scheme announced for apprentice training by the electical contractors.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I welcome the electrical contracting industry's proposals for a new training scheme. They are wholly consistent with the Government's new training initiative.
    Mr. Renton: Bearing in mind that Germany has four times as many apprentices every year as we have in Britain, can my hon. Friend at this stage give us an idea of the increase in numbers, quality and standards of British apprentices if more industries follow the example of the electrical contractors? What is the reaction of the Construction Industry Training Board to the electrical contractors going it on their own?
    Mr. Morrison: In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, the Construction Industry Training Board has tbaken a flexible line, and the proposals by the electrical contracting industry will be put forward within the construction industry training board. As for my hon. Friend's first question concerning my estimate of the increase in the number of apprentices, at this stage it is rather difficult to give him that information.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware of the failure of private building contractors, with a handful of honourable exceptions, to employ and train apprentices? Is he aware that throughout the country, including Manchester and Salford, the majority of places in technical colleges for these apprenticeships are going to direct labour organisations? Will he therefore encourage DLOs, rather than decimate them, as he is doing at present?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware that there are some cutbacks in apprenticeship training, but I am also aware that the Manpower Services Commission, on behalf of the Government, is subsidising 35,000 first-year apprentices at a cost of £50 million, where it is necessary. That applies to the construction industry as well as to other industries.

    Unfair Dismissals
    Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish median figures for the compensation for unfair dismissals made by industrial tribunals for the last 12 months.
    Mr. Waddington: Figures for the median award of compensation for 1981 will be published as soon as they are available, which is expected to be in five or six months' time. The median award for 1980 was £590.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister accept that people's lives revolve around their jobs, and that it is a traumatic experience to lose one's job, whatever the reason? We are told in the Minister's answer that the median award granted by tribunals for people unfairly dismissed was under £600. Can the Minister explain why, in legislation that he is seeking to railroad through the House, for a single cause—allegedly leaving a trade union—he proposes to award sums of £20,000 to £30,000? What is the motive for doing that?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that, for unlawful dismissal for trade union activity, there is already a higher award of compensation than for other
    144
    forms of unfair dismissal. It is absolutely right that there should be a higher award for unfair dismissal in a closed shop, because one of the evils of the closed shop is that a man could be banned from his trade for the rest of his natural life.
    Mr. Radice: How can the Minister justify the difference between the median figure that he has just give n the House, of under £600, with a normal minimum, according to the Secretary of State, of £12,000 for the small number who are dismissed in closed shops? Is not that disparity grossly unfair and blatantly anti-union?
    Mr. Waddington: It is proper that people who lose their jobs in a closed shop should get generous compensation. It is also essential to have a deterrent to dissuade employers, such as Walsall and Sandwell councils, from behaving in the disgraceful way that they recently did.
    Mr. Renton: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain to the House why Opposition Members have already spent 10 hours in Standing Committee arguing that compensation should not be paid to people who lost their jobs because of the closed shop in the 1970s, instead of getting on to the other clauses of the Employment Bill, which they say concern them so deeply?
    Mr. Waddington: It beats me. I keep reminding Opposition Members that there would not have been any need for clause 1 of the Bill if the Labour Government, between 1974 and 1979, had behaved in a civilised fashion.

    Work Experience
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of entrants to work experience schemes under the youth opportunities programme found permanent employment after leaving the schemes, in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Survey evidence suggests that of those young people leaving work experience schemes in 1981, about 30 per cent. found a job immediately, compared with 50 per cent. in 1980 and 66 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Hamilton: Do not the figures confirm that the prospect of getting a permanent job, after whatever training scheme the Government seek to introduce, is getting worse and worse, so long as present economic policies continue? Does that not confirm also that it is more important for the Government to change their policies than to introduce schemes the effect of which is simply to cook unemployment statistics?
    Mr. Morrison: Do I understand from that that the hon Gentleman is against the youth opportunities programme? I hope not. As he knows very well, Governments per se do not create jobs. Jobs come from profitable and competitive industrial and commercial enterprises. That is what we are achieving, and a lot of new jobs are coming on stream in that respect.
    Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the training content of the work experience schemes has considerably improved during the past two years? Will his Department monitor progress of the new 12-month pilot

    145
    schemes that the Manpower Services Commission is introducing this year to help young people to obtain improved training?
    Mr. Morrison: I can confirm that the training content has gradually improved over a period of years. Yes, we shall monitor the one-year training schemes that he mentioned. Finally, as my hon. Friend is aware, the youth training scheme that comes on stream in September 1983 will have a significant increased training content.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current percentage levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom, the European Economic Community, Norway, Sweden and Austria, respectively.
    Mr. Tebbit: Exactly comparable figures are not available—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".]—they very seldom are—but in December 1981, the latest month for which information is available for all the countries, the United Kingdom rate, on a partly standardised basis, was 11·3 per cent. as compared with 9·0 per cent. for the European Community as a whole. In Norway the national rate was 1·9 per cent., for Sweden 2·9 per cent. and for Austria 4·1 per cent.
    Mr. Taylor: As the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s had rates of unemployment which were similar to those in Austria, Norway and Sweden, is my right hon. Friend prepared to mount a special study to find out why those smaller countries are apparently more successful in tackling unemployment, particularly when they have been deprived of the dramatic benefits of EEC membership?
    Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is, perhaps, on to an interesting point when he says that we should think about the causes of those matters. I am puzzled that the Swedes are so guilt-ridden about not being members of the Community that they commit suicide at twice the rate of the British—or perhaps it is because unemployment in Sweden rose by nearly a half in the second half of last year. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is rash to draw such a conclusion from the statistics that he uses.
    Mr. Foster: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that young people in the North of England are so guilt-ridden at not having a job that they are committing suicide? Will he explain why Britain, which has one-fifth of the European Community's population, has one-third of European.unemployment? Does not that have something to do with the fact that the fiscal and monetary stance of the Government has been three times as restrictive as that of any other European Government?
    Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir, not at all. The hon. Gentleman would do better to examine what happens in, for example, Germany, in relation to labour law, and what has been happening to the unit labour costs there. He should also reflect on the fact that the fiscal and monetary stance of this country during the period when the disaster was being prepared for British industry was the fiscal and monetary stance of the party of which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is a member. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members cannot listen for a moment, they would be advised to learn to do so. I repeat that the damage that was done to the economy when money was being
    146
    poured into it at an unparalleled rate until the IMF had to take over control is largely responsible for our difficulties today.

    Textile and Clothing Workers
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many textile and clothing workers have been made redundant in the last six months for which figures are available, nationally, in the North-West region, and in the Macclesfield and Congleton travel-to-work areas.
    Mr. Waddington: The provisional number of redundancies reported to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in the textile and clothing industry in Great Britain between August 1981 and January 1982 inclusive was 13,453. The figures for the North-West, Macclesfield and Congleton were 3,313, 37 and nil respectively. These figures are not comprehensive; they do not, for instance, include redundancies affecting fewer than 10 employees.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the textile and clothing industry is the second largest employer of labour in this country? If the Government had allocated even a tiny percentage of their advice and assistance—financial and otherwise—to that dynamic industry, the dramatic unemployment that it has experienced in the last three years would not have taken place. Will he advise us whether we shall take action along the lines of Belgium and other European countries to help that vital industry?
    Mr. Waddington: I fully appreciate the importance of the textile and clothing industry. Provided that we continue with a tough policy on imports, the textile industry, like others, will benefit from the revival in the economy for which we are working. The European Commission has sole competence in the application of the competition rules of the Treaty. We have argued strongly to the Commission that aids for textiles and clothing should be reduced and made more transparent, to ensure fair competition.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that many of the redundancies to which he referred in his answer were caused not by a slimming down in the industry but by the closure of textile mills? Is he further aware that it will be necessary to attract new industry to the areas where those closures have taken place? As many of those closures have been in my constituency, will the Minister explain why the Government are taking away its development area status this year?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman knows that I, too, come from a textile area. Throughout my life, I have been concerned with its fortunes. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the question of development area status is one for the Department of Industry. He would not expect me to reply to that question now, but what he has said will be noted.
    Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that over the last 10 years textile and clothing areas have lost 350,000 jobs and that towns such as Batley in my constituency have an unemployment rate among men and youths of about 30 per cent.? Is it not time that the Government acted

    147
    constructively in textile and clothing areas, in the same way as action was taken to deal with the steel and coal industries?
    Mr. Waddington: I fully appreciate the problems of the industry. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not as if the textile industry had recently encountered difficulties. It has encountered difficulties for years and years. Provided that we adopt a tough policy on imports, the textile industry will benefit, as will others, from our economic policies.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Saudi Arabian Minister of Planning. in addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to tell the people that all law-abiding citizens of our nation have the right to travel where they want and when they want and that that should apply whether they be holidaymakers, business men or sportsmen, including cricketers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that we should seek to help a country that is friendly to the West, and to help the Prime Minister of that country, who is carrying through a progressive programme, rather than hand over Southern Africa to our enemies?
    The Prime Minister: Citizens of this country are free to travel, as far as we are concerned. No restrictions are placed upon them.
    Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady had the chance to study carefully early-day motion 289, to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) subscribed? Does she not think that that early-day motion is deeply humiliating to the House of Commons? The early-day motion deals with the cricketers who have gone to South Africa.
    Will the Prime Minister take early steps to show how strongly she disapproves of all the views expressed in that early-day motion? Will she make it clear that the Government are determined to carry out the Gleneagles agreement and to uphold the Test and County Cricket Board in carrying out its proper functions? Will she make it clear that as a Government and as a country we entirely repudiate the sentiments expressed by about 30 of her followers in that early-day motion?
    The Prime Minister: We are signatories to the Gleneagles agreement. We reaffirmed it and we try to uphold its terms. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our powers are limited to persuasion. The Test and County Cricket Board did everything that it could with regard to the cricketers who have gone to play in South Africa. However, it did not know when the visit was going to take place. In so far as it did know, it attempted to persuade people not to go. We try to uphold the Gleneagles
    148
    agreement. That has to be done by persuasion. In the end the decision is up to each of the persons concerned, because they are in a free country.
    Mr. Winnick: What is the right hon. Lady's view?
    The Prime Minister: There are no legal restrictions in a free country on travel.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady recognise that this is not only a question of persuasion, although that, of course, enters into it. It is also open to her—indeed, it is her duty to the House and to the country—to condemn early-day motion 289, which is deeply offensive to human rights? Have the right hon. Lady and her Government fully considered the threat to the Commonwealth Games? If the condemnation is not sufficiently strong, the games might be threatened. I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not wish to see that situation arise. Will she not use her authority to try to ensure that the Commonwealth Games are maintained and that this country plays its proper part in the games?
    The Prime Minister: We believe in the Gleneagles agreement. We shall do our best to uphold it. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport has seen the Test and County Cricket Board. We do not, however, have the power to prevent our sportsmen and women from visiting South Africa or anywhere else. If we did, we would no longer be a free country. The Gleneagles agreement recognises that we can act only by persuasion. We have tried to do just that.
    Mr. David Steel: In our free country, is it not the duty of the Head of the elected Government of what is also a Commonwealth country to make clear her own condemnation of what has happened?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Minister responsibile for sport, on my behalf, has made the views of the Government perfectly clear—
    Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Lady should say it.
    The Prime Minister: His remarks are already on the record. He has seen the Test and County Cricket Board. In the end, our capacity to act is limited to persuasion.
    Q2. Mr. John Townendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour-controlled Humberside county council is levying a rate 61 per cent. higher than that levied by the Conservative council last year? Will my right hon. Friend accept that, in an area of high unemployment, this will reduce job opportunities? Will the Government consider taking further action to protect hard-pressed industry and working people from the ravages of such Marxist councils?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware that Humberside has announced that it will increase its precept by 61 per cent. This is the highest increase of any of the shire counties. It comes, of course, from a Labour council. Many people who have been transferred to Humberside from Lincolnshire wish to goodness that they were still in Lincolnshire. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that local rates are the biggest tax paid by industry and that

    149
    higher rates cost jobs. My hon. Friend knows that a Bill is before the House to prevent supplementary rates—that council also had a supplementary rate—and that there is a Green Paper on the restructuring and the future of the rating system. How far we can advance will depend upon the reaching of a conclusion on the best way to go about the matter.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister say why the Government are proposing to introduce a new version of the retail price index for the purposes of uprating the poorest beneficiaries on supplementary benefit, using a formula which, if applied this year, will deprive the unemployed and pensioners on supplementary benefit and supplementary pensions of £90 million?
    The Prime Minister: The present Act is related to the retail prices index as it is now.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend's first answer on the question relating to sport in South Africa, may I ask her to confirm that those cricketers who decided not to go were making a more significant gesture in terms of freedom for people in South Africa, who are unable in many cases to move around in their own country or to travel abroad?
    The Prime Minister: I know that some cricketers were persuaded not to go by the action of the Test and County Cricket Board. I believe that they are probably making their stand on apartheid in South Africa.
    Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dean: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's admission in the House last Thursday that had the shares of Amersham International been disposed of by tender a much higher price could have been realised, will she, as a matter of urgency, consult her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to tabling the necessary manuscript motion today, which would allow the notice of objection by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to be debated and voted upon separately today, to give the House the chance to express its view on this very sordid business?
    The Prime Minister: What can be voted upon separately is a matter not for me but for the Chair, and possibly for the Leader of the House. It is certainly not a matter for me. With regard to Amersham International, I did not necessarily say that the tender would have produced a higher price in any way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that before the event occurred a number of commentaries appeared, one of which—I refer to the Investors Chronicle—stated that the share was "a shade ambitiously priced."
    Bearinng in mind that the price of most industrial shares is 10·6 times historic earnings and for companies in the health and household sector 13·8 times historic earnings, a price of nearly 19 times forecast earnings would appear to have been about right.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how eagerly many of my constituents in Southampton are looking forward to the privatisation of the British Transport Docks Board? We.have suffered almost 12 months of disputes. We hope that the privatisation will produce stronger
    150
    management with better organisational ability and that this will mean more prosperity for the 19 ports under the British Transport Docks Board.
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. Friend takes that view. I am sure that the result will be a better bargain and a more efficient operation and that it will also be better for the consumer.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Prime Minister aware that the widows of coal miners have been issued with notices by the Inland Revenue informing them that the pensions of their late husbands are now to be taxed? What does she intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: I rather think that we have a Budget in the offing. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain his impatience.
    Sir Hector Monro: Reverting to an earlier question, does my right hon. Friend agree that, regardless of the circumstances, no individual sport will flourish in this country unless there is loyalty and trust between the competitors and players and their governing bodies? Is it not a sad day when money is more important than the game?
    The Prime Minister: The Test and County Cricket Board has done its best loyally to uphold the Gleneagles agreement and has given advice. In the end, of course, while many of us may agree with my hon. Friend, in a free country it is up to the persons concerned freely to make their decisions.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) raises the issue of widows of coal miners being taxed on miners' pensions of about £6 out of a net income of less than £37 a week, the reason is that, in last year's Budget, she and the rest of her gang marched into the Lobby to ensure that personal allowances were not raised in line with inflation? Does this not show that the Government are concerned with lining the pockets of their supporters, by the sale of Amersham shares, to the tune of £25 million, while making people receiving less than £37 pay taxation? Has she not a duty in the next Budget to repair that damage?
    The Prime Minister: Taxation is levied not on a particular pension but on total income, in accordance with personal allowances rules, which are fixed by each Finance Act. It is usually the subject of the Budget each year. It would be much easier to reduce direct tax if people thought more of reducing direct public expenditure.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: In the course of her busy day, has my right hon. Friend heard rumours that pension fund managers, acting on behalf of mineworkers and railwaymen, were substantial subscribers to Amersham International shares? If that rumour is correct, will she congratulate those pension fund managers on exercising their skill and expertise on behalf of hundreds of thousands of working people?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the rumour is true, but pension fund managers have a duty to

    151
    make the best investment for their beneficiaries. If they did that, they presumably did it because they thought that it was a good investment in the long run.
    Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is rumoured that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition for sport—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Every instinct in me tells me that it is wiser to ask the hon. Gentleman to remain seated.

Lorry Traffic (Regulations)
3.30 pm
Mr. John Lee: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for regulating lorry traffic.
Road transport is vital to twentieth century industry, and it is absurd to pretend that we can do without the lorry. However, we are all concerned about the damage which heavy lorries can do when they are allowed to use roads which were never designed to take them. We may not love the lorry but we must learn to live with it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has told the House about the various measures he is taking to tackle the environmental damage which is caused by lorries. Fie has substantially increased the bypass programme and is providing new advice to local authorities on how to use their powers to ban lorries from unsuitable roads. That is where my Bill, although modest, has an important part to play.
Many hon. Members will know that county councils have wide powers under the Road Traffics Regulation Act 1967 to control the movement of heavy lorries in their areas for amenity and other purposes. Those powers were strengthened by the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973 which is often known al the Dykes Act after its sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). Enormous environmental benefit has resulted from the 850 or so orders made under those Acts but there is scope for more.
One effect of the Dykes Act was the introduction of a definition of heavy commercial vehicle into the 1967 Act. In 1973 it was still fairly common in legislation to refer to vehicles in terms of their unladen weight in imperial units. The present definition relates to vehicles exceeding 3 tons unladen weight. Recent changes in the transport industry mean that lorries now tend to be classified by their maximum gross weight—the weight of a lorry carrying its maximum permitted load. That weight must be shown on a plate in the cab of a heavy lorry. That maximum gross weight is sometimes known as the plated weight and it facilitates the checking of overweight vehicles.
Despite those trends, the present definition of heavy commercial vehicle in the 1967 Act continued to be used extensively by county councils in making traffic regulation orders until August last year. The new traffic signs regulations came into force then and prohibited the use of road signs showing restrictions in unladen weight. In accordance with an EEC directive, new signs also had to be metric, although provisions for existing signs to remain until the end of 1989 has been made.
The House will appreciate that all road signs must correspond to a road traffic regulation order if they are to be effective and enforceable. The present incompatibility is causing problems for county councils which must devise their own definitions of the orders. That cumbersome arrangement is inhibiting and the public must put up with
154
noise, vibration and pollution for far longer than is necessary. I understand that the Department of Transport consulted interested organisations last year under the provisions of the draft amending regulations. Apparently, there are legal obstacles to proceeding in this way and thus a change requires primary legislation.
It is most undesirable that difficulties should be placed in the way of county councils that wish to observe or improve amenities in their area by introducing lorry controls. It is essential that county councils be given every assistance to use their powers to the full. This Bill is a positive way to help ensure that the powers which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was instrumental in producing almost a decade ago continue to be used to good effect. The Bill is intended to serve that general purpose. It will simply amend the definition of heavy commercial vehicle in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and bring it into line with the terminology now used for road signs, vehicle and driver licensing and other matters relating to heavy lorries.
The new definition would apply to vehicles exceeding 7·5 tonnes maximum gross weight. That figure is supported by the local authority associations and the road haulage industry. It also has the advantage of being the threshold for HGV licences so that a driver will know whether the vehicle he is driving contravenes a restriction. In addition, the requirement for rear chevrons has been changed to that figure recently so that vehicles exceeding 7·5 tonnes should be easy to identify.
We should do all that we can to help the police in their difficult task of enforcing these regulations. I am confident that this measure will be welcomed generally, by county councils, police, industrialists, road hauliers and, most important of all, thousands of ordinary people throughout the country who will benefit if lorries are banned from the streets in which people live and shop.
I am not out to knock lorries. The British lorry manufacturing industry needs all the encouragement it can get at the moment. No-one representing a regional constituency with so much manufacturing industry, as do I, would wish in any way to make national distribution more difficult. However, it is a question of balance and we need regulations and controls. I therefore trust that the House will give its full support to the introduction of this short Bill for the purpose that I have outlined.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Lee, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Chris Patten, Mr. Keith Wickenden, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. John Major, Mr. Richard Needham, Mr. Gerry Neale, Mr. Barry Sheerman and Mr. Ken Eastham.

LORRY TRAFFIC (REGULATIONS)
Mr. John Lee accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for regulating lorry traffic: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  Gas Price Increases
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase domestic gas prices by 22 per cent. in 1982 and demands that this policy be not implemented.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Rees: I shall try to be brief, as I believe that two Front Bench spokesmen would be inappropriate in a three-hour debate.
  Rarely has more concern been expressed than on this act of Government policy. The Government have decided to increase gas prices by 22 per cent.—12 per cent. for inflation and 10 per cent. on a regular basis. The average increases in 1980 were 17 per cent. and 10 per cent., and in 1981, 15 per cent. and 10 per cent. This follows the decision of the Government—not the British Gas Corporation—in 1980 to increase gas prices by 10 per cent. more than inflation as a general act of policy. As a result of Government policy, gas prices have increased by about 100 per cent. since 1979.
  All of this has occurred not because of a decision by the Gas Corporation but as a result of a firm decision by the Cabinet—and this from a Government led by a Prime Minister who has the nerve to go round the country complaining that it is the nationalised industries which put up prices. The Government have put up gas prices. It is not market forces or Gas Corporation decisions, but Government policy. The Government constantly denigrate the nationalised industries and the Gas Corporation. This is a richly successful, integrated industry and a world leader in research looking to the future. The job that it has carried out in the past 20 years with high-speed gas and North Sea gas and the pipe system throughout the country has been truly remarkable.
  In exactly the same way, it was the Government who imposed a levy on the Gas Corporation, thus milking it of £1·25 billion over three years. The Government see the Gas Corporation not just as a convenient Aunt Sally in political speeches but as a means of raising taxation outwith the corporation's statutory responsibility to supply gas. A Conservative Central Office handout of 27 February had the nerve to say:
  "Domestic consumers benefited at the expense of industrial consumers".
  I shall return to that.
  "They were benefiting also at the expense of the taxpayer".
  It is the taxpayer, in the form of the British Gas Corporation, who has to pay a levy of £1·25 billion to the Exchequer. It is Government policy to put up gas prices, even without these instructions on domestic gas prices. The result of the provisions relating to gas in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill now in Standing Committee will be to raise prices. We heard this morning in that Committee
  156
  that Sir Ernest Woodroofe, who had been a part-time member of the British Gas Corporation for nine years, had written:
  "As a staunch Conservative, having voted solidly for the Party all my life and having rejoiced at the success at the last election … I see nothing in this Bill which will reduce the price of gas to the consumer and since British Gas will have to compete for supplies at higher costs to the Corporation, I see the effect of the Bill as likely to make the price of gas to the consumer higher than it would have otherwise been."
  That is the view of the Gas Corporation. It is clearly the Government's intention to increase prices in the gas industry. Whether it be though raising domestic gas prices through the effects of the new Bill, it is Government policy to increase the price of gas.
  In the amendment, the Government seek to put a gloss on their policy for which gas does not bear examination, and to link the level of industrial prices to the policy of hiking up domestic gas prices. The sequence was in fact quite different.
  Soon after the Government came to office in 1979, they reduced the external financing limit for the Gas Corporation by £190 million and insisted to the corporation that all the increases fell upon the non-domestic consumer. The increase in the fall of 1979 consisted of a 21 per cent. increase for the non-domestic consumer and an 0 per cent increase for the domestic consumer. The policy in January 1980 for 10 per cent. more than inflation for three years was to sort out the imbalance which the Government had largely caused through their own action in the first nine months of the Conservative Administration. There was no mention of helping industrial users during those months. The change followed pressure from NEDC and large industrial gas users. As a result, industrial contract renewal prices were frozen until yesterday.
  Mr. Tim Eggar rose—
  Mr. Rees: Perhaps I may finish this point. Then, of course, I shall give in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I always give in to the hon. Gentleman.
  The NEDC report states:
  "The change since our last report has been due to: (i) the BCC measures which set a ceiling to renewal prices in Britain, so freezing prices which were already at the ceiling and restraining rates of increases for others; (ii) exchange rate movement during the year; and (iii) price increases on the continent reflecting movement in fuel oil prices and the higher prices now being charged for exports of Dutch gas."
  I shall return to the third point in a moment.
  Mr. Eggar: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that up to that point the Government and the British Gas Corporation were following exactly the policy on pricing promulgated by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) when he was Secretary of State for Energy?
  Mr. Rees: That is a fair question. I shall return to that, as I investigated the subject carefully, and I shall spell out the policy of the Labour Government at that time.
  The Government's sudden enthusiasm for industrial gas consumers is not matched by an enthusiasm to help industrial bulk electricity users, for whom arguments have been made for some time but very little has been done.
  Despite the reference in the Government amendment to "helping the needy", the bald fact is that, whatever the amount of money provided, fewer people will be helped than in the last year of the Labour Government, whose

  157
  scheme helped those on rent and rate rebate schemes as well as those on supplementary benefit. The Conservatives were driven to help some of those on low incomes by the bad winter, not as an offset to the policy of annual gas hikes about which we are complaining today. If it was an offset, they certainly took a long time about it, as that policy was implemented in January 1980. The Government were driven to act. They should listen to the consumer on energy pricing policy. A document that I received recently from the North-Eastern gas consumers'F council in Eastgate, Leeds states that at a recent meeting of the council it repeated its view that
  "all the increases should be vigorously opposed"
  and that
  "price increases should be based only on the financial needs of the Industry. Whilst being well aware of the Government's policy imposed on British Gas that prices should rise 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation over three years … they felt that the British Gas Corporation had not told them any reason why they needed the extra money."
  Of course, the British Gas Corporation does not need the extra money. It is a Government decision and a method of taxation. The Government are using the British Gas Corporation to collect a poll tax, or at least to levy a tax on the basis of the amount of energy used by the British people. The Government's energy policy is incoherent. They have drifted in the wind of their own belief in free market forces, always slow to respond to the arguments of the NEDC or the large industrial users. They are motivated by a positive dislike of nationalised industry. The gas industry is successful in anybody's language. In addition the Government policy on depletion is not clean.
  The fall in the price of oil—which might well drop by another $5 a barrel—is welcome because of its effect throughout the economy. We shall see whether it is welcome to the Chancellor. Surely, as a result, the price of industrial gas will fall because normally there is a straight link between the price of oil and the price of industrial gas. No one could possibly know the precise figure, but that change will surely force the Government to look again at overall prices.
  The Secretary of State for Energy has far more responsibility than a shadow spokesman. However, I have been at it slightly longer than him. It strikes me as remarkable that, despite the country having all the coal, gas and oil that it needs, we make a hash of it. In contrast Canada uses its prolific supplies of energy for the benefit of its domestic and industrial consumers. We should do exactly the same.
  Mr. Peter Rost: The right hon. Gentleman talks about protecting the consumer. Does he not accept that industrial and commercial consumers have been penalised, particularly by the Labour Government's pricing policy, which held down the domestic price at the expense of the industrial consumer? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs are being lost in Britain as a result of high gas prices to the industrial sector?
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman said that in Committee this morning. He is wrong. According to the NEDC report, we are not at a disadvantage as far as gas prices are concerned.
  Mr. John Hannam: Not now.
  Mr. Rees: Of course we are not now. That is what I read out. The Government experienced pressures last year, but the assertion of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is wrong.
  It is always pleasant to look at what a party said at the last election. In 1979, on the basis of the Labour Government's policy, the Labour Party said:
  "As well as being available in large supplies, gas is also competitively priced. Some have argued that it has an unfair advantage as a source of domestic heating over electricity, and that its price should be raised to bring it more into line with that of electricity. However, gas is only relatively cheap because it has been possible to develop the gas in the southern basin of the North Sea cheaply, and because the industry has cut its workforce by over 20 per cent. in ten years. We believe that relatively cheap gas encourages its use in the premium markets—domestic and commercial—for which it is best suited. To increase its price, so that domestic consumers would want to switch to electricity, would, not be in the interests of the industry, and would in any case, cause unnecessary hardship to many gas consumers who rely on it as an inexpensive form of heating and cooking. This would be contrary to Labour's objective"—
  carried out in Government—
  "of providing adequate heat and light at a price that people can afford."
  The Labour Government's policy was right and so was the policy that we put forward at the election. The Government's policy is to increase gas prices not because the British Gas Corporation wants that but because the Prime Minister and the Government want them to increase. The Government's policy is for gas prices to increase every year by the amount of inflation plus 10 per cent. That is their policy. I hope that Conservative Members will not say that everything is the fault of the British Gas Corporation, because that is not true. The British Gas Corporation is highly successful. We are debating Government policy and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the motion tonight.
  3.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House having endorsed on 29th January 1980 the Government's decision to tackle, over a three-year period, the serious under-pricing of domestic gas at industry's expense, recognises the need to complete that process this year; welcomes the relief which has been possible in consequence through lower real industrial gas prices; and supports the Government in making available more resources than ever before for helping the needy with their fuel bills."
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has—as is his custom—worked himself up into something of a lather of indignation about gas prices. However, his response was hardly shared by other Labour Members. At the beginning of his speech a full five Opposition Back Benchers supported him, but by the end of his speech he had managed to increase the number to 10. That is the sum total of his achievement. I congratulate him on doubling the number of his supporters, but perhaps it shows that the motion can be described only as being by opportunism out of hypocrisy.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the fall in the price of oil might have an impact on industrial gas prices. He is right to say that the fall in the price of oil—we do not know for how long it will continue—is of net benefit to the world and to this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must grapple with certain budgetary problems. However, their magnitude depends not merely on the dollar price of oil, but on the

  159
  exchange rate and the sterling price of oil. The huge increase in oil prices in 1979 inflicted immense damage on the world economy and on Britain's economy and contributed greatly to inflation and particularly to the recession. The softening of prices—assuming that it will continue—can only be of benefit to the world economy, from which we can draw some comfort and hope.
  I readily grant the right hon. Member for Leeds, South the fact that gas prices have caused considerable concern throughout the country, but it is important to be clear about the reason for that concern. The problem is not caused by the absolute level of the price of gas. On the contrary, gas is still the cheapest fuel available, and will continue to be even after this year's price increases. To heat a home by oil-fired central heating costs almost half as much again as heating it by gas-fired central heating. Similarly even after the recent March increase in the price of industrial gas firm gas costs 30½p per therm, compared with gas oil—even at today's oil prices—of 46p per therm. Therefore, the fall in oil prices must go much further before it has any impact on the competitive edge enjoyed by gas. It costs twice as much to cook by electricity—another competitive fuel—as by gas.
  That has not always been so. During the past 10 to 15 years, while the price of all other fuels has risen very considerably in real terms, the real price of gas has fallen. I take 1968 as an example, because that was the year in which North Sea gas first took the place of the old town gas. In 1968 a typical elderly couple used between six and seven therms of gas a week to cook with and to heat their home, and that cost them 10 per cent. of their old-age pension. Even after the gas price increases of the past two years, today it costs only 4 per cent. of a married couple's pension to pay for the same amount of gas.
  The price of gas today to the British home is among the lowest in the world. In France and Germany, for example, the householder has to pay from half to twice as much for his gas. Thus, it is not the absolute level of gas prices that is the problem, whether compared with other fuels, or with a decade ago, or with prices overseas. The problem is the sharp increase in the gas price that is due this year. That is what is at issue. It is right, therefore, that the House should understand why so large an increase is necessary, and, in particular, where the true responsibility for it lies—with the Labour Party.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Before the last increase in gas prices the Gas Corporation made a profit of £200 million, at a time when the Prime Minister said that too much gas was being used by domestic consumers. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that?
  Mr. Lawson: I shall come to that a little later, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman now that that profit was coming entirely from industry, from the sale of gas to industry at a much higher price. No profit came from the domestic consumer.
  Let us return to Labour Members and the time when they were in Government. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South said that he was happy to have his Government's record examined. They were in no doubt about the principles on which gas prices should be based. In their White Paper of 1978, produced under the aegis of a previous Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—I do not
  160
  know where he is, but he is again absent, no doubt engaged in some extra-parliamentary activity; I believe that is the correct expression—they said:
  "The Government considers that gas and electricity prices should be at economic levels which reflect the cost of supply, encouraging the best use of national energy resources and avoiding subsidies from public expenditure".
  Fine words, but what happened in practice?
  No sooner was the ink dry on that White Paper than they decided, in a futile attempt—and, my goodness, it was futile—to court electoral popularity, to freeze the price of gas to the home for the remainder of their ill-fated term of office. As a result, by the time the present Government took office in 1979, far from there being any question of prices reflecting costs, the Gas Corporation was actually losing money, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) a moment ago, on an increasing scale on the supply of gas to the home, and all its profits were being made from its sales to industry. The price of gas to industry, far from being held down in line with domestic gas prices, rose to the point where it was costing 25 per cent. more than the price of gas to the home, despite the fact that the cost of supplying gas to industry was significantly less than that of supplying it in smaller quantities to the home.
  The Labour Government's Price Commission, which was scarcely in the habit of recommending that prices should go up, reported in June 1979 that domestic gas was so seriously under-priced that its price should be increased by at least 30 per cent. Incidentally, that analysis was not challenged by the Gas Corporation.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: If it is so sensible a policy—and this was the report in June 1979—why, in September 1979, did the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member freeze domestic gas prices?
  Mr. Lawson: The policy that we are debating is that which has been in existence since January 1980. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to defend his Government's policy, he will have to do a great deal better than that.
  What happened when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in office is clear. The under-pricing of domestic gas had led, inevitably, to a massive surge in the demand for gas for the home far in excess of the corporation's ready ability to supply it, particularly during periods of peak winter demand. As a direct result, industry was once again being penalised, this time by having to suffer the deliberate rationing of gas and being denied the supplies that it so badly needed.
  That was the cockeyed position that the Government inherited from their predecessors. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport, set out to put it right.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman is introducing a very important argument. He is really arguing that not only do workers receive a wage for working, but that they receive an energy wage from industry as well. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Labour Government came into office we had about £1,000 million worth of electricity price freeze debts to pay and that, for the first time in history, the Conservative Administration had managed to make the electricity industry go into deficit?
  Mr. Lawson: I do not think I would be in order if I were to allow myself to be led along the highways and

  161
  byways of electricity policy in 1974, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman was referring to. However, I am surprised that he did not understand the importance that I was attaching to the point that I made about the cost of energy generally, and gas in particular, to industry and the implications that this can have for industry's competitiveness and for jobs. I should have thought that he at least would have understood that.
  My predecessor announced in January 1980 that the massive under-pricing of domestic gas would be corrected, not all at once, of course, but by a 10 per cent. increase in the real price of gas to the home in each of the three years 1980, 1981 and 1982. That was one of the most courageous decisions ever taken by a Minister. It was debated and approved by the House on 29 January 1980. What we are discussing today is the third and final instalment of that three-year correction of the follies of our predecessors.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am intervening to save the right hon. Gentleman from himself, because he said that his predecessor decided to increase the price of gas by 10 per cent. for three years. I do not want him to be accused of misleading the House. He should have added "by 10 per cent. above the current rate of inflation".
  Mr. Lawson: What I said was 10 per cent. in real terms, as the hon. Gentleman will find when he reads Hansard tomorrow morning. I am sorry that he did not understand. It is confusing sometimes. I hope that he understands now.
  I understand the concern about and, in some cases, the difficulty that can be caused by sharp price increases in what for many is an essential commodity. That is why the Government have introduced the most generous scheme ever to help those in need with their fuel bills. Altogether about £250 million is being spent this year to help those in low income groups—such as the elderly, the disabled, and families with young children—with special heating needs, and about 2¼ million people are benefiting from this, of whom 1½ million are pensioners. Of course, the 7½ million pensioners who do not fall into this category of special need still have their pensions fully protected against all price increases, including the price of gas.
  A lot of concern has been expressed in the House about standing charges. These reflect the fixed overhead costs of making a supply of gas available to the home, and are set by the Gas Corporation without any intervention by the Government whatever, except of course the constant Government pressure on the corporation to reduce its costs. Needless to say, the standing charge is fully taken into account in assessing eligibility for the special scheme for assistance with fuel bills.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wonder whether I might ask the right hon. Gentleman about the standing charge. I did not mention it and I wondered what he would say about it. If the Government insist that they can put up prices by 10 per cent. over the rate of inflation, is there no way in which an instruction can be given to the Gas Corporation to look at the standing charge, about which I personally receive many letters?
  Mr. Lawson: As I made clear, the standing charge reflects the Gas Corporation's costs. It is a matter for the
  162
  corporation. It is not the Government who set the charge. What we are trying to do is to get the industry to look critically at its costs and reduce them. We recently announced a further intensification of the drive to make the nationalised industries more efficient and to cut their costs, by the introduction of a bigger role for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in this area, and by other means.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government give an open invitation to this nationalised industry or any other to maximise its charges there is little chance that it will then cut its costs?
  Mr. Lawson: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who now shares the same county as I do and the same local newspaper, which I am sure will faithfully reflect what he says, but I assure him that we are in no way encouraging the industry to put up its costs generally. The question that I shall come to is the balance between the domestic consumer and industry. That is crucial.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
  Mr. Lawson: I have given way several times. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a little more time, I shall give way to him. I know that he is concerned about standing charges.
  Whether any further assistance specifically related to standing charges is needed is, as the House has already been informed, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is conducting a review of that matter at present.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: This is not a political point. The Minister said that he had no power to instruct the Gas Corporation on the question of standing charges, because that does not come within his purview. That may well be, but he and the Department urge everyone to conserve energy. The right hon. Gentleman is running a campaign to conserve energy, but there are old people who do not receive the extra, because they are not on the supplementary benefit level, who conserve energy, and who then find that they pay more for the standing charge than they do for the gas. Ministers should not shake their heads. I have such constituents. They buy paraffin and paraffin oil lamps, conserve their gas and then find that the standing charge is more than the rest of the gas bill. Will the Minister investigate this matter?
  I know of no organisation, private or public, that can, and does, draw money for nothing. Old people can go away to their relatives—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. Lewis: The Secretary of State has given way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making the point that old people go away on holiday or to see their relatives and when they return after four or five weeks find that, although they have used no gas, they still have to pay the standing charge.
  Mr. Lawson: The standing charge is related to the costs—and there are costs. That must be accepted, and it was accepted by the previous Government. Incidentally, it is also accepted by the gas consumers council. There is a cost in connecting a house to the gas supply, in maintaining the connection and in all the safety work

  163
  related to that. The consumers eventually receive bills, even if they are small bills. As I have said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is conducting a review.
  Mr. Spriggs: This is a very important matter. When the gas supply is connected the recipient pays in full, and after that he pays the quarterly standing charge. Why should people—especially pensioners and others on low incomes—continue to pay the quarterly standing charge?
  Mr. Lawson: Perhaps I should not have given way, because many hon. Members wish to take part in this brief debate and I have already covered that point. There are many costs—billing, the maintenance of the connection, the safety force that the corporation must maintain, and so on. Everything except the cost of the gas itself is covered by the standing charge. Those costs exist. It is not simply a matter of a once-and-for-all connection cost.
  The right hon. Gentleman alleged that we were putting up gas prices in order to cream off the resulting profits by means of the gas levy. There is no truth in that. When the levy was introduced a year ago, the corporation's financial target was reduced—to its present level of a 3½ per cent. return on current cost assets—specifically to take account of the levy.
  The reason for the levy is simple. It has long been accepted by Governments of both parties that North Sea oil and gas are a legitimate tax base. The main instrument used—one that was devised and brought into being by the Labour Government—is petroleum revenue tax, which applies to oil and gas equally. No gas subject to PRT is also subject to the levy.
  A large, albeit diminishing, proportion of the corporation's supplies comes from North Sea contracts signed before PRT came into being. It is this gas, and this gas alone, that is subject to the levy. In other words, the justification for the levy is precisely the same as the justification for PRT: the transfer of windfall or God-given profits to the nation as a whole. I repeat that none of this has had any bearing whatever on the level of gas prices, as can be readily seen, because my predecessor's policy was announced and was approved by the House in January 1980, long before the levy existed, and has remained unaltered by its coming into force a year ago.
  If tax is a red herring, as it is, should we not subsidise domestic gas prices, as the Labour Government did? That is the proposition that has been put to us. If this is to come out of general taxation—and all subsidies must be paid for somehow—it is hard to imagine anything less fair.
  There can be few of us, certainly on the Government Benches, who do not have in our constituencies villages where the people cannot obtain gas, even if they want to—and many of them want to very much, since it is still cheaper than other fuels—simply because the village is not on the gas grid. Roughly a quarter of all the homes in the land are in precisely that position, and the proportion is much higher in the rural areas.
  What possible justice can there be in charging those who can obtain gas less than the amount that those who cannot obtain it would be only too happy to pay, and then adding insult to injury by requiring the unlucky minority to pay out of their taxes the cost of the subsidies to the lucky majority? That is what the proposition amounts to. There is no running away from it.
  That is clearly out of the question, so the real issue is as follows. I have mentioned the modest rate of return that
  164
  the industry is required to earn. How is that to be secured as between the domestic consumer and the industrial consumer? We see that that is the question when we get to the bottom of it.
  Under Labour, for reasons of short-term political expendiency, the supply of gas to the home was running at a loss. The entire return had to be extracted from industry, which was paying ever-higher prices to subsidise the domestic consumer. That was a fact. Had we not stepped in decisively, that imbalance would have become even worse and the burden for industry would be still greater. As it is, the increases in domestic gas prices over the past two years have only brought the corporation to the point where it just about breaks even on this side of its business.
  What those increases in domestic prices have done is to enable the corporation, with some help from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his last Budget, to freeze industrial gas prices throughout 1981 and into the first quarter of this year. It is essential, on industrial and employment grounds alike, that we do whatever we can to help keep industry's energy costs competitive. The freeze on industry's gas contract renewal terms has been of crucial importance in this context, as the November NEDC task force report acknowledged.
  That freeze, however, is now coming to an end An increase of 3 per cent. in industrial gas prices is now due as a prelude to further increases later in the year. I am sure that hon. Members would prefer that modest rise to be followed by price stability. The Chancellor and I will look closely at this possibility, and it is clear that our freedom of manoeuvre, and indeed that of the BGC, will crucially be conditioned by whether the corporation is able to earn, pre-levy, a modest return from its domestic gas business—or whether, as before, industry is obliged to bear the entire burden on its own shoulders.
  My answer to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South about bulk electricity prices is that that is also a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering.
  I do not think that I should say anything further about those two matters—industry's gas prices and bulk electricity prices—in advance of the Budget. That, at the end of the day, is what is at issue in this debate. The increase in domestic gas prices announced for this year will, for the first time, enable the Gas Corporation to earn, pre-levy, a modest but positive return on this side of the business.
  Mr. Edward Rowlands: Pre-levy?
  Mr. Lawson: I am talking about pre-levy. Post-levy will still be a loss. Pre-levy it will now be a modest return.
  From April, the domestic running tariff will be about the same as the price of firm gas to industry. From October industry has, at long last, the prospect of paying slightly less for gas than the domestic consumer, as its competitors do abroad, and as it should do, since the cost of supplying industry is markedly less.
  All that will be achieved with a domestic gas price which, as I have said, will still leave gas cheaper than alternative fuels. Of course, in the long run, the gas requirements of industry will be satisfied, both as to price and as to adequacy of supply, by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which the Opposition so dislike, since it

  165
  will end the Gas Corporation's monopoly in this field and introduce genuine competition into the business of supplying industry with the gas that it so badly needs.
  In the short run it was essential that we restored a proper balance between domestic and industrial gas prices if the competitiveness of British industry was to be secured and the most economic use made of this vital natural resource. That is what is now within our grasp. By October of this year the long and painful process of adjustment in domestic gas prices will be over and a real prize will have been achieved: a source of highly competitive fuel for our industry, soon to be enlarged by the fruits of competition, at the same time as the user in the home will still be paying less for gas than for other fuels.
  That is the prize that the Opposition, with their foolish motion, seek to snatch from the people of this country and from British industry. I ask the House to reject that motion and to secure that prize.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Government suffer from an obsession about the British Gas Corporation which, if translated into individual terms, would be classed as severely paranoid.
  All last year we on this side of the House, together with most thinking people outside the House, had to beat off the attacks, based solely on doctrinaire obsessions, that the Government were making on the corporation. The House will recall the response from Conservative Members whenever the name of Denis Rooke or the British Gas Corporation was raised. What caused that response? The British Gas Corporation destroys all the most precious tenets of the Government. Its industry is successful and the Government cannot bear success, particularly in a nationalised industry.
  Thus we have seen attacks on gas showrooms, on the very structure of the corporation itself through the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which we are considering in Committee. Now we see yet another attack through the price mechanism.
  It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, on the one hand, that gas prices will become cheaper through the Government's privatisation measures—what I should prefer to call "piratisation"—of the British taxpayer in which the Secretary of State is engaged in Committee Room 8, when, on the other hand, he is busy implementing a policy which effectively sees the domestic consumer as a mulch cow to be drained to finance the public sector borrowing requirement. Thus, whatever good intentions the Secretary of State may have—I give him credit for occasionally having good intentions—in respect of gas prices, the combination of his measures will mean that the price of gas to the domestic consumer will continue to rise well beyond the planned price rises for the year.
  Why are gas prices rising? It is true, and it would be foolish to deny, that it costs more for the British Gas Corporation to supply gas to the domestic consumer than it does to industry. But one of the joys of an integrated system and operation for gas is that costs can be averaged to the benefit of all. By putting up the cost to the domestic consumer, the Government are ensuring that those least able to pay will bear the heaviest cost.
  166
  Prices are rising not because the corporation needs the money—its massive profit of £350 million last year shows that clearly enough—but because the Government, having pledged themselves to cut taxes, have found it necessary to raise money in other ways. Hence the gas levy. During the Government's term of office prices in general have risen by 38 per cent. That is not a proud record for a Government who came to office with an absolutely firm commitment to fight inflation. Prices generally are 38 per cent. higher than they were two and a half years ago and inflation is still 2 per cent. higher than when the Government came into office. The price of gas for the same period has increased by a staggering 100 per cent. By that mechanism the Government have deliberately added 3 per cent. to the rate of inflation—a rise which could and should have been avoided.
  Who suffers from those price rises? The gas industry and its workers certainly suffer because the public believes that they are responsible for this added imposition on an already stretched domestic budget. The consumer suffers, particularly those groups most at risk—the sick, the old, the very young and the unemployed.
  It is no consolation to be told that during 1981 the rate of disconnection was the lowest for some years. That simply reflects the fact that people are choosing between heating and eating. That is clearly what has happened during the past few months. There is something obscene about a Government who put 3 million people on the dole, cut local authority expenditure so that facilities cannot be used to provide occupations and then freeze them out of their homes. There is something even more obscene when a Government cut old-age pensions allegedly to claw back a small miscalculation and then force up gas prices so that the old people suffer twice for no crime at all.
  The rise in gas prices is a regressive tax which hits the poorest people considerably. Those in the lowest income brackets spend 15 per cent. of their average income on gas. For those earning £250 per week or more it is only 6 per cent. There is not much equity in that. It is an impossible form of energy conservation which uses a direct and regressive tax as a substitute for a proper programme.
  This is a price rise which nobody in the gas industry wants or needs and which will clearly satisfy the wild men on the Government Back Benches by creating even more unpopularity for what is, by any stretch of the imagination, a most successful industry.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I have for some time felt a deep concern about increases in gas prices. I am sure that I represent the concern of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends over the impact that the rise in gas prices will have on the personal budgets of our individual constituents. There is no doubt that a rise substantially in excess of the rate of inflation this year will have an effect on their personal budgets, which will be to the detriment of money that they would have spent on other items in the household budget. The average rate of inflation is now about 12 per cent. and the private sector component is about 6 per cent.
  It is clear that price rises in the public sector have had a direct and damaging impact on people's propensity to spend and on their net disposable incomes. That is bad for the private sector and bad for the Government's image.

  167
  The Government are rightly committed to restoring efficiency in the public sector and to reducing its size and the demands that it makes upon our constituents.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will understand and share these sentiments. They, like their Back Bench colleagues, are Members of Parliament with constituencies that inevitably have within them many who are in receipt of the lowest incomes and whose personal standard of living will be hard hit. In many instances they will find themselves hard pressed by increased gas prices. It is right that we should express our concern on their behalf on this occasion.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: In the Division tonight, I hope.
  Mr. Nelson: I shall make what I hope will be taken as a constructive comment in describing the direction in which I should like the British Gas Corporation to move, with the Government's influence, to correct the burden of the cost that it is placing on the consumer, who is in turn our constituent. It would be wrong for us to reinstitute price controls to hold down prices for gas or for other energy supplies. To do so is to build up a much greater problem for the future. The arguments for holding back price increases apply equally to incomes policies. They are short-term measures that are designed as political expedients, and with the benefit of experience we should not lend our weight to them. I do not support the arguments for having subsidies or restrained prices.
  I accept the general thrust of the policy that the price level for gas and other energy supplies must reflect longterm production costs. I must also accept that some of the disparity that has arisen between industrial and domestic gas prices has to be reduced if we are to have an efficient pattern of demand. Judging by the way in which demand for gas was outstripping that for other energy sources a few years ago, the movement in prices has had some effect in stifling the increased demand.
  Should we have a target rate of return? I believe that we should. It would be easy for me and for others who would like to see lower gas prices to say "Let us have a lower rate of return, perhaps even a negative rate of return, with the Government writing off a loss for the corporation." I understand that the former proposed rate of return of 9 per cent. was replaced after the gas levy and accounting changes with one of 3·4 per cent. That seems to be a realistic rate of return for a major corporation. It is not by any means a high rate of return. However, it is a real rate of return as it is post-inflation. It is thoroughly right in the long term and we should seek a degree of bipartisanship in our modus vivendi. The industry should be well capable of achieving this target.
  My second option, which is to lower the target rate of return, is one that I rule out. If we were to reduce it, it would result in the taxpayer having to write off increasing losses. It would almost certainly result in the corporation not having sufficient cash flow and reinvestment funds to fund the more costly extractive facilities of new gas fields.
  There is a further option that I do not think has been mentioned enough. It is that the corporation should put its house in order. There is a great deal more to be said about the case for efficiency, economies and greater productivity within this great nationalised industry. I share with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, some degree of admiration for the improvements that the corporation has
  168
  made in recent years, but I believe that it has a long way to go. What is more, many other nationalised industries have a long way to go in satisfying their customers that they are giving good value for money.
  If we are to ask customers and taxpayers to shoulder the burden of much higher prices—prices that are rising by much more than the rate of inflation—they are much more .likely to accept the reasoning for those higher prices if we can assure them that the corporation and other nationalised industries are putting their houses in order and making much needed economies in the same way as the private sector, which has certainly had to do so in recent years.
  It is all very well to talk in general about efficiency and economy but what does one mean specifically? I shall suggest one area in which there is an opportunity for greater efficiency and economies to be achieved. A cause of great offence to many of my constituents is the many maintenance vans that circulate our districts. This applies not only to the gas industry. Probably the greatest criticism in this respect could be made of British Telecom. The, criticism almost certainly applies to the other nationalised industries.
  There is a great public conception—it is up to the Minister to argue that it is a great public misconception—that the productivity of maintenance workers generally is not especially high. This is something about which many of my constituents feel strongly. Many of them have written to me with allegations that maintenance vans have been parked for long periods in laybys. I have received letters suggesting that maintenance engineers from the nationalised industries call back much more frequently on a day-to-day basis than those from private sector companies that have to operate a similar service.
  Mr. Eggar: Would my hon. Friend rule out the possibility of allowing the private sector to do all the maintenance work that is currently carried out by British Gas?
  Mr. Nelson: I would not. My hon. Friend takes the very words from my mouth. That is an option that we. should consider seriously, and it is one that the corporation should consider. If it is too traumatic to consider doing it in bulk, there is a case for proceeding on an experimental or partial basis in some of the regions.
  I understand from the corporation's annual report that it employs over 120,000 people of whom over 31,000 are involved in customer service and conversion work. The wages bill is understandably enormous. If we were to achieve really tight control over the distribution of service, either by privatising it in part or in whole, or by carefully examining productivity and the way in which customer service and conversion employees operate, there would be a substantial saving. As a Member of Parliament I am not able to consider these matters in great detail. However, I suggest from the House to those in the corporation who consider these matters that a great deal of improvement could be achieved.
  Last year about 15 million customer jobs were fulfilled by the customer service division of the corporation. That is a considerable number of jobs and a considerable amount of work was involved. I understand that there were about 500,000 visits to check on gas fire safety. Undoubtedly that checking is important but it appears that it could be done quite easily by the private sector. There

  169
  is an argument for suggesting that the private sector should be allowed to tender for some of that work to ascertain whether corporation customers would get a better deal by proceeding in that way.
  My criticisms should not mask the fact that there have been some improvements in targets and efficency of the customer services carried out by the British Gas Corporation. I pay tribute to those regions that have been awarded the "golden flame" and "silver flame", for maintaining high standards of customer services. I am also aware that there is a target standard of service for domestic customers, which has recently been revised. It is certainly no part of my remit to argue that the standard of service to customers should be substantially reduced. However, some pruning of costs could be conducted to the benefit of customers generally.
  Finally, I eagerly look forward to the Budget Statement next week in the hope that we can give industry at least the prospect of certainty and restraint for future prices. It will be difficult for hon. Members to explain to their constituents why it will be necessary of the BGC—with its substantial liquid funds—to impose the sort of increases announced for this year. However, while I regret those increases, I support the need to move gas prices into line with others. Nevertheless, I reiterate, and cannot urge too strongly, that it would be far easier for people to accept these substantial increases if we gave them real evidence that this nationalised industry was being as active as the private sector has had to be in cutting back its own costs.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. David Stoddart: In contrast with the Secretary of State's remarks, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) seems to have some understanding of the problems faced by his constituents and other hon. Members' constituents throughout the country. However, I fear that he does not appreciate how small his suggested savings would be. They would be very small when compared with the 10 per cent. increase, at the Government's behest, in gas prices this year.
  On privatisation, my local authority in Swindon only recently changed from using the British Gas Corporation to a private enterprise firm. Since that firm took over the maintenance contracts, there has been a huge flood of complaints, not only to me but also to members of the council. I would, therefore, beware of that route to so-called "efficiency".
  The Secretary of State had a real chance to redeem himself this afternoon. He was the chappy who ratted on the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment on the indexation of tax allowances; he cheated taxpayers out of much money by not indexing the allowances in the previous Budget. He might somewhat have redeemed himself, as the Secretary of State for Energy, by cancelling the 10 per cent. surcharge tax on gas prices. However, he did not, and, far from doing so, showed a complete lack of sympathy for those who have to bear the increases. For the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to tell people who are paying huge gas bills that their gas is being sold to them at too cheap a rate shows a complete lack of understanding, sympathy and compassion for those least able to bear those increases.
  The Secretary of State also described the Government's decision to impose the 10 per cent. tax on gas prices, over
  170
  and above inflation, as an act of courage. It was not an act of courage; it was an act of abdication of their responsibilities for proper conservation measures. It was the easy way out and they took it. The Opposition's suggestions are not the easy way out, but they are rational and decent. The Government took the easy way out by simply increasing prices over and above the necessary increases.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Price is perhaps the biggest incentive to take note of on the need for conservation. If I am lucky enough to be called to speak, I shall try to explain to the hon. Gentleman how that has occured.
  Mr. Stoddart: Price, while apparently being the only method of conservation known to the Government, causes hardship to a great many. If there are to be conservation measures, they ought to act directly on the flow of fuels. That is precisely what the Government failed to carry out. They had opportunities to ensure that there would be real savings of heat while maintaining comfort and reasonable conditions. That objective was swept aside by their sole aim of increasing prices.
  On visiting constituents and organisations in my area during the spell of very bad weather in January, I discovered many cases of hardship; people were often afraid to turn their gas or other appliances on for fear of the subsequent bills. People suffered hardship and cold—particularly the old—because they were afraid that they would be unable to meet those bills.
  The social services department held special meetings to try to reassure people that the Government would not be so hard and that they would implement special measures. Indeed, I contacted the Department to obtain some reassurance. However, many people were very cold because they were frightened of the subsequent bills.
  Some bills have now materialised and mine is some 50 per cent. above last year's level. Although I can afford to pay it, many poor people are devastated by receiving a bill 50 per cent. above their expectations. It is unfortunate that the Government have shown such an unsympathetic attitude towards them.
  I was horrified when I heard that the gas price was to be increased in a year by 22 per cent.; 10 per cent. plus 12 per cent., which really means 23·2 per cent. over the year. Therefore, I put down early-day motion No. 239 which was signed by 169 hon. Members. Seven others signed sympathetic motions. That shows the great feeling that the Government ought to alter their policy on the 10 per cent. surcharge.
  An amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and he was the only signatory. His amendment is sympathetic to the Government's policy, but nobody else saw fit to sign it, which shows that the anti-Government feeling on this issue is far more widespread than we might think by this afternoon's attendance. The failure of hon. Members to sign the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bedford shows a silent and surly protest over a Government policy that hon. Members know will affect their constituencies. I hope that they will follow that silent and surly protest by failing to vote for the Government amendment tonight. Perhaps that is too much to hope for, because Conservative members are usually loyal to their Front Bench in most circumstances.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon finish his speech and that I can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can deal with some of the allegations that have been made.
  Mr. Stoddart: I was not making any allegations. I was merely dealing with the facts as I see them on the Order Paper. I was making my own assumptions and comments.
  The Secretary of State also talked about the long-term policy of the Government on conservation and prices. We are dealing at the moment with a specific circumstance and with matters as they now are. The Secretary of State also told us that industry is subsidising the domestic consumer and that the domestic consumer has had it easy while industry has had to pay much more. That argument needs closer examination. I understand the position of industry and the cost that it has had to bear compared with its competitors abroad. We have considered those matters in the Select Committee on Energy. I understand the argument and I sympathise with industry, but there is another side to the coin. The domestic consumer, although appearing to pay rather less than industry, pays a good part of the infrastructure costs of the industry, which would be much greater if the flow of the commodity were smaller. That argument is being put forward by the Government, but it needs more careful examination than it is being given. Even so, it is not good enough to say to the domestic consumer that under present circumstances he must be forced to pay the 10 per cent. surcharge, which neither the domestic consumer nor the gas corporation wish to have. At a time when they are suffering hardship with unemployment and other matters, consumers look askance at a Government who raise the price of an essential commodity to generate a tax take of about £750 million. Those consumers will not appreciate that.
  This is the time for the Government to reconsider their long-range strategy, which is now in a bad way, to see how it affects people. Over 3 million people are unemployed. The Government are trying to insist to their employees that they must either take a low increase in salary or none. They say to most people that they should have an increase in salary of only 4 per cent., yet at the same time they are increasing gas prices by direct intervention by 10 per cent. over and above what the corporation feels is necessary to balance its books. The Government should now cancel that increase, which is what I sought in my early-day motion.
  There have already been exchanges about the standing charge, which has caused much comment and a great spate of letters to every hon. Member. Perhaps it is not realised that, in the past two years, the standing charge has increased by more than 300 per cent. That is an enormous, unfair and inordinate increase. In equity, the Government should at least discuss the matter with the British Gas Corporation, because people—especially old people and those who use little gas—feel a great resentment that they are often paying much more in standing charge than for the commodity used. I urge the Government to take up that matter with the British Gas Corporation.
  The Government, by their attitude so far, have shown an entirely unsympathetic view to the consumers. With circumstances as they are, I would expect them, if not to support the Opposition motion—it calls for a cancellation of the increase—to the hilt, at least to cancel the instruction to the corporation that it should increase prices by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation. Nothing else will do.
  Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At a meeting of the Committee on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill this morning, the Chairman accepted a sittings motion following representations from Opposition Members that they wished to take part in the debate, but there is only one Member here.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whatever happens in a Standing Committee is not a matter for me.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) put his points with his usual fluency and determination. It is a matter of regret that there are hardly any Labour Members present to listen to them, as indeed there were hardly any Labour Members here to listen to the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), when he opened the debate on this censure motion.
  It is a matter of considerable regret to me that I take part in the debate at all. Only once before have I been unable to support the Government, and that was about the nationality of the people of Gibraltar. I am especially sorry that I cannot support my right hon. Friend and Leicestershire colleague, the Secretary of State. He has been lumbered with a policy that he did not devise. Perhaps he supports it now—whether out of duty or conviction or both. However, I am sure that his political antennae, which are considerable, would never have allowed him to devise it in the first place. This policy is born of academic unworldliness mated with producer self-interest. It does nothing for the consumer. It undermines the Government's wider economic strategy and hits hardest at some of the thriftiest members of the community. It is not even needed by the gas industry.
  Of course, I understand the intellectual justifications for the policy that new gas fields will cost more, that domestic gas barely breaks even, that demand greatly exceeds supply and that higher prices may induce conservation. All those reasons are familiar. As Eliza Doolittle said in "My Fair Lady":
  "There isn't one I haven't heard".
  However, I strongly blame myself for the fact that I allowed myself to be persuaded two years ago, against my better judgment, to support the Government. After all, there is a different academic argument about gas, which energy Ministers prefer not to deploy because it upsets other producers. That argument could be that gas is, in essence, a cheap and popular product. The customers wish to use it extensively. Competition would encourage other energy producers, especially those involved with domestic or industrial heating and cooking, to hold down their costs and prices.
  But instead we have a Conservative Government imposing a deliberate price surcharge on this popular product and then countering with an excess profits tax to cream off the results of that levy. That is producer-dominated economics in any language. The only justification for it is along the lines of the experts who favour the artificial restriction of energy sources in the alleged interests of guaranteeing supplies for future generations.
  What hogwash those predictions have turned out to be. If every producer-dominated forecasting organisation had its computers thrown down an oil well and its slide rules

  173
  turned into the sails of a windmill, not a bird would fall from the trees. My right hon. Friend, with his fine sceptical mind, should find out what the energy experts want and do the opposite. In a literal sense, as far as energy is concerned, sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
  Of course, this not just an arcane academic issue, as the great Bishop Latimer once called it,
  "for school-doctors and such fooleries".
  It is directly contrary to the Government's counter-inflation policy. Nothing is more important to the success of the Chancellor's wider economic aims than sensible wage settlements in the current pay round. Ministers continually tell the public, quite rightly, that job prospects depend vitally on keeping down unit costs in our factories. No one doubts that. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost because we failed to stay competitive. There were some suicidal settlements from 1979 to 1980 and we are all paying for them now.
  It is unreasonable to expect negotiators to ignore externally imposed costs. From September 1980 to September 1981 the level of inflation in the public sector—the nationalised industries—was double that of the retail prices index. It was around 22 per cent. against 11 per cent. In many parts of the retail trade prices actually fell and the rate of inflation was negative. This high level of public sector prices cannot be reasonable or sensible. For this wage round, it is little short of suicidal.
  Private sector wage settlements continue to be modest and sensible, public sector ones less so. We all know that nothing would make for an easier and quieter pay round than if there were a price standstill for 12 months in public sector charges. For some of them, such as steel or the railways, this is patently impossible without massive Government subsidies, as happened in 1972 and 1973. None of us would welcome such subsidies, which were introduced by a Conservative Government and abolished by a Labour one. But the profit-making nationalised industries, such as gas and telecommunications, do not need sharp price increases this year. Their prices could be held steady without financial harm to those nationalised industries as a whole. There need not be a penny of Government subsidies and the help to wage negotiators would be enormous.
  The effect on the public would be considerable. My right hon. Friends would be well advised to appreciate the strength of public feeling on this matter. Although the April gas price increase will be the fifth in a series of six announced two years ago, it comes at a time of extreme public exasperation at rising public charges. It will need to be paid at the same time as sharply increased rate and rent bills and rising telephone bills.
  Most people are seeing their standard of living fall as wage increases fail to reach the level of inflation. That is inevitable and, unfortunately, necessary, if economic stability is to be achieved, but there is no need to add to the problem unnecessarily.
  People could understand gas price increases if gas were making a loss. They might even accept an increase in line with inflation if they were persuaded that it was necessary in the interest of conservation of supply. But to persuade them that a product that is in such substantial profit that it merits an excess profits levy should be raised in price by 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation at a time when standards of living are falling requires a combination
  174
  of the reasoning of Socrates and the oratory of Demosthenes. Even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might find that a hard act to follow.
  Mr. Skeet: I am concerned about my hon. Friend's approach to the levy. The British Gas Corporation never paid petroleum revenue tax on its earlier gas, and unfortunately it did not pay the producers a large sum. Therefore, the corporation bought cheaply and sold expensively, and it is on that and that alone that the levy is imposed.
  Mr. Latham: My hon. Friend can go over the technicalities as much as he wishes. I am trying to think of the consumer on this occasion.
  I accept at once that there is a new generous heating allowance, helping 2½ million people. I welcome this innovation by Ministers, but it is of no help to the modestly paid and it is particularly galling to the recently retired with modest savings and occupational pensions. These are the people who most resent the gas price increases—elderly people who do not qualify for supplementary benefit or other means-tested assistance, and who pride themselves on their thrift and personal independence. I am sure that Ministers recognise immediately the type of people to whom I am referring. They are a vital bulwark of the Conservative Party and we ignore their annoyance and dissatisfaction at our peril. They have no unions to fight for them. They have only this House. We should listen to their voice.
  Ministers argue, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in two answers to me on 23 February, that it is essential that the three-year programme to correct "imbalances in the gas market" be completed and that this is the last year of the programme. As for 1983, no decisions have yet been taken. If Ministers want my support tonight they will have to go further.
  I accept that the April increase will have to go ahead; it is probably too late to stop it now. That alone could raise prices by nearly 13 per cent. in 1982, above the current rate of inflation. We do not need the further 10 per cent. increase in October. That should be cancelled forthwith. As for 1983, my right hon. Friend should say tonight that the wider interests of counter-inflation policy lead him to believe that the correct gas increase for next year is nil, or, at the very most, 3 per cent. below the rate of inflation. If the Government listen to their supporters in the country, they will take action along those lines.
  I did not want to have to make this speech, but I make an appeal to my right hon. Friend, whose intellect and shrewdness I greatly respect, which I hope will register with him. He should ask himself whether artificially high gas price increases, accompanied by excess profit levies, are a natural policy for the Conservative Party. Do they meet any basic Conservative criteria? Do they help consumers? Do they reduce inflation? Do they minimise public sector burdens? Do they, in any way, feel right from a Conservative point of view? The answer to those questions is "No". We still have time to get things right, but we should start tonight.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon: In the debate on the original legislation, I expressed little sympathy for what was being proposed. I feel that past increases make the argument for cancellation of the future increases even

  175
  stronger, as the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has just said. Gas is the cheapest fuel, and some areas do not have access to it. That means that there is a considerable disparity between those areas that have gas and those that do not. I am as aware of this, in my part of the country, as any hon. Member. I should be surprised to learn that even half of my constituents have access to gas, although I have never investigated the matter.
  Therefore, I repeat the argument that I presented the last time we discussed this. The Government could have proposed this legislation originally on the basis that gas is the cheapest fuel and that that it is unfair to some consumers, and that the enormous sums being raised by this tax on gas will be used to promote a massive conservation programme throughout the United Kingdom, or as some form of help for those obliged to use other forms of fuel. Had that been done, I could have seen the object of the proposals.
  The Government propose to do neither. People in some of the more remote parts of the country have yet to enjoy the delights of electricity, let alone the delights of gas. Their fuel bills are a tremendous embarrassment to them. Therefore, I support the Opposition motion. I do it for once with the real conviction that they are promoting something that is right and proper, and good for the general interest.
  If the Government tonight said that the Budget will announce that the massive sum being raised is to be used to help people with other fuels or to encourage conservation, insulation or draught proofing I would see the logic of the Government's stance. However, it is clear that their only interest is the amount of money produced for the PSBR. As one who believes that the PSBR is not one tenth as important as the Government tell us that it is, I can see little good reason why anybody on the Liberal Bench should support the Government tonight. I hope that Conservative Members, who have said things tonight that I rather admire, will go into the Division Lobby to show Government that there is not universal support on their side for this motion. Certainly from reading comments in the local press it seems that there is not universal support. Government Members seem to interpret all these price increases as sheer incompetence on the part of British Gas—which, clearly, is not true.
  I hope, therefore, that Conservative Back Benchers will push the Government in this respect. The power to persuade the Government to change their minds is totally in their hands. I suspect that the Opposition will be united against the Government proposals. I would settle for a clear statement from the Government that the money will be used to help people with their fuel bills because that is the logic of the argument that they have adduced. Until we get an assurance on that, I see no reason why I should persuade my colleagues to support the Government.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. John H. Osborn: My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) lucidly expressed the concern of many Government supporters, and I have immense sympathy with what he said. Nevertheless, this debate is about the price that the housewife, pensioner, the aged and the infirm have to pay for their hot water, house heating, and cooking. I cannot accept the "opportunism out of hypocrisy"—to use the
  176
  words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his accurate description of the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).
  The Opposition motion says
  "That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase domestic gas prices by 22 per cent."
  In fact, this matter should not be the concern of Governments. That is why the Government are in a mess. The tragedy today is that even a Conservative Government, because of the inheritance of three periods of Socialist Government, cannot escape some responsibility for the gas industry and British Gas. As I have said before, and I do not hesitate to reiterate now, after every Socialist Government, Conservative Ministers find themselves presiding over the legacy of their predecessors. That is what is happening to my right hon. Friend today. One of the direct causes of the muddle over gas prices is that for too many decades in energy production and distribution true market forces and pressures have been absent. Perhaps this is the catastrophe of nationalisation. It is one more instance in which it is difficult for Members of Parliament to do other than describe the ills as opposed to finding the solutions.
  What can we do about the problem? There are political and technological aspects to it. Many of us, including myself, both in European Committees and in the energy studies committee and other committees, are concerned and hope that Governments can pick their way out of the mess and find a solution.
  First, I shall deal with some of the political aspects of the situation. In Sheffield, where I live, let alone other cities and towns, three generations of people have been nurtured on the Welfare State. Those people believe, as of right, that they should have cheap and subsidised housing, bus fares—this is typical of South Yorkshire—and education. To all intents and purposes, in an economic sense they live in a type of Communist society parallel to that which prevails in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. This approach extends to energy—the heating of the home, heating for cooking, and lighting.
  This debate is about gas prices and gas policy. Therefore I shall seek to confine my observations to gas. However, the production and the marketing of gas cannot be isolated from the production and marketing of oil. Gas and oil tend to be found together, and gas is often the by-product of oil extraction. Oil is a market-oriented product. It is more readily transportable. Regrettably, it has a world price, which is normally set by OPEC countries. However, in the long term—in spite of short term distortions—the price of gas, given free market forces, cannot be isolated or unconnected from the price of oil, which is now so expensive that we as consumers are learning to do without it. Indeed, that is why the price of petrol has come down. Today, if oil, because of political manipulation of its prices for political reasons by OPEC, is to too great an extent subject to obscure market forces, the long-term situation of rising scarcity cannot be avoided. Thus real pressures face gas, electricity and coal, and I shall deal with three aspects of the problem.
  First, 22 years ago, I made my maiden speech on gas. As an industrialist, I was aware that the cost of heating in the factory that I was about to build, let alone that in my home, would depend on adequate standards of insulation and adequate heat conservation. Unfortunately, what were high standards 22 years ago are indequate today. It is even

  177
  more unfortunate that we have a large stock of housing which is damp and is subject to uneconomic heating because of the poor insulation. Perhaps it would be right to have a grant, subsidy or some form of tax assistance for more heat conservation measures, in spite of what the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) said.
  In the last 10 years, the price of gas has fallen, while the price of oil has more than doubled. I had to decide how to heat my house. In 1960 I thought that electricity would be the answer. In a country that has hydro-electric power—Norway is still such a country, in spite of its gas—electric heating makes sense. I chose oil, but oil is now expensive, and when I was forced to bring in a new form of heating when replacing my existing system I chose to be dual-fired. Eventually, gas and oil prices per therm must balance, and to depend on one is false economy. I come back to the point that heat conservation is all important and that we should take steps in this direction, including double glazing, insulation, and better building standards.
  Second, since the Yom-Kippur war in 1973, Members of Parliament have been aware of the growing scarcity, but there are many people in the country who do not want to know about it. My right hon. Friend talked about the Price Commission report in June 1979 and the need to increase gas prices by 30 per cent. in equal increments, the last of which is the 22 per cent. that faces us now. Industrial consumers feel that they are subsidising domestic consumers. The balance between industrial and domestic prices should be explained, not only in this country but throughout the Community. In Germany and France, the domestic consumer pays half as much again for his gas as his counterpart in this country. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take care when he answers my questions next Monday. We hope that something can be done. The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill is a move in the right direction, but could the announcement about this latest tranche of price increases already agreed to not have been made more tactfully, and could not the situation have been explained by my right hon. Friend? I suspect that the chairman of the Gas Corporation has not been very helpful. I hope that my right hon. Friends will explain the situation.
  My third point is a political one. I have Conservative supporters in my constituency who cannot accept these increases. It is not only political opponents who cannot accept them. Yet when I say to industrialists that energy is scarce and that the price is bound to increase in one form or another, they still expect the Government to do something about it. That is the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend finds himself.
  I shall conclude my speech by making one or two technical observations. Some hon. Members were with one of the oil companies today. I am concerned about the production companies which are members of the United Kingdom Offshore Oil Association. They are concerned that the petroleum revenue tax and other taxes are taking 85 to 95 per cent. of the balance between the cost of production and extraction and the sale price. Unless the market prices are high enough for the gas that they produce, it will not be worth while extracting the gas in the marginal fields. In fact, it is hardly worth while building the pipeline.
  That has been my right hon. Friend's trouble with the gas-gathering pipeline. At the end of the day, there is a
  178
  monopoly buyer for gas. Even the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill leaves a monopoly with regard to the domestic market, which probably accounts for 75 per cent. of total sales of gas. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has nibbled in the right direction, but I doubt whether he has gone far enough.
  The problem of the price of energy, whether to the domestic user or the industrialist, is still great in Sheffield. Recently my right hon. Friend enabled some of us to have a presentation of a tariff structure from the Electricity Council. It is reassuring to note that in the steel industry in Sheffield it is beginning to make sense for electricity, but the renegotiation of gas tariffs is agony for the members of the British Independent Steel Producers Association and the steel industry of Sheffield.
  As a Conservative Member of Parliament, over the past 12 months I have had to account for Government decisions in this area which I fully support. I should have liked to see the National Coal Board, the British Gas Corporation and the Central Electricity Generating Board explain to their users and to their customers, as I have had to do, as do salesmen of other products in a free enterprise world, more of what their problems are and more of what their policies are. But because they are State monopolies they can turn to Governments and Members of Parliament supporting the Government to do it for them.
  I turn briefly to a long-term strategy. There is oil in the North Sea, and the British and the Norwegians have it. There is also gas in the North Sea. In a different sense altogether, the Germans and French find that because of a lack of entrepreneurial flair in Britain they are not able to get the gas. If they can obtain gas more cheaply, let the British have access to that gas. If they cannot, let us have the opportunity of selling it. I hope that Britain, Norway and other EEC countries will join together on gas as they are beginning to do with electricity, so that European countries can tackle the problems together. The consumer wants to be treated fairly, and, because of the circumstances of the past 30 years, he rightly bears a grudge and the Government must face that.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on a courageous and honest speech. I have been in the House of Commons for a long time—too long, no doubt. I have been in the House for 37 years and I can tell the hon. Member to stand up for his convictions and for what he believes and to vote for what he believes because—
  Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend has voted against the Government and the Whips.
  Mr. Lewis: I have done that many times. The hon. Member will find that in time, when he is proved right, he will be pleased. He will also find that some, if not the greatest, parliamentarians were in the same position as he is in today. The hon. Gentleman should take no notice of Ministers who try to talk him out of standing up for his convictions. They all do that. I was one of the original Heinz 57 varieties. I am proud of that.
  Other Conservative Members should understand that this is not a political issue, but a humanitarian issue that affects every one of our constituents. There is not an hon. Member here, irrespective of whether his views are Right, Left or Centre, who can find anything to complain about or contradict in the motion, which states:

  179
  "That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase domestic gas prices by 22 per cent. in 1982".
  Will anyone tell me that he does not regret that decision? If so, let him tell his constituents and the House, or let him get in the local press. The motion also states:
  "and demands that this policy be not implemented."
  It might have been better if the word "requests" had been used. The only wrong word that any hon. Member can find in the motion is "demands" instead of "requests".
  Every hon. Member is concerned with the matter. I am not concerned whether he is rich or poor or whether he represents an industrial or a rural constituency. In our constituencies old-age pensioners, the sick, the disabled, the blind, the infirm and so on cannot meet their bills. We receive letters from those people telling us that they cannot meet their bills.
  Many people receive pensions today who have saved a little money and have been thrifty. They have gone without holidays or colour television so that they can put by a little money. However, they find that someone else who has not been so thrifty, who has a colour television and has been on holiday in Majorca can receive help with his gas bills. Therefore, the people who have saved money feel hurt. They ask "Why am I told that my gas bill will go up again by 22 per cent? What have I done to deserve this?"
  Those people might have an old black and white television and turn it on only to see that a Government Department says that we should save energy. Those people have cut down, however, and might not have used any gas in one quarter, but they still must pay the standing charge, which has also risen.
  The Minister says that he cannot interfere. Of course he can. The late, great Aneurin Bevan once said in the House that the House could do anything except give a man a baby. If the Minister wanted to act, he could do so tomorrow. He could see that the gas prices are reduced and that the standing charge is stopped. A special regulation or Bill might be required, but I am sure that if the Minister came to the House and said that both sides of the House were asking him to stop standing charges and therefore he would have to introduce a Bill, he would get it through on the nod.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Tory Government are concerned about where they would get the money, I can tell them that there are plenty of areas where they are spending money unnecessarily. Billions of pounds are being spent on useless defence. In the last few days shares at Amersham International have been bought, amounting to a loss to the taxpayer of £25 million. Why should not that money be used for the standing charge?
  Mr. Lewis: If my hon. Friend had heard my opening remarks he would know that I have no intention of being political. He is stirring up the political aspect, but I am serious. I do not want to do that. This matter is above politics.
  I have heard the Prime Minister say that she feels sorry for the nurses. I believe her. I think that she does. She says that she cannot interfere, but she is increasing the price of gas, and nurses use gas. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is fighting like billy-o for the textile workers. Many textile workers are unemployed, but they also have gas bills.
  The Government have told the nurses that they cannot have more than a 4 per cent. pay rise. The textile workers
  180
  dare not ask for anything because of unemployment. However, the Government are increasing the price of gas by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation. How can the Government say to people such as Mr. Arthur Scargill "Your miners must not ask for much in the way of wage increases, but we are going to increase gas prices by 22 per cent."? I know what Mr. Scargill will say.
  The Government are deliberately causing inflation. They are deliberately exacerbating the industrial problems that confront the trade unions and employers. Their actions are making things difficult for the poorer paid sections of the community. The Government's amendment states that they will tackle the under-pricing
  "over a three-year period".
  The Government do not say what will happen at the end of three years. Is the process to cease, or will there be an annual revision?
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Arthur Scargill will be very upset with his members if he catches them burning gas?
  Mr. Lewis: The point I seek to make is that if the trade union leaders—coal miners or anyone else—see the Government deliberately increasing the weekly expenditure of their members, they will naturally use that as support for further wage claims.
  The nurses, the civil servants, public service workers and local government officers have all been told that they cannot have more than 4 per cent. I do not argue whether the Government are right or wrong—they may be right—but the Government are setting this limit of 4 per cent. and at the same time deliberately increasing gas prices by 12 per cent., whether those workers like it or not . Even the gas boards do not want the higher prices.
  That is a ludicrous approach. The Government are deliberately causing inflation and harming the poorer sections of our population. They are deliberately causing difficulties for industrial peace. How can anyone support the Government in that?
  Some Conservative Members might feel that they should not support the Government. They should not worry about threats of the Government falling. This situation used to happen regularly. In 1945 it was argued that the Government would fall over a proposal to increase the cheese ration by 2 oz. Never in your life.
  The Government will have to accept the will of the House and find some way of meeting it. They will not call a general election merely because some of their supporters did not support them on a 22 per cent. increase in gas prices. They will find some way of putting it right Conservative Members who supported that approach would gather the glory in their constituencies. They would be able to claim that they had achieved something good for their constituents and for the Tory Party. It would be the Tory Party that gained the credit.
  Standing charges are a crying shame and disgrace. I know of no other industries, private or public, which charge people for something that they do not have or do not use, and that may not even exist. Those who leave their homes for some good reason, probably to look after an aged and sick father or mother, or even a girl friend, may not use a single therm of gas for the whole 13 weeks of the quarter. Yet, when the bill arrives, it still contains the standing charge. Those who are away from home for six months will face the two sets of standing charges.

  181
  I am not presented with a standing charge when I take my car to be serviced or my suit to be repaired. I am charged for the work. It is a farce to say that the standing charge is for road openings and such matters. It is simply an easy way to tax the poor, the sick, the disabled and the infirm who cannot escape the charge.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that the same facilities were previously provided without the standing charge and that the monopolies operated at a profit? Why is there the need to tax us through these standing charges which most people, as the hon. Gentleman says, find unacceptable? I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am one of those hon. Members who intends to exercise his right as a Back Bencher. I shall not support the Government. I shall not support the Opposition motion. I shall, however, abstain to show my objection to my Government's energy policy.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has a good record. I accept that he cannot support the Opposition. He has, however declared himself. It is ludicrous, when a profit is being made, that there should be such a charge. It applies to only three undertakings, electricity, British Telecom and gas. There is no standing charge for water. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there is."] I stand corrected. That makes things worse.
  There is nothing to stop the Government announcing tonight that they will find ways of ending this situation. I do not want to hear what the civil servants and advisers say. They rule the country. I have watched Front Benchers arguing and fighting between themselves. I have been here long enough to know that the speech read out by Ministers of one Government is the same as that read out by Ministers when the other side assumes power and that it is prepared by the same people. The civil servants have to be told to find some means of ending this situation. The Government can say tonight that, although they have not yet found a way, they are pledged to end these pernicious standing charges.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The debate so far has ranged over the economic, political and social aspects of the subject under discussion. The Opposition have placed great emphasis on the social aspects. That aspect cannot be disregarded. It is to the credit of the Government that they are spending, as the Minister stated, a very large sum, amounting, I think, to £250 million on the social aspect. I commend them for that.
  I take the opposite view to the Minister on this matter because I do not want to see an escalation of the money that must be paid out on the social side. I would prefer that the price was not increased so much, so that more people could afford to pay. I agree strongly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) said. He suggested that many people who do not claim social security are hard hit by price rises of this type.
  Energy is an important commodity in Britain. We have long, bad winters. People have been encouraged to install central heating appliances and many have chosen gas. The Minister must know that there has been an increase in gas customers in recent years. By my book, when the number
  182
  of customers rises, the price of the product should fall. We are therefore going contrary to the normal market situation and the Government are encouraging it.
  For two years I have lived with the doubling of prices. I accept that the Government were right to do that. The Opposition had held back increases for political reasons. The figures are there to see. The Labour Government held back prices partly for political and partly for social reasons. They felt that there was some advantage to be gained from doing that. The present Government have had to catch up. We have lived with that process for two years.
  When the Minister announced the plan for price increases two years ago, I said that I would not commit myself three years ahead. I believe it is not justifiable to double prices three years on the trot. I have no intention of voting for the Government amendment today unless the Minister will compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton said, the Minister can compromise easily by making do with one increase of 11 per cent. I do not understand the reasoning behind the assertion that this would actually entail an increase of more than 11 per cent., but if the Minister increases that figure by a further 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., I could live with that and I think that my constituents could live with it. I will not accept that it is justifiable to have a double increase again this year.
  I am sick and tired of nationalised industries imposing inflationary price rises. This one, like some of the others, has been encouraged by the Government. We hear from Treasury Ministers—the Minister has just come hot-foot from the Treasury—that we must beat inflation. We have heard that for a number of years from Treasury Ministers and from the Prime Minister, who is First Lord of the Treasury. I do not disagree with that, but we have spent more than two and a half years trying to beat inflation. So far as the nationalised industries are concerned, with inflation the Government are tackling a moving target. They cannot achieve the reduction that they want because those industries increase prices and so inflation as fast as the Government try to bring it down. Nationalised industries are the Government's industries. They are not run by the Government, but the Government control them. It is the Executive, not the House of Commons, which controls them.
  Every price increase stemming from the nationalised industries is an increase in the cost of living index. There is a price increase more than once a year. Tonight it is gas, but the same applies to electricity, telephones, postage, and the rest. If the industry is owned by the Government, people must pay higher price increases than for commodities produced by the private sector.
  My right hon. Friend made the fair point that the Government were imposing a double increase in gas prices for the third year running because they wanted to equalise prices, as industrial users had been paying more and domestic consumers had been paying less. I have looked at the figures, and I reckon that they have already caught up. Certainly by the time that the 11 per cent. increase has been imposed in April the domestic users will have completely caught up. Industrial users will be better off than they were when the Government came to office, and they will be no worse off if the Government decide not to impose the extra second increase on the domestic tariff.
  The aim of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill now in Standing Committee is to put the production of North Sea gas on a competitive basis. Presumably, gas will become cheaper. Otherwise, it would be pointless for a

  183
  Conservative Government to put the Bill through. We obviously believe that competition makes things cheaper. If it makes gas cheaper, as I believe that it will, there will be no need for the extra price increase in October.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noticed that the price of oil has been falling steadily. We know that it will not go right down, but it will fall a little further and it will stay down. That was predictable. The Government will lose a little tax, but they gain a great deal of tax from North Sea oil in any case. Gas prices must be related to the production cost of oil. So the likely effect of the Bill now in Committee and the prospective reduction in oil prices justifies the Minister saying today that the Government have been convinced by the arguments of Back Benchers, especially those of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, and that the Government will therefore make a concession.
  The Government are trying to keep increases in public sector wages and salaries down to about 4 per cent. I have not noticed the Gas Corporation keeping pay increases down to the Government's norm. If workers employed by the corporation see that the Government are imposing further price increases on the consumer and see the revenue of their corporation being topped up, will they not regard that as justification for seeking higher wage awards? The Government would do better to tell the corporation and those employed in it that they wish to give the consumer a fair deal and that the employee should support that fair deal by not demanding large wage and salary increases.
  My right hon. Friend has said that this is the third and last year of the big increases—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is a general election soon."]—and then there will be a concession and medals for us all. [HON. MEMBERS: "And votes."] My right hon. Friend might be promoted next year. One Minister never binds his successor. Whether or not that is so, I do not like large increases one year and small increases the next year. I thought that we were complaining about the Labour Party doing just that. I should prefer a reasonable increase in 1982 and another reasonable increase in 1983. The consumer is fed up with the swings and the roundabouts and wants a little bit of "steady as you go" on pricing, particularly with pricing where the Government are involved.
  In the private sector, prices are steadying across the board. Many of them are falling. In the next few years the Government cannot afford to allow high price rises to continue in the public sector. We have had enough of that. It is the duty of Ministers—in the interests of the country—to ensure that this escalation stops.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: This debate is similar to that on pensioners a fortnight ago. Several hon. Members have been shedding crocodile tears. I do not mean any disrespect to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), who made a very good speech. I hope that he and those who have expressed their concern about the increase in gas prices will show the British people who will have to pay them that they mean what they say. If they do not do so, the debate will have been futile.
  The debate has continued along the same lines as most debates in this Chamber. I do not say that other Governments have been better than this Government, but they seem to think that the main defence in such debates is to prove that the right hon. Member for Timbuktu said
  184
  something a little different when he was in Government. That does not alter the problems created for our gas consumers by the vicious decision to increase gas prices by 22 per cent.
  It cannot be refuted that this is purely and simply a back-door method of taxation to ensure that lower paid workers pay the same standard tax as higher paid workers and those on vast incomes. There was a similar policy behind the overall 15 per cent. increase in VAT. That is what this is all about. If it is not, the Minister should tell us what it is about, because people have a right to know.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) said that politics should not be brought into such a debate. I do not know how you can divorce politics from this issue, but I appreciate the point.
  In the last year's annual report of the British Gas Corporation, Sir Denis Rooke said:
  "After such a year the management of most businesses would expect the owners to want them to continue in the same vein and perhaps to ask them if extra support might add to the achievement in future years."
  That is common sense. A successful business could well be expected to carry on in the same vein.
  As recently as 25 February, the North Eastern Gas Consumers' Council issued a press release which is highly relevant. It states:
  "At a recent meeting of the North Eastern Gas Consumers' Council, Members … repeated their views expressed on a number of occasions, that price increases should be based only on the financial needs of the Industry. Whilst being well aware of the Government's policy imposed on British Gas that prices should rise 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation over three years … they felt that British Gas Corporation had not told them any reason why they needed the extra money."
  Why does the British Gas Corporation need the extra money? Does it need it, or will the money go to help the public sector borrowing requirement? If that is so, the increase is purely and simply back-door taxation. Perhaps there is something more sinister in the Government's mind. Perhaps they have a deliberate policy to inflate gas charges with a view to selling the British Gas Corporation.
  Hon. Members will agree that in the past two or three years the gas industry has made colossal profits. Perhaps the profits will increase and the industry will then be privatised, just as another industry has recently been privatised. Perhaps the gas industry will be sold and will become loot for the boys. Some newspapers have suggested—I put it no higher than that—that some of those who voted for the privatisation of Amersham International were beneficiaries of loot for the boys. At the same time, through this increase the Government are taxing those who can ill afford, or cannot pay, the bills and who would prefer to freeze than to face large gas bills. If the Government are increasing prices for that reason it is criminal and unforgiveable. Only time will tell, but if that is so the British public will know.
  The motion states that it "regrets the decision" that has been made. There have been some encouraging signs from Conservative Members that they regret the decision. Some of them said that although they would not vote with the Conservative Party tonight they would not vote for the motion. What hypocrisy. Is there one hon. Member in the Chamber who does not regret the increase in gas prices? If there is, will he put his hand up? If you do regret it, you should vote for the motion tonight. If you regret the decision but do not vote for the motion, you are displaying nothing but hypocrisy.

  185
  I do not want to call you "hypocrites", because that would be unparliamentary. People are sick and tired of all the speeches that try to prove that the increases are necessary. It is impossible to prove to those who will have to meet the colossal charges that there is a need for an increase when the corporation makes vast profits and when the chairman of the corporation makes statements such as those that I have cited.
  If democracy means anything, if it is not a game of "kid 'em", a game of fooling the public, then I hope that you believe what you say tonight and support this motion.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in future hon. Members will not keep saying "you" because that involves me in a way that will get me into trouble.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Tim Eggar: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks directly.
  Our gas pricing policy has developed in a most curious way. We must be the only country consciously to have set out to sell gas to domestic consumers considerably more cheaply than to industry. That has happened because Governments of both parties have, for political reasons, deliberately urged the British Gas Corporation to keep down the domestic price of gas. It is a fine tribute to this Government and to the decision of my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Transport that he was prepared to break that cycle and take the considerable political rap that that involved.
  What has been the result of this curious pricing policy over the last 10 years? First, the cost of gas to the domestic consumer has fallen both in real terms and as a percentage of wages. It is the only energy source to which that has happened. In addition, the disparity between gas and other fuel prices had become considerably greater before my right hon. Friend's decision.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is unfair, when 40 per cent. of households have no gas, that the 60 per cent. that have it should be subsidised—because that is what it amounts to—by the rest.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Mr. Eggar: I am sorry, I will not give way. I am conscious of the pressure of time.
  I would not make this as a constituency point, in any case, because I represent a constituency where every household can have gas if it wishes. From a national point of view, however, under-priced gas makes no sense.
  Like all other hon. Members, I have been under considerabe pressure from industry about the level of gas prices. Why have gas prices been so high here until now when compared with those on the Continent and in the United States? It is because the British Gas Corporation has been forced by Government policy—the policy of both parties—and by its own predilection, one might add, to make all its profits out of industry. At a time when both sides agree that our major priority must be the reduction of industry's costs, we must be prepared—and I totally support the Government in this—to make a sacrifice in terms of political popularity in order to reduce industry's costs. In the long run, the country will applaud rather than criticise us for it.
  I have, however, one point to make, and that is the criticism I made of the Secretary of State's decision at the
  186
  time that the 10 per cent. per annum real increase was announced, namely, that it did nothing to put pressure on the British Gas Corporation to reduce its costs and increase its efficiency. I know he would argue that he is doing this through the cash limits system and the targeted rate of return. Nevertheless, I hope that when he comes to consider the pricing policy for the next and subsequent years he will put a slightly higher priority on ensuring that the real increases in gas prices are to some extent absorbed by insisting that the BGC increases its efficiency. I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on this.
  One aspect of the corporation's charging policy that has been of considerable concern to me is that of standing charges. I agree with both the British Gas Corporation and the consumer councils that there must be some kind of charge built in to cover meters, fixtures, fittings and so on. That is reasonable. It is also reasonable that the charge should be collected on the basis of the true economic cost of supplying that service.
  However, I understand the concern of pensioners in my constituency when, especially in the summer months, they use small amounts of gas and find that the cost of this low consumption is dwarfed by the higher standing charge. I hope that the Minister, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, will investigate the possibility of offering consumers a choice between a standing charge and lower unit cost or a higher unit cost and no standing charge because, after all, the connection charges have to paid for in any case.
  That has been done, quite rightly, with water charges. One can now have a water meter installed if one wishes and pay for one's consumption. There is a choice between paying straight water rates and paying meter costs. I can see no difficulty in providing the same option for gas consumers. That is something the Government should support.
  I recognise the considerable courage shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in supporting the policy put forward by his predecessor of a 10 per cent. real increase this year. It is the only way in which we can afford to keep industry's energy costs down to a reasonable level. I hope that, in recognition of this, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe) will make it clear on 9 March that gas price increases for industry will be kept within a very low limit this year.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The gas bill increases have had a bigger impact on my constituents than anything I can remember since I came to the House two or three years ago. I can think of no other occasion when, as happened in my surgery last weekend, I saw two elderly people in tears because they did not know how they were going to pay their gas bill. The effect of the electricity and gas bills that have been coming through the letter boxes in the last week or two has been absolutely devastating on hard-working, hard-pressed and thrifty people. I hope that this House will be able to respond to the feelings and the problems of these people and to the current situation.
  There is widespread concern about the problem of standing charges. I do not intend to go over an already well trodden path in this debate but it is something that causes considerable resentment amongst people who have been hit by these bills. My own hope is that the Government will

  187
  reconsider whether it is advisable or necessary to press these increases at this time. For the longer term, I regard it as equally important that some Government take the whole question of energy saving and insulation much more seriously than it has been taken so far. We managed to achieve a house-by-house conversion programme to North Sea gas; it seems quite reasonable that the country should be able to have a home insulation programme on a similar basis. We must try not only to cut people's bills but genuinely to save energy and avoid having to build more power stations, which can result only in higher bills.
  People do not understand some of the basic facts and figures. I should like to put before the House their reasons for that lack of understanding as they put them to me. In five years of the previous Labour Government gas prices rose by only 33 per cent. In 2½ years of Conservative Government so far they have risen by 66 per cent., and the increase this year will in effect mean, because of compound interest, an increase of 100 per cent. in three years of Conservative Government. Under the Conservatives electricity has gone up by 73 per cent. in less than three years and home coal prices have gone up by 74 per cent. The general effect of that enormous increase in fuel prices, deliberately foisted on people by the Government as a matter of policy, is hitting people very hard.
  People are baffled because our wealth of energy supplies seems to be turning out to be a curse instead of a blessing. If world oil prices rise, we are told that gas and electricity prices must go up as well. We are told that we must all suffer, and we have no benefit. Yet when oil prices are falling are gas prices cut? All that we have heard from the Government so far is that as a result of world oil prices falling there is a threat that they will not be able to cut taxes or that they will lose some revenue. Therefore, while the average householder suffers rising gas prices world oil prices can go up or down with apparently no benefit to our hard-pressed people.
  The other matter that people put to me is that there appears to be no real reason why the increases must be foisted on them. The Government are deliberately taxing gas in the current financial year to the extent of £420 million, and I understand that they expect to take from the Gas Corporation £750 million in tax next year. Therefore, it is clear that the corporation does not have to increase prices if the Government do not insist on putting an extra £750 million of taxes on to gas consumers.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) had the temerity to suggest that gas supplies were being subsidised, when his own Government put a £750 million tax on the gas consumer. He will have a great deal of explaining to do to the ordinary householder who receives the bills.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It will probably cost the national Exchequer that amount of money in supplementary benefits to those who will qualify for them as a result of the increase in the cost of living resulting from this tax. That is astounding when the main plank of the Government's policy is supposed to be anti-inflation measures.
  Mr. Woolmer: I entirely agree. When the Government say that they are putting all their energies into getting inflation down and are trying to convince people to take
  188
  lower pay rises, to put gas prices up by 22 per cent. in one year—which means an increase of 100 per cent. in three years—is an odd way of fighting inflation.
  I was making the point that in the course of the next financial year the Gas Corporation is likely to pay to the Exchequer, through the gas levy and corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and so on, little short of £1,000 million in taxes. The Government have a choice. It is a policy decision by them whether this gas price increase is necessary. Let it not be said that the price must go up because gas is the product of a loss-making nationalised industry. We hear so often from the Conservative Benches that the nationalised industries are making huge losses, that they are making a mess of their businesses and must put up their prices to return to profit. Here is a business in effect making a profit not far short of £1½ billion. Do the Government let them use it to reduce prices? Not at all.
  Mr. Eggar: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the Government should not be taxing an undertaking that uses natural resources in the southern basin of the North Sea belonging to the nation? If he is, is he therefore in favour of the abolition of petroleum revenue tax and other taxes on oil companies?
  Mr. Woolmer: What I am saying is that in the middle of a recession people's living standards are being hit very hard. We have a Government who are willing to tolerate 3 million unemployed to try to bring inflation under control. One of the most crucial factors affecting the cost of living—the price of gas—is capable of being held down, and indeed reduced. The hon. Gentleman and his Government have a duty in those circumstances to ask whether it is right that the Government should take £1,000 million in tax from the Gas Corporation, instead of allowing it to use that money to hold gas prices down.
  The corporation is being forced to put up gas prices. In effect, one family's tax cut will be financed by another family's gas bill increase. It is no accident that these enormous increases in taxes on gas are being imposed well before an election. The truth is that what gas consumers are paying for in the gas bills coming through the letter boxes today is the tax cuts that will lead up to the election next year. I have no doubt that the £1,000 million worth of unnecessary taxes that gas consumers are having to pay will be used to finance the election bribes at the next general election.
  I have never seen people so desperately upset and worried as I have seen them to be in the past two or three weeks. Honest, hard-working people have literally been in tears because of their worry and desperation over meeting the bills. Our duty is to listen to them. To say that the Government and the Gas Corporation have no option, when profits in effect are over £1 billion, is hypocrisy. Our duty is to listen to our people and to use the option to hold down the increase. I ask the Government not to proceed with it this year. At the end of the day those householders affected will not forget, and they will not forget the Government.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) pursued arguments which, because of the short time available, I shall refrain from taking up. He omitted one important factor—the

  189
  equation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presented to the House of trying to assist in the creation of jobs through producing the right price structure for industry, as against an abnormally low, historically low level for the domestic consumer, resulting from the policies of the previous Government. I shall take up that matter later in my brief speech.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the third tranche of the January 1980 announcement of gas price increases of 10 per cent. above inflation per year is causing a great deal of concern among our constituents. It would be easy for any Government to adopt an easy electoral posture on such decisions and satisfy the consumer and ignore the long-term national interest by allowing gas prices to remain historically low.
  Even with the present increase, the consumer will still be obtaining gas at a lower price in real terms than in 1970, whereas, following the increase and the reapportionment of costs in gas pricing, the industrial consumer at last faces the possibility of obtaining his gas at prices competitive with those charged to his overseas competitors. The Labour Party constantly argues the case for helping industry, thus creating more jobs. Here are the Government carrying out exactly that policy, and yet Labour hon. Members are cavilling.
  Illusions are easy to peddle these days, especially in political terms. I found it saddening that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) the Opposition energy spokesman, for whom I have great respect, took advantage of short-term political considerations involved in the implementation of this third and final 10 per cent. increase in prices.
  We are debating the announcement made in January 1980, which was then debated. It would be easy and electorally rewarding in the short term to try to satisfy the consumer at all times. That is exactly what the Opposition did during their period of office. As the hon. Member for Batley and Morley carefully announced, they held down gas prices to the domestic consumer, despite increasing losses on domestic gas supply, which resulted in the high cost of gas and the breakdown of a guaranteed supply to the industrial consumer.
  Mr. Skinner: It is correct that the Labour Government intervened in the economy and held down gas prices. That was because, by and large—not all the time— they had a philosophy based on Government intervention in the economy. The hon. Gentleman has to answer this point, as he was elected on the basis of the operation of market forces and each week his right hon. Friend the Prime Minster stands at the Dispatch Box and says that the Government cannot intervene and the market must decide. Why are the Government intervening in the market to push up gas prices 100 per cent? I am talking about the hon. Gentleman's Government, and he will presumably back them once again.
  Mr. Hannam: It is easy to answer that question. That is exactly what the Government are doing. They are restoring market forces to an artifically distorted situation.
  In 1979 the Price Commission advised the Government to increase domestic gas prices by 30 per cent. The Government could easily have done that in one fell swoop, but they chose to stagger the increases over three years. The point that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.
  190
  Skinner) makes, that the Government are intervening in an artifically created price structure, is valid. They are restoring market forces, as far as they can be restored, to a monopoly gas industry.
  I return to the point I was making about the effect of the Labour Government's policies on the supply of industrial gas. Despite warnings in 1978 and 1979 that their policies would result in dangerous cut-offs of supply to British industry, and despite the Gas Corporation's failure to create new gas supplies for new industries, the Government continued to create a surge in demand by domestic gas users. They were taking advantage of an obviously attractive fall in gas prices when all other fuel prices were rising sharply and dramatically.
  Despite a call by the Price Commission for a 30 per cent. rise in gas prices, the Labour Party decided to try to gain some electoral advantage—forlornly as it turned out, and forlornly as it is proving by continuing their policy now—so the Conservative Government had the rather unpleasant duty of trying to bring in a proper price level for domestic gas. That was done to ensure not only the long-term security of gas supply but to correct the imbalance between domestic and industrial prices.
  The Government decided not to impose an immediate 30 per cent. increase but to spread it over three-years, 1980, 1981 and 1982. We are debating the final instalment of those three increases. The main difference between now and January 1980 is that we can begin to see the results of the change of policy by the Government in 1980. Whereas in 1979 domestic gas prices had dropped to 70 per cent. of their real value cost in 1970, compared with a real price increase in electricity of 118 per cent., of oil, 162 per cent. and of coal, 117 per cent., by the end of the third quarter of last year gas was still only 81 per cent. of the 1970 price, whereas electricity was 144 per cent., oil 198 per cent. and coal 132 per cent.
  The price per therm has dropped from 10·61p in 1970 to 7·3p in 1980. In October 1981 it crept up to 8·38p, well below the 1970 level. Let the Opposition not accuse the Government of clobbering the domestic gas consumer with the increases. After the final 10 per cent. increase above inflation, gas prices to the domestic consumer will still be less than they were in 1970, and gas will be by far the cheapest of all domestic fuels.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have worked the figures out and had them checked by the Library. If one takes the figures for 1975, one sees that price increases for gas exceed those for other fuels. That includes the first increase this year.
  Mr. Hannam: I have listened to those figures. I refute that point, because I am certain that, following the holding down of gas prices, they dropped alarmingly below the prices of other fuels. I have among my papers the figures for 1970 to 1981. In 1975 the price per therm was 8·17p and at the end of 1980 it was 7·43p. It will now rise to just above the 1975 level.
  In January 1980, when the crucial decision was made by the Government we were close to major cut-offs of gas supplies to industry. One of the leading members of the Shadow Cabinet, who then became the Shadow energy spokesman—he has now become a member of the SDP—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when attending an energy seminar in Plymouth during the previous October, at which I was present, said:

  191
  "A proper pricing policy for energy is essential and inevitable and a special scheme of help for poorer families will be needed."
  That is precisely what the Government did a few months later.
  At the same conference the deputy chairman of south-west gas said:
  "The demand for domestic gas has been intensified by artificially low prices and a substantial increase in gas prices is overdue. There should be more parity between domestic and industrial prices."
  Sir Denis Rooke was reported as being so concerned about the instability of gas supplies that he considered cutting off supplies to the House of Commons if the statutory requirement to connect householders living within 25 yards of gas mains was not removed. He recognised the danger of the instability of gas supplies because of the surge of demand by the domestic consumer. I imagine that he would probably like to cut off gas supplies to the House of Commons now because of the Bill that is in Committee.
  This morning I received reports from my constituency of a large housing estate in the Exwick area of Exeter that is unable to have a complete gas main supply because of a general rule being applied by South-West Gas that no extensions to existing distribution networks can be made owing to instability of supply. In other words, there is still over-demand in the domestic sector and insecurity of supply to the industrial sector. We import 20 per cent. of our gas from Norway and have not developed a new major gas field for seven years.
  Because of the Government's decision in 1980, our industrial gas consumers now have a price advantage over their Continental rivals. That competitive position would not last if the final increase did not take place.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we would have had an ample supply of gas if the gas-gathering pipe line scheme submitted by the BGC on behalf of Norway had been backed by the Government? They refused to back it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) answers, may I say that he knows that I have no authority to ask anybody to stop speaking once he starts, but we had hoped that the winding-up speeches would start at 6.30.
  Mr. Hannam: I accept your admonishment, Mr. Speaker, and confess that I have given way rather too enthusiastically. If British Gas had paid the right price for gas we would have had a gas-gathering pipeline by now.
  After the increase, domestic gas will still be the cheapest of all fuels and will still be hardly profitable to British Gas. The fact that much less of the weekly budget of the pensioner or worker is now going on gas shows that we are not being unfair to those lucky enough to be within reach of gas supplies.
  I challenge Labour Members to dispute my contention that my right hon. Friend is pursuing a responsible energy policy that is designed to help British industry and thereby provide jobs without unjustly penalising domestic consumers. Being in Government must mean taking responsibility for unpopular decisions that are essential in the national interest. I give my full support to my right hon. Friend.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have heard that about half a dozen Conservative Members will not support the Government when the Division takes place. That proves that we were right to table the motion.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about the leave of the House?
  Mr. Rees: If I require the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask. It seems that our visitor from Europe, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), mixes up the procedures in both places.
  As I was saying, it seems that we were right to table the motion. If a group of Conservative Members intend not to support the Government on this occasion, it means that they are receiving many letters from their constituents. I know that I am receiving many letters on this issue from my constituents. However, the number of letters that we receive on any one issue does not necessarily mean that cur constituents are right. Nevertheless, there is great concern about gas prices, especially in the type of area that I represent.
  Notwithstanding the argument of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), it is said when prices increase that the responsibility lies only with nationalised industries. During the debate, when I should have had other things on my mind, I recalled a recent visit with some of my hon. Friends to a Yorkshire coalmine. As I was travelling to the pit in my car I heard the Prime Minister say on the radio that we should run nationalised industries in the same way as Marks and Spencer is run.
  As I crawled along a 250 yard face in a modern pit I remembered two things: first, it struck me that my mother was right to ensure that I did not follow my father into the pit; secondly, it struck me that it was a damned silly remark—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order" .] I know, Mr. Speaker, that, if that is what I thought, the House would want me to tell it so. In any event, it struck me that it was a silly remark to make. How can a pit be run as if it we re part of the retail trade? The heavy and fixed costs of most of our nationalised industries are such that it is difficult to prevent them coming forward.
  It has emerged from the debate that the 100 per cent. increase in gas prices since the Government took office has not taken place to meet the wishes of the corporation. The increase has taken place at the wish of the Government. Whoever the complaints can be directed to, they cannot be directed to the chairman of the corporation, Sir Denis Rooke.
  We have heard a great deal about the Price Commission's report of June 1979, which stated that domestic prices should be increased. That is held against the previous Labour Government. However, within a month of that report the Government froze domestic gas prices. There is an argument about energy prices overall and it is no good putting the blame on one Government. I do not agree with the implications that have been drawn from the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) at the Plymouth seminar.
  In January 1980 we heard that the Government were planning for three years. Does that mean that nothing will happen in a year's time? Some of my hon. Friends have been uncharitable enough to say that as next year is the run-up to a general election it will be surprising, whatever the objectivity of the Government's policy, if the Treasury

  193
  does not say "It does not matter very much this year. Let it ride this year. It is the run-up to the election. Let people forget what we have done in the previous year or two."
  I shall take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I understand from the tape that the dollar price of oil has fallen today by $4. The spot price is lower than the dollar price. That means that it will not be long before the dollar price of oil falls.
  Mr. Lawson: No.
  Mr. Rees: The Secretary of State says "No". He is a brave man.
  Mr. Lawson: It does not follow.
  Mr. Rees: That is a different matter. It does not follow automatically but it may well happen. The fact remains that a fall in price of $4 is considerable. I do not want to anticipate the effect that this will have on budgetary policy but it will have an effect on energy pricing policy. The industrial price of gas might well fall if the pricing link continues. There will be an effect on the coal industry. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said, coal will still have a considerable cost advantage even when the price of oil falls by $4 a barrel.
  It is important that we have the right overall policy, and in this respect the Government have made a profound mistake. I am not saying that gas prices should not have increased at all in the past three years. It would be foolish to say that. Our motion does not advance that argument. However, to increase gas prices by 100 per cent. at a time of inflation and depression is an act of folly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) knows, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer)—I am closer to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley because our constituencies abut, but the problems are the same—of the distress that the price increases have caused in the country. I represent a low-wage area, and on Saturday, when I visit my constituency, many of my people will tell me about the problems that they face in meeting their gas and eletricity bills. There is great concern about the standing charge. It is easy enough for those of us who read our bills and pay them with a bit of a curse, but there are many who read them and shed tears. I have in mind widows, for example. I know that there is a joke in this place at Budget time about the one-eyed and one-legged widows that hon. Members design to show who suffers most, but there is a problem with energy pricing and the Government's scheme is deficient. I am glad that it helps those in receipt of supplementary benefit but those who suffer are pensioners who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit, those in low income groups and one-parent families.
  Something must be done about the standing charge. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) produced some novel ideas. Most of my constituents would prefer to pay the costs that properly fall on the standing charge weekly throughout the year, or quarterly. They do not want to be faced with a lump sum at the beginning of the year. The old person who stays with a son or daughter finds it difficult, when he or she returns to his or her home,
  194
  to understand a bill that contains a standing charge that is greater than the cost of the gas or electricity that has been consumed.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made a constructive and interesting speech. He reported allegations that have been made about the use of resources by the gas board in his area. He was generous enough to say that in general the corporation is highly efficient. However, he reported that his constituents have alleged that numerous corporation vans have been flying around his constituency. They allege that there are too many of them and that they seem to sit in laybys while corporation employees have a whiff and a puff, as it were.
  I hope that these serious charges are examined. They are made against members of the General and Municipal Workers Union, a union to which I belong. By all means make the allegations, but the allegations had better stand up when they are investigated. The allegations were made to the hon. Member for Chichester and he was right to raise them in the House. However, an investigation must take place to ensure that they are not part of the sweeping allegations that are made, for example, about employees sleeping in factories, along with all the usual stories that we hear. It is important that those aspects are considered.
  I turn now to the privatisation of customer services. I invariably call the chap round the corner to repair electrical faults. The last thing I should ever do would be to call a relatively untrained man to carry out gas maintenance. Gas fittings require high safety standards. The Government understand that because they are about to establish a safety code. That is the result of their policy of shutting the showrooms. Gas is different from electricity in that respect. The Department of Trade did not understand that when it advanced this scheme.
  Mr. Stoddart: Speaking as a member of the electricians' trade union, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that electricity is as dangerous as gas and that he should always employ a qualified electrician.
  Mr. Rees: I always call qualified electricians and trained people from the Gas Corporation. That is the difference. Gas involves safety factors of a more general nature:
  The Secretary of State's speech was almost predictable. We both serve on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill in Committee and are becoming fed up to the back teeth listening to each other. There is no Government subsidy to the Gas Corporation. There may be a subsidy within the Gas Corporation's accounts, with costs applied one way or the other, but the idea that the corporation is subsidised by anybody is false. Yet that was the impression that was given.
  We have heard little about depletion policy. The hon. Member for Melton gave his view of the economy. To reinforce his argument, he mentioned Bishop Latimer, for whom I have much regard and whose painting hangs in the Central Lobby.
  Mr. Lawson: He was burned as a heretic.
  Mr. Latham: A Protestant martyr.
  Mr. Rees: If he was burned as a heretic, that was hard luck. That just proves that if one has a good point, one should use it at the beginning, not the end. The hon. Member for Melton made a good speech, whether

  195
  heretical or not. There are many heretics on the Opposition Benches. Let us have more and defeat the Government tonight.
  6.42 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I am delighted to begin on that excellent last note. I have not left the Chamber throughout the debate. As so often in many debates over the past few years, I was struck by how often, whichever party has been in office, the nation has suffered by the inability of many of us to face reality.
  Much of the debate which has flown back and forth across the Chamber has failed to face many of the harsh truths to which Britain must reconcile itself. I shall attempt to be factual, because it might help the tenor and nature of the debate.
  The truth has not changed. It was well expressed in 1978 in the classic Green Paper on energy policy. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in that Green Paper, said:
  "Natural gas is a high quality finite resource and its price must reflect this fact. If it is sold too cheaply, consumers will have no incentive to use it efficiently. In these circumstances the industry's prices need to be related to the expected cost of future supplies, rather than its historic cost".
  Those were wise words at that time and, as I said, the truth has not changed.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked: what happened? It was the Labour Government's failure to act on their own theoritical beliefs that produced the neglect and mess that the Government inherited and had to try to sort out.
  I respect the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) and his views and his company. We cannot refuse to face, handle and sort out problems caused by a previous Government's neglect. We cannot leave the matter as it is. We must tackle it.
  However, the Opposition's neglect, when in Government, was compounded by the sense of hypocrisy that has surrounded much of the debate. They ignore their own past beliefs and statements expressed in Government. In such a sensitive area as this—all hon. Members' constituents are conscious of the enormous burdens and problems—the worst thing we can do is to pander falsely to hopes and feed on the fears of those who suffer more than hon. Members.
  Mr. Stoddart rose—
  Mr. Moore: I shall give way in a moment. I wish to place some facts on the record.
  What are the realities that the Government had the courage to face and tackle? The first reality ought to be put clearly and concisely on the record. The domestic side was not and still is not meeting the cost of supplies.
  Mr. Stoddart rose—
  Mr. Moore: I shall give way later. First, I want to tackle the key point of the cost of supplies on the domestic side, let alone the increasing cost of future supplies to the industrial and commercial side.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South was right in suggesting that there was no subsidy to the industry. The subsidy was within the industry. Industrial and commercial users were subsidising domestic consumers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), in a courageous speech, asked whether price
  196
  increases at this stage were justified. The facts about costs ought to be made clear. Two essential costs are interconnected: the cost of transmission, supply and handling—I am referring solely to the domestic side of the industry, because that is what the Opposition's motion is about—and the cost of the product.
  The Price Commission—I am not referring to statistics issued by the Government or the British Gas Corporation—analysed the figures thoroughly in 1979. Its figures, updated to today, produced 17p per therm for bringing domestic gas into the houses privileged to have it. One must add to that figure the average cost, for example, of Norwegian supplies, and 23 per cent. or more is coming across that median line. We are not self-sufficient in this area. That amounts to 37p per therm on the basic marginal cost from that area of supply. I remember the words of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East when he referred to future costs and supplies. I have here my gas bill. I am sure that all hon. Members have considered their bills. The therm cost on my present bill is 27·2p. As we know, that is to increase in April and October. That relates to 37p per therm.
  Mr. Stoddart rose—
  Mr. Moore: I shall finish this point before giving way. Beyond the Norwegian costs, we must consider the area from the northern basin. The beach costs under negotiated contracts today are about 16p per therm. Added to the 17p, we are talking about 33p a therm. These are the realities with which the British Gas Corporation and everybody else must be concerned.
  Mr. Stoddart: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Irrespective of who made the statement about current cost accounting and long run marginal costs—I do not know whether the Government are becoming Bennites—if all private industry used the same criteria, would not the Government's inflationary policy be split asunder and prices race ahead? How on earth does the Minister expect industry, which is based on a simple profit motive and usually historic cost accounting, as well as the domestic consumer to pay for long run marginal costing in the public industries? That is not possible.
  Mr. Moore: I was unwise to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was talking not about long-run marginal costing but about the real cost of supplies and the specific statements of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.
  I mentioned the costs of supply. It was clear to the Government when they came to office that there was an exploding demand, quite understandably, for a product selling below the market price. I do not blame the corporation, which had a statutory obligation to increase supplies to that loss-making sector of the market. That meant unsatisfied industrial demand and a crucial change that those who know the problems of development in the North Sea will recognise. It was a crucial change in the mix of supplies that were coming on to the domestic and industrial markets.
  In 1975, 98 per cent. of our gas came from the southern basin. Estimates for this year show that only 58 per cent. will come from the southern basin, 19 per cent. will come from the northern basin and 23 per cent. from across the median line. It was clear that action was needed. However, if I may suggest it to my hon. Friend the

  197
  Member for Melton, the need was not for action to open up a completely free market place, but for quite the reverse, because that would have led to a massive increase in prices, far beyond those that the Government have tried to introduce.
  The previous Administration would have agreed theoretically, but we had to act. The only question was how. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and others have suggested that we acted in an electioneering spirit. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said from a sedentary position "Is that the kind of thing that gains votes?" I assume that the sedentary interruptions are designed to suggest electioneering now, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that the policy was introduced and approved by the House in January 1980, which is a considerable time in advance of any prospect of a general election. A three-year policy was introduced in January 1980.
  Essentially, the Government had to act. They tried to introduce the policy over three years, as opposed to one year, which may have been more courageous or more foolish.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister said at least six times that the position facing the Government when they came to office was obvious. If it was so obvious, why did they freeze gas prices in 1979, when they took office, instead of increasing them?
  Mr. Moore: Upon taking office, it is necessary to examine the books to try to understand what has happened. I have noticed the sort of support that we get from Opposition Members for our three-year policy. What might they have done?
  The second reality, beyond the reality of the cost of gas to the domestic consumer, is that gas today is cheaper in real terms than in 1970. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) legitimately said that we should give our constituents the facts. I suggest that the facts make an impact on individuals. I am aware that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have received difficult letters from their constituents. The impact on individuals and families is valid and relevant. However, we must separate the facts from the sort of hysteria that, in part, we have heard in the debate.
  The first relevant fact is that the average family with central heating has had its expenditure on gas as a proportion of its income reduced from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. from 1968 until now. The second fact concerns the pensioner couple, with whom we are all legitimately concerned. Of course I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) about standing charges. He raised that point in his usual way—constructively—to try to help the long-term needs of pensioners. The married pensioner couple living only on their pension, with a cooker and a gas fire, were spending 10 per cent. of their income on their gas supply in 1968. Happily, whatever the difficulties of facing the truth, today that percentage has more than halved. They now pay 4 per cent. of their income. However difficult it may be, it is good that we all recognise that that has been reduced. We should all welcome it, however difficult it is for them to pay.
  The third fact is that gas today is 17 per cent. cheaper in real terms than in 1970—the era of cheap energy. That
  198
  is in marked contrast to other fuels which people must take because they cannot be supplied with gas. It is gratifying to find out, in the face of the courageous decisions that the Government have had to take during the past two years, that disconnections have decreased radically. They are down 30 per cent. in the nine months of last year to 31 December. Despite the harsh weather in January, in that month they decreased by 23 per cent. Clearly, that has something to do with the way in which the Government have tried to introduce reality during a three-year period and to add a benefit package of over £250 million in real terms. That is the relevance of real care in trying to help those in need.
  Excellent contributions were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who all raised the problem of containing and controlling the efficiency of the nationalised industries. I remind them that the Government made provision for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission regularly to investigate the efficiency of nationalised industries. The CEGB has recently been examined under those powers. I also remind my hon. Friends about the Government's financial targets and cash limits. They are designed to reflect the need to maintain pressure for increasing efficiency and to impose the proper commercial disciplines for effective cost control. In the case of the gas industry, we have agreed that the corporation should aim to reduce its unit costs, excluding the cost of gas purchase, by 5 per cent. in real terms by 1982–83. I know that my hon. Friends will welcome that demanding aim in such difficult times.
  For those hon. Members who were not privileged to hear the full debate, I can report that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter made an excellent speech. It was the most devastating analysis in the debate about the realities of the way in which we are trying to ensure, through our policies, that employment is made available in industry and commerce through the rational pricing of gas. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn), again in an excellent speech, asked about the method of advising on the proposed increases. I must remind him that the industries are obliged by statute to inform the national consumer council about tariff proposals, so that it, in turn, may make representations about them to the Secretary of State.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford made many excellent points in his speech, although I did not agree with all of his conclusions. He wondered about the reduction in industrial gas prices. The 1 April increase will bring to an end the ridiculous position whereby the running rate on the domestic credit tariff has been below the typical price for a firm contract industrial supply, although it costs more to supply the domestic consumer than the industrial consumer. The two charges will then be almost identical. The 1 October increase will complete the process of establishing a sensible relationship between the two markets as domestic prices move slightly ahead of industrial prices for the first time in some years.
  Even with the current soft oil prices I must draw the attention of Labour Members and that of some of my hon. Friends to the fact that because we were successul in ensuring a freeze in industrial gas prices there was a great deal of head room between the industrial gas price and the equivalent gasoil price. Even today, firm gases are at 30p plus per therm and gasoil is at 45–47p per therm.

  199
  The gas levy was mentioned, with a great deal of confusion and muddle by so many hon. Members. This was nothing other than a way of ensuring that the windfall profits of gas are given to the nation, not to those privileged to have a gas supply, and, more specifically, that 35 per cent. of the nation that is privileged to have gas central heating.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West and many other hon. Members raised the difficult problem of standing charges. The sum of £500 million is roughly the revenue cost incurred by standing charges. I am conscious of many of the difficulties raised, but I point out to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, while the Government are in the process of looking at this problem, standing charges reflect the overhead costs of making a supply available. These are the real costs incurred by the industry, regardless of customers' consumption.
  The Government and the National Gas Consumers Council have, like the previous Labour Government, endorsed the principle of standing charges. All previous studies, including "Energy Tariffs and the Poor" which was produced when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was Secretary of State for Energy, concluded that tariff restructuring, including measures on standing charges, is not a sensible way of using resources to help the poor. There are genuine and real problems, and I acknowledge the suggestions by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North and will examine them with sympathy, care and understanding.
  In conclusion, I can do no better than quote again, for the benefit of those who were not here earlier, the wise views of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, when he had the responsibility for our nation's energy policies. He said:
  "Natural gas is a high quality finite resource and its price must reflect this fact. If it is sold too cheaply consumers will have no incentive to use it efficiently."
  Wise truths can be repeated more than once—those were wise words.
  Unlike the Opposition, the Government have had the courage to match their words with deeds and the courage to face reality, however painful. As we come to the end of this period of adjustment, we begin to see, in industry and commerce, the first competitive gas price advantages flowing from our determination to face that reality. I urge my hon. Friends and all other hon. Members to support the Government amendment and reject this contemptible Opposition motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 301.

  Division No. 80]

  [7.03 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Booth royd, Miss 0Betty

  Adams,Allen

  Bottomley, RtHonA.(M'b'ro)

  Allaun, Frank

  Bradley,Tom

  Anderson,Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Ashton,Joe

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

  Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Buchan,Norman

  Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)

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

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel(H'wd)

  Campbell,Ian

  Beith,A.J.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cant, R. B.

  Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Carmichael.Neil

  Bidwell,Sydney

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Booth, RtHonAlbert

  Cartwright.John

  200

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Janner,HonGreville

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

  Jay, RtHon Douglas

  Cohen,Stanley

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Conlan,Bernard

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Cowans, Harry

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Kaufman, RtHon Gerald

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

  Kerr, Russell

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Crowther,Stan

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cryer,Bob

  Kinnock,Neil

  Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)

  Lambie, David

  Dalyell,Tam

  Lamborn,Harry

  Davidson,Arthur

  Lamond,James

  Davies, RtHon Denzil (L'lli)

  Leadbitter,Ted

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leighton,Ronald

  Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar,Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dixon, Donald

  Lyon,Alexander(York)

  Dobson,Frank

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Dormand,Jack

  McCartney,Hugh

  Douglas,Dick

  McDonald, DrOonagh

  Douglas-Mann,Bruce

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Dubs,Alfred

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKelvey,William

  Dunn, James A.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dunnett,Jack

  McMahon,Andrew

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  McNally,Thomas

  Eadie,Alex

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  McTaggart,Robert

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

  McWilliam,John

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

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)

  Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)

  English,Michael

  Marshall,DrEdmund (Goole)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)

  Ewing,Harry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  FauIds, Andrew

  Maxton,John

  Field,Frank

  Maynard, MissJoan

  Fitch,Alan

  Meacher,Michael

  Fitt,Gerard

  Mellish, RtHon Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Mikardo,Ian

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  Millan,RtHonBruce

  Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)

  Ford, Ben

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Forrester,John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

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

  Morton,George

  Freeson, RtHon Reginald

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Freud,Clement

  Mulley, RtHon Frederick

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Newens, Stanley

  George,Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ogden,Eric

  Graham, Ted

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Grant,George(Morpeth)

  O'Neill,Martin

  Grant, John (IslingtonC)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grlmond, RtHonJ.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

  Palmer,Arthur

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Park,George

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Parker,john

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Parry, Robert

  Haynes, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Penhaligon,David

  Heffer, EricS.

  Pitt, William Henry

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

  HomeRobertson,John

  Race, Reg

  Homewood,William

  Radice,Giles

  Horam,John

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Howells,Geraint

  Richardson,Jo

  Hoyle,Douglas

  Roberts,Albert(Normanton)

  Huckfield,Les

  Roberts,Allan(Bootle)

  Hughes,Mark(Durham)

  Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)

  Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)

  Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Robertson,George

  201

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)

  Rodgers, RtHonWilliam

  Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Tilley,John

  Roper,John

  Tinn,James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Torney,Tom

  Rowlands,Ted

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ryman,John

  Wainwright,E. (DearneV)

  Sever, John

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watkins, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Weetch,Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wellbeloved,James

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Welsh,Michael

  Silverman,Julius

  White, J.(G'gowPollok)

  Skinner,Dennis

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Smith,Cyril (Rochdale)

  Whitlock.William

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Snape, Peter

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

  Soley,Clive

  Wilson, RtHonSirH.(H'ton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Winnick,David

  Stallard,A.W.

  Woodall,Alec

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Woolmer,Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Wrigglesworth,Ian

  Stoddart, David

  Wright,Sheila

  Stott, Roger

  Young, David (BoltonE)

  Strang, Gavin

  Straw,Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Summerskill,HonDrShirley

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Thomas,Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

  Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Aitken,Jonathan

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Alexander,Richard

  Chapman,Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill,W.S.

  Amery, RtHon Julian

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

  Ancram,Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (CroydonS)

  Arnold,Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Aspinwall,Jack

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Cockeram,Eric

  Atkins,Robert(PrestonN)

  Cope,John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Corrie,John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Costain,SirAlbert

  Banks,Robert

  Cranborne,Viscount

  Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

  Critchley,Julian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Crouch,David

  Benyon,Thomas(A 'don)

  Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

  Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

  Dorrell,Stephen

  Best, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Bevan,DavidGilroy

  Dover,Denshore

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Blackburn,John

  Durant,Tony

  Blaker,Peter

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Body,Richard

  Edwards, RtHon N. (P'broke)

  Bonsor,SirNicholas

  Eggar,Tim

  Boscawen,HonRobert

  Elliott,SirWilliam

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boyson,DrRhodes

  Eyre,Reginald

  Braine,SirBernard

  Fairbairn,Nicholas

  Bright,Graham

  Fairgrieve,SirRussell

  Brinton,Tim

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon

  Farr,John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fell,SirAnthony

  Brotherton,Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Brown, Michael (Brigg& Sc'n)

  Finsberg,Geoffrey

  Bruce-Gardyne,John

  Fisher,SirNigel

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon.A.

  Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

  Buck,Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Budgen,Nick

  Forman, Nigel

  Bulmer,Esmond

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Burden,SirFrederick

  Fox, Marcus

  Butcher,John

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Cadbury,Jocelyn

  Fry, Peter

  Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

  Gardiner,George(Reigate)

  Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Carlisle, RtHon M.(R'c'n)

  Garel-Jones,Tristan

  202

  Gilmour, RtHonSir Ian

  Meyer, SirAnthony

  Glyn, DrAlan

  Miller,Hal(B'grove)

  Goodhart,SirPhilip

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Goodhew,SirVictor

  Miscampbell,Norman

  Goodlad,Alastair

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  Gow, Ian

  Moate,Roger

  Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

  Monro,SirHector

  Greenway, Harry

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Griffiths,Peter Portsm'thN)

  Moore,John

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Grylls,Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Gummer,JohnSelwyn

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Murphy,Christopher

  Hampson,DrKeith

  Myles, David

  Hannam,John

  Neale,Gerrard

  Haselhurst,Alan

  Needham, Richard

  Hastings,Stephen

  Nelson,Anthony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neubert,Michael

  Hawksley,Warren

  Newton,Tony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Normanton,Tom

  Heddle,John

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Henderson,Barry

  Onslow,Cranley

  Heseltine,Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hicks,Robert

  Osborn,John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hill,James

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hooson,Tom

  Parris, Matthew

  Hordern, Peter

  Patten,Christopher(Bath)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Howell, RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)

  Pattie,Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Percival,Sir lan

  Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Hurd.Rt Hon Douglas

  Pollock,Alexander

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Porter,Barry

  Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jopling,Rt Hon Michael

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Raison,Rt Hon Timothy

  Kaberry,SirDonald

  Rathbone,Tim

  Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Kimball,SirMarcus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Renton,Tim

  Kitson,SirTimothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight,MrsJill

  Rhys Williams, SirBrandon

  Knox, David

  Ridley,HonNicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Ridsdale,SirJulian

  Langford-Holt,SirJohn

  Rifkind,Malcolm

  Lawrence,Ivan

  Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

  Lawson,Rt Hon Nigel

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lee, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  LeMarchant, Spencer

  Rost, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd,HonMark

  Royle,SirAnthony

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Sainsbury,HonTimothy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Loveridge,John

  Scott,Nicholas

  Luce,Richard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell,Nicholas

  Shaw ,Michael(Scarborough)

  McCrindle,Robert

  Shelton,William(Streatham)

  Macfarlane,Neil

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  MacGregor,John

  Shepherd,Richard

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shersby,Michael

  Macmillan,Rt Hon M.

  Silvester,Fred

  McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Madel, David

  Smith,Dudley

  Major,John

  Speed, Keith

  Marlow,Antony

  Speller,Tony

  Marshall,Michael(Arundel)

  Spence,John

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

  Mates, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Sproat,Iain

  Mawby, Ray

  Squire,Robin

  Mawhinney,DrBrian

  Stanbrook,Ivor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanley,John

  Mayhew,Patrick

  Steen,Anthony

  Mellor,David

  Stevens,Martin

  203

  Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Stokes,John

  Wall,SirPatrick

  StradlingThomas.J.

  Waller, Gary

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)

  Ward, John

  Tebbit, RtHon Norman

  Warren,Kenneth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watson,John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wells.John(Maidstone)

  Thompson,Donald

  Wheeler,John

  Thorne.Neil(IlfordSouth)

  Whitelaw, RtHon William

  Thornton,Malcolm

  Whitney,Raymond

  Townend,John (Bridlington)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Wiggin,Jerry

  Trippier,David

  Wilkinson,John

  Trotter,Neville

  Williams,D.(Montgomery)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Wolfson,Mark

  Vaughan, DrGerard

  Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

  Viggers,Peter

  Younger, RtHon George

  Waddington, David

  Wakeham,John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waldegrave,HonWilliam

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  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 Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House having endorsed on 29th January 1980 the Government's decision to tackle, over a three-year period, the serious under-pricing of domestic gas at industry's expense, recognises the need to complete that process this year; welcomes the relief which has been possible in consequence through lower real industrial gas prices; and supports the Government in making available more resources than ever before helping the needy with their fuel bills.

Central America
7.15 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its concern about the deteriorating situation in Central America, deplores the decision of Her Majesty's Government, contrary to the views of Canada and the countries of Western Europe, to send observers to the elections to be held in El Salvador on 28th March, and calls on Her Majesty's Government to support the proposal of the Government of Mexico for a negotiated settlement of the civil war in El Salvador.
We do not often debate the affairs of the Caribbean basin these days, but it is worth recalling that 20 years ago the Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. What is happening now in Central America may present less urgent dangers, but in some circumstances it could prove almost as disturbing in it s long-term consequences.
The House knows that Central America suffers from grinding poverty as a result of centuries of colonial exploitation and misgovernment by a parasitic ruling class which handed the economy over to foreign companies which condemned the area to dependence on a few crops, whose price was highly vulnerable to events in the outside world. Last week, President Reagan pointed out that to buy the same barrel of oil they have to sell five times more coffee today than they did five years ago.
In recent years, besides these long-standing economic problems and partly as a result of them, there has been a tidal wave of revolutionary feeling against the military dictatorships which rule most of the countries in the area.. The revolution was successful in Cuba and Nicaragua, but so far it has been suppressed with appalling brutality in Guatemala and El Salvador. A country such as Costa Rica, which has just had a peaceful transfer of power in a free election, is, I fear, an exception to the rule.
I do not need to describe the appalling atrocities which have taken place in these countries in recent years. We have supped full of horrors on British television. In addition to the official forces of Government, death squads operate on a large scale in Guatemala and El Salvador. I am sorry to say that the exiled supporters of the ex-dictators are allowed to train their private armies publicly on American soil in Florida and Texas.
In El Salvador, over 30,000 people have died in the past two years as a result of the fighting—that is, about 400,000 for a country the size of Britain. Many of them were tortured and mutilated before being shot or hacked to death by the death squads. The Catholic Archbishop of El Salvador was shot while celebrating mass in March 1980, and those who went to a service in his honour were mowed down by rifle fire in front of the cathedral.
The Reagan Administration recognises that there is an economic factor behind these appalling events, although the programme that the President announced last week does little more than make good cuts in lending by the Inter-American Bank and the World Bank which are due to a reduction in America's contribution to them. Moreover, many of the proposals that the President made last week depend upon Congressional decisions, which cannot be taken for granted. The President appears to see the political revolution in the area simply as the product of a conspiracy by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and forgets that the revolution in El Salvador is at least 50 years old.
Both the President and Secretary Haig see the possible victory of the guerrillas as a threat to their vital strategic

205
interests, particularly in the Panama Canal. Therefore, he has given large-scale military aid to the Government of El Salvador, and is now attempting to destabilise the Government of Nicaragua, as his predecessor succeeded in destabilising the Government of Chile some years ago.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will answer two questions. First, is it true, as widely reported, that the Central Intelligence Agency has been given $19 million by the American Administration for destabilising the regime in Nicaragua? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is no truth in the reports which have been widely spread on American television that Her Majesty's Government are involved in some way in this operation of subversion?
So far, no American fighting troops have been sent to El Salvador. That is not surprising because opinion polls show that 89 per cent. of the American population would be against their despatch, but there has been talk of the Governments of Argentina, Chile and Paraguay providing troops not only to train but to fight in El Salvador in support of the junta.
Although the Government forces in El Salvador outnumber the guerrillas by three to one, according to Government figures, they have suffered three times as many casualties during the last two years. Despite increasing American military aid, there is no prospect of the Government winning the civil war. Equally, there is no chance of the guerrillas winning the civil war so long as America stands behind the Government. Therefore, we face the sombre prospect of a continuing civil war inflicting appalling suffering on the people of El Salvador, ruining its economy and polarising political feeling.
Many Governments outside Central America have felt this strongly for over a year. The House will recall that the Socialist International proposed negotiations to end the fighting. It had support of several European Governments whose parties were members of the Socialist International. The Social Democratic Party in El Salvador, which is part of the guerrilla movement, has welcomed those proposals, and has declared its readiness on behalf of the movement to take part in such negotiations.
Last August the Governments of Mexico and France formally recognised the guerrilla forces as a valid partner in such negotiations, but the most comprehensive proposals were those made last week by the President of Mexico who was speaking in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua. First, he proposed that he should be allowed to use his good offices to promote negotiations between the Government and the guerrilla forces in El Salvador. Secondly, he proposed that there should be international support for negotiations between the United States and Nicaragua, and between the United States and Cuba, in the hope of reducing the current conflict which he believes—I think rightly—is based to some extent on a genuine misunderstanding by each of the other's motives.
In making those proposals last week, the President of Mexico expressed several opinions that I believe will be widely shared in the House. He said that if there were no negotiations the United States might find itself dragged into direct military action in El Salvador, Nicaragua or even Cuba. He said that that would be a "gigantic historical error" bringing about a conflict of "unthinkable proportions" and provoking a
206
"continental convulsion and a resurgence of profound anti-American sentiments among the best men of all of Latin America."
Those opinions should not and cannot be ignored. They were expressed by the President of a country that has excellent relations with the United States. He has much better knowledge of what is going on in that area than people sitting several thousand miles away in Washington.
I am sure that the President was right in what he said. I do not believe that it is anti-American to say so because the views that he expressed are widely held in the United States by congressmen, senators of both parties and by the ambassador to El Salvador, who served there under the Carter Administration.
It was a serious blunder that President Reagan totally ignored President Lopez Portillo's speech when he spoke to the Organisation of American States a day or two later in an address that President Lopez Portillo described in Le Monde today as diminishing the chances of peace in El Salvador.
It is bewildering to me that President Reagan ignored that important speech by the Mexican President, because in the same address President Reagan said that he wanted to develop a new North American accord among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, approaching them
"as a friend seeking their ideas, and their suggestions as to how we can become better neighbours."
The American Administration could not have had clearer or more well-meant suggestions than those offered by the Mexican President a couple of days earlier. I fail to understand how President Reagan could have insulted the Mexican President by failing to say anything about his proposals. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will tell us exactly what Her Majesty's Government think about those proposals.
I suspect that the reason why the American Administration ignored the proposals by the Mexican President was that they had committed themselves some time ago as being in favour of a macabre ritual of elections in El Salvador, which will take place in a few weeks' time on 28 March. Surely Her Majesty's Government do not believe that those elections can conceivably produce a valid result or that they can do anything except make the solution of the problem more difficult. In the first place there is no election register in El Salvador. At least half a million people are living away from their homes either in refugee camps inside the country or as refugees in neighbouring countries.
Candidates for the opposition parties all figure on various death lists produced by the Government forces and are bound to be shot if they campaign in public. When someone pointed that out to the American ambassador in San Salvador, he was told that those members of opposition parties could campaign from outside the country. It is ridiculous to imagine that an election carried out in those circumstances, which are familiar to Her Majesty's Government, can produce a valid result. There is no freedom of movement in that country, as was said in an interesting report by an emissary from Oxfam who earned his spurs doing a similar report in Kampuchea not long ago.
There is no guarantee that, if the result is unfavourable to the military junta, it will not be over-ruled. That is like the election result that is said to have given Mr. Duarte a majority in 1970, and which was immediately suppressed by the authorities. The best that the election could produce

207
would be to confirm the present junta in power, but it cannot in any circumstances legitimise the present junta because the elections will not be free. The elections cannot possibly produce a result which is representative of the views of the people of El Salvador.
There is a real risk that the elections will make the problem far more difficult by putting the extreme Right wing in power—perhaps by producing Major D'Aubuisson, who is said to have been responsible for the murder of the archbishop, as the next leader of the Government in El Salvador.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and, through him, the American Administration, that it is dangerous to base Government policy on an assumption that an election in a foreign country will go the way one would like it to go. The right hon. Gentleman and the American Government experienced that recently in a country in the Middle East.
I cannot understand why, instead of supporting the Mexican initiative which is supported by the Governments of France, Germany and Italy, and is attracting growing support in Latin America, her Majesty's Government should have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of Europe, and all of America's other allies in NATO, by sending a team of observers whose only conceivable purpose can be to legitimise the elections, yet which cannot possibly succeed in that objective. Since the elections are less than four weeks away, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us this evening who these paragons will be. Will they speak Spanish? Do they know Latin America? Do they know anything about election procedure?
It is difficult to understand why the Government have associated themselves with this shabby facade. I understand that 60 Governments have been approached by the Government of El Salvador to send observers to the elections. Apart from Britain and the United States, only six have so far accepted. They include the Governments of Argentina and Uruguay, who can hardly be considered good judges of the freedom of elections.
I cannot help feeling that the only reason for sending observers is that these Governments wish to curry favour with the Americans at a delicate moment in the Trident missile negotiations. There can be no other reason. We have been told that the Americans are prepared to make concessions on Trident provided we support them on matters which are considered to be of current defence interest. If that is not the reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will inform us what is because so far neither he, nor the Foreign Secretary, has said a word to justify sending observers. So far as I know, they have not tried to justify the decision in discussions with their colleagues in Cabinet.
A day or so after the news that we were sending observers to the elections in El Salvador was sneaked out—in a written answer on a Friday—The Times reported that the Government might not, after all, send observers. The report said that the Government might decide that the observers would not have freedom of movement and that their safety could not be guaranteed. The House is aware that the Canadian Government, having initially decided to send observers, changed their mind.
The Government are in a mess in this respect. The American Secretary of State has already described his British colleague as a "duplicitous" unparliamentary expression. The Mayor of New York has described the Foreign Secretary as a "schmuck". Nothing would do
208
more to reinforce the unfortunate impression created by the Foreign Secretary in the United States than a wobble on this issue at this late stage.
I know, as the House knows, that our influence in that part of the world is perforce limited. It is therefore all the more important that we use it for the best. We should be co-ordinating our policy towards Central America with our friends in Europe and in North America, with Canada and Mexico, who share our views, instead of acting as President Reagan's poodle. We do no real service to the American people in pandering to these illusions. America's present policy offers no prospect of success but only the certainty of a continuing civil war accompanied by all the sickening atrocities of which we read every day and which we see on our television screens. The only conceivable way by which that prospect could be avoided, in the sense that President Reagan wants, would be by committing American forces directly to intervention in a new Vietnam. That, of course, would be the ultimate folly.
America will have to move towards a negotiated settlement of the war in El Salvador. The longer it delays moving, the more difficult it will be to make negotiations a success. Opinion is bound to polarise at the two extremes so long as the fighting and the suffering continue. All hon. Members know that the present leaders of the American Administration are obsessed by the danger of revolution. That is odd, because the United States is a country born of revolution. Indeed, the Daughters of the American Revolution are now the fiercest protagonists of extreme conservatism in the United States. This is not an unfamiliar experience in the world. Mexico itself was born much more recently of revolution. Yet Mexico has been singled out by President Reagan as one of his two main partners in the hemisphere. The other is Canada.
I sometimes think, looking back on the post-war years, that the most tragic error in Western policy was perhaps the failure of America and Britain—they were the only two powers that mattered at the time—to respond to the approaches of the new Communist rulers of China in the late 1940s. That failure has been well documented recently in an impressive book by Mrs. Tuchman. If the response had been made at that time, the world could have been spared 30 years of war in the Far East, including the war in Korea, the emergency in Malaya and the tragedy in Vietnam.
The West must not make the same mistake again in Central America. A revolutionary El Salvador, Nicaragua and even Cuba may respond if they are given the chance. If they are given no chance, there is no chance of their responding: they are bound to move further into the Soviet embrace. It is worth recalling that it was a Republican President elected on an anti-Communist platform who finally succeeded in establishing good relations with Communist China over 10 years ago. It is by no means impossible for another Republican President, also elected on an anti-Communist platform, to do the same in Central America. But there is no chance that this can happen so long as those of the President's friends who should be telling him honestly what they think refrain from doing so for some reason or other and confirm him in his folly.
Her Majesty's Government's failure to tell the Americans what they really think about what is happening in Central America is the reason why we have put down the motion and why we shall vote for it tonight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before I call the Lord Privy Seal, I should say that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.40 pm
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House expresses its concern about the situation in parts of Central America, endorses the efforts of Her Majesty's Government's to encourage democracy and stability in the region, welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government and this House to inform themselves about developments, and supports Her Majesty's Government intention to help achieve a just and lasting end to the fighting in El Salvador."
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) predictably spent most of his speech talking about those countries in Central America where there is fighting and oppression, where the regimes in power have no democratic legitimacy and rely only on force, and where human rights as we understand them have little place. He briefly touched on other countries in the region. I am glad that he did because the opening phrase of the motion that he moved
"That this House expresses its concern about the deteriorating situation in Central America,"
implies that it is the Opposition's view that there is no difference between one country and another in the whole region, that everywhere the situation is going from bad to worse. That is simply not the case.
It is essential to remind hon. Members that, contrary to what some would have us believe, democracy and stability flourish in some parts of the region. It has been the policy of successive British Governments, the Labour Government as much as the present one, to encourage the growth of democracy and to support the institutions of fair and impartial justice wherever we can. Not least our efforts have borne fruit in one country—Belize. For more than 200 years we worked to develop democratic and judicial institutions in that country and when finally last year we were able to grant independence to Belize the institutions we left were well founded. They continue to flourish.
In Costa Rica, too, a country with which we have traditionally had good relations, democratic traditions are deep and have recently been confirmed by the successful holding of national elections. We look forward to developing our contacts with the new Administration of President Monge.
In Honduras, the elections of last November have led to the installation of the new president and the ending of military rule. We welcome this and will do whatever we can to support that country in its struggle with severe economic difficulties, and with the danger of conflicts spilling over from its neighbours Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador.
The Government have been shocked and appalled by the reports of brutality and suffering in Guatemala and El Salvador. We share all the concerns expressed in the House and outside. We have forcefully condemned those who are responsible for acts of brutality no matter which side of the conflict they may be on. I repeat that condemnation now.
When security forces directly responsible to the Governments of Guatemala and El Salvador have committed these violations of human rights, we call on
210
those Governments to bring them under control and to ensure that those guilty of atrocities, whoever they are, are brought to justice. We have said this in the plainest terms to representatives of both Governments and they are in no doubt of our views.
We have also shown our concern in a practical way. The violence in El Salvador has produced large numbers of refugees and displaced persons. We have contributed to the efforts of the International Red Cross in El Salvador and to those of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have done this both directly and through our contributions to the efforts of the European Community to provide assistance to these ends.
The miseries of these countries and the discontent caused by the long history of inequality have been ruthlessly exploited by Cuba with the backing of the Soviet Union. Violent revolutionaries have been supported by Cuba. They have been trained in camps in Cuba and Cuban advice is behind much of what they do. The Cubans have launched an extensive propaganda campaign on behalf of the revolutionaries. These activities are completely unacceptable and we call on Cuba to cease all forms of interference. A country that has as unimpressive a record as Cuba, in which all the unattractive features of totalitarianism are present in good measure, to such a degree that large numbers of the population are ready to risk their lives and livelihoods merely to escape, has no business to export its political doctrines or its recipes for economic disaster.
We believe that any solution to the conflicts in Central America must be political, not military. In this context, I draw attention to President Reagan's recent initiative for the economic development of the regions as a whole. We warmly welcome this as a positive step, and we hope that trade and private investment will be encouraged by the proposed measures. If some of the poverty, some of the inequalities and some of the economic difficulties of these countries can be tackled, stable Governments, justice and democracy will have a better future.
I turn to El Salvador. The history of this unhappy country has been one of unrelieved violence and cruelty, dominated by a few families who have abused their wealth and privileges and have ruled by military force. But there was a presidential election in 1972. It was won by Mr. Napoleon Duarte running as a Christian Democrat. The military frustrated the people's choice, imprisoned Duarte, tortured him and forced him into exile. Further military Governments followed, but at the end of 1980 Mr. Duarte was installed as president.
President Duarte's belief in the democratic process is not in doubt. From the moment that he took office he made clear his intention that elections should take place. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that the elections were an American idea. They are President Duarte's idea and have been ever since he has been president. It is by elections that his position or that of some other president can be legitimised. President Duarte is committed to a wide programme of land reform and economic and fiscal reforms.
Mr. Healey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman somewhat truncating his account of what happened? There was a coup d'etat in 1979 by a group of progressive young officers with wide support. However, within a year they had been displaced. The bulk of the progressive officers were removed and replaced by extremely Right-wing

211
officers. President Duarte was installed in the face of such social democrats as Mr. Ungo. There is no reason to believe that President Duarte, whatever his views in 1972, represents anything other than those of the junta who are his colleagues in the Cabinet.
Mr. Atkins: I shall make two points about that. The colleagues with whom President Duarte works are four—three civilian and one military. President Duarte recognises that because he was installed as President but not by the democratic process his position is not so democratically legitimate as it should have been. That is why from the moment he was installed as President he has believed that a president should be elected democratically. I do not think that the Opposition would dissent from that. That is a way of proceeding which the Opposition have advocated in all countries. My point is that it is President Duarte's own idea that it should happen. His position as a civilian President is difficult because he is opposed by both Left and Right wings. Right-wing death squads and elements of the security forces and the army have, as the House knows, been responsible for terrible atrocities. President Duarte is trying to bring them under control. That is a formidable task and he deserves all support.
On the other side is the FMLN guerrilla organisation, a coalition of five terrorist groups with Cuban assistance and advice which has been responsible for the murder of Ministers, the terrorising of rural areas and countless atrocities including the kidnap for ransom of two British business men. The hard-core guerrillas number at our best estimate some 5,000 out of a total population of more than 4 million.
As the House knows, President Duarte, faced with these intractable problems, has called for elections to a constituent assembly on 28 March. He has invited all parties to register and participate. The parties of the Left have declined to do so on the grounds that if they did their lives would be at risk. I do not believe that theirs are the only lives that are at risk in El Salvador—others are standing for election. To put it mildly, it is clear that the conditions for elections will be much less than perfect.
Therefore, we do not join with those who would discredit the elections even before they have taken place. The democratic path must be tried. We are not alone in this judgment. Last Sunday the Pope associated himself with a declaration by the Episcopal conference of El Salvador, which represents all the Catholic bishops in the country, supporting the election and urging all Catholics to vote. Our partners in the Western Alliance all agree that a political solution to the conflict must be found. I quote, for example, from the Foreign Minister of Canada who has said:
"we continue to believe that elections in this country, imperfect as they may be, are better than none."
Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman, whom I know to be an enthusiast for political co-operation in Europe, must nevertheless face the fact that not one of our partners in the European Community is willing to send observers to the elections.
Mr. Atkins: Not all of them have been asked, but the hon. Gentleman is right that none has agreed to send observers. Nevertheless, President Duarte has invited observers to witness the election campaign and the election itself. As the House knows, the Government have decided that we should send two observers, subject to being
212
satisfied about their security. That decision has been construed by some as a gesture of support for the Salvadorean Government. It is nothing of the kind.
Let me make the Government's position quite clear. We want to see a political solution to the conflict in El Salvador. Democratic elections must be part of such a solution. We will not join those who prejudge the issue. Our gesture in sending observers is an entirely neutral act and is in no way a gesture of support for any of the political parties fighting the election. The fact that we are sending observers means that we want first-hand information about the situation. We want to see for ourselves, and we are in good company. The House itself has shown an interest in being better informed about developments in the region. Even as I speak, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is in Mexico and will be in El Salvador in 10 days' time to see and to find out for itself.
I do not pretend that the decision to send observers was an easy one. Some countries have accepted the invitation, including those of the Organisation of American States. Some have not. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, Canada has decided not to send observers, but it is very far from the case to suggest, as the Opposition motion does, that Canada asked us not to. Indeed Dr. MacGuigan has indicated that Canada would have been willing to participate in observing the elections on the understanding that one international team rather than separate national teams was intended.
Our observers will be two men of acknowledged integrity and entirely independent status. They are Professor Derek Bowett, QC, a renowned international lawyer and president of Queen's college, Cambridge, and Sir John Galsworthy, a former ambassador in Mexico City and a Spanish speaker. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their sense of responsibility and public duty in agreeing to carry out what will inevitably be a difficult task.
We envisage that our observers will be in El Salvador for about two weeks to cover the election campaign, polling day and the immediate aftermath. They will be completely free to report without restriction on the circumstances in which they were allowed to observe the elections. They will be asked to report on the conduct of the elections, including the campaigning of the candidates, on the polling, and on the counting of votes. Most important, they will form a judgment as to whether the elections constitute a valid test of public opinion in El Salvador. As soon as possible after their return, they are to deliver a written report to my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and we shall arrange for that report to be published and made available to Parliament.
Mr. Healey: To offer a snap judgment on the election observer team, the two individuals seem very appropriate to the task. Nevertheless, the House is left in some perplexity. The right hon. Gentleman told us that President Duarte did not control even his own armed forces, never mind the death squads, although he was seeking to do so He reminded us that a Select Committee will be visiting El Salvador, but many groups have visited that country , including representatives of the World Council of Churches, the Baptists' Mission and Oxfam, and all have reported that it is not possible to hold elections in the present circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman has

213
confirmed that view in his remarks about the relative independence of the armed forces and the death squads, so why is he going through with this charade?
Mr. Atkins: It is because I prefer not to have my views made for me by people with strong views of their own before the event has taken place. It makes every kind of sense that we should send reliable, experienced observers to see what happens, to form a judgment as to whether the elections constitute a valid test of public opinion in El Salvador and report to us. We shall then be able to decide, not on the basis of people's ideas before the event but on the basis of hard information from intelligent men present at the time.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Before sending the observers, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what knowledge he has about the mechanics of running the elections? Will the hundreds of thousands of people who have moved to Nicaragua and Honduras be allowed to vote? What does he know about the proceedings? Like the Irish Parliament and many other groups who have gone to assess the situation, the Government should first have discovered the facts. They might then have agreed with Mexico and France that there should be a ceasefire before elections take place.
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It is because we want to find out exactly how the elections are run and what the arrangements are that we are sending people to observe them. I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the initiative of the President of Mexico. We share his desire to find the best way forward, but the ideas that we have heard from him so far are in general terms and a great deal remains to be elaborated. No doubt he will do that, but in the meantime his ideas have not received acceptance in El Salvador and the elections are going ahead. The President of Mexico may well have a substantial part to play in settling this unhappy affair, and I in no way seek to run down anything that he has put forward. Nevertheless, four weeks before the elections, his ideas are not precise, they have not been accepted and the elections are going ahead. Therefore, it seems to us that, although his ideas are well worth studying, and when we have obtained and studied the details we may well wish to support what he is doing, at the moment this,has no bearing on our decision to send observers to the elections.
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the spokesman of the Revolutionary Front made a statement in Mexico three days ago in which he supported the Mexican Government's proposals and substantially reduced the Revolutionary Front's previous demand for the restructuring of the armed forces, confining it to the sacking of some of the worst offenders. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if the mission finds that elections cannot be held in such a way as to legitimise Mr. Duarte's Government the Government will seek to work with the Mexicans, the French, and other European Governments to achieve a negotiated end to the civil war?
Mr. Atkins: As I said at the beginning, it is and has been the Government's policy in any way possible to further the democratic process and to produce stability in
214
the area. What will happen after the elections, I cannot tell the House, because I do not know—nobody here knows—whether the elections will have been fair or not. That is the whole purpose of sending observers. As I said at the beginning, that has been the policy of successive Governments.
The Government deplore the forces, both Right and Left of the political spectrum, which frustrate the democratic process and in so doing cause misery, poverty and despair. We support those States which have achieved democracy, and efforts by the others to move in that direction. We are convinced that in El Salvador a political settlement is the only way to achieve a just and lasting end to the fighting.
To that end we are sending observers to the elections to see whether the elections will further that aim. We do not prejudge the fairness or the effectiveness of the elections. Let us wait until the House has the report before we make up our minds. We shall do that in the light of the observers' conclusions. When I ask the House to support the Government's decision to do this, I am sure that I shall carry with me everybody who believes in fairness and democracy and in the way of behaving to which we are all accustomed.
Mr. Healey: Before the Lord Privy Seal sits down, will he answer the questions that I put to him?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has sat down.
There are only two hours left for this important debate and there is great pressure from right hon. and hon. Members wishing to take part. May I therefore appeal for short contributions?
8.2 pm
Dr. David Owen: I am sure that the whole House shares the Government's concern about the situation in Central America. In discussing the region as a whole, it is right to say that there are some signs of optimism. The House should pay tribute to Belize's transition to an independent democratic State. It is a considerable achievement that successive British Governments have attached immense importance to buttressing the democracy in Belize, fearing that if a colonial situation had been allowed to continue it would have been exploited by the Cubans. In an attempt to anticipate that situation, successive Governments stressed the importance of independence. I wish that the Government of the United States of America had, at various times, understood the urgency of the matter and had been prepared to exert more pressure on the Guatemalan Government to resolve the problem of Belize. Belize is a good example of anticipation of political pressure and the development of a democratic independence.
Costa Rica is the outstanding example of a democratic country in the Caribbean basin. It now faces appalling economic problems. At least one benefit of the present deterioration in the Caribbean basin may well be that Western Governments will give the Costa Rican Government the aid that it needs without the fiercer conditionality that the IMF might have applied. It is vital that the Costa Rican Government should be given every possible support. That also applies to Honduras which, after a long and very difficult period, has moved to democracy.

215
The main strategic problem in the region is the necessity to face bluntly Cuba's motives. The main focus of Cuba's adventurism has to some extent switched from Africa to the Caribbean basin. We should delude ourselves, and fail to understand the genuine strategic anxieties about El Salvador and Nicaragua that are felt—not just in America but in many countries in Latin America—if we did not pay serious attention to the extent to which Cuba has changed the direction of its policy. Our central criticism of much of the policy being pursued, particularly by the new Administration, is that it fails to understand that the most important priority is to find a political solution which can then be buttressed with economic support.
In some ways, President Reagan's speech to the Organisation of American States was a considerable improvement. Not before time, he has increased the aid programme to the Caribbean region. His speech may also have opened the door to preferential trading arrangements that will enable some of the countries to sell their products to the United States of America in a unilateral opening of trade. It is vital that they should be able to do so. When the measures were first unveiled they may have appeared greater than they do now. I am worried that other Government Departments within the American Administration, and Congress, may narrow down the interpretation. If the United States of America does not recognise that there must—along with the economic measures—be a change in its political appreciation, that initiative will not develop and produce stability and security in the region.
I turn to two countries of considerable importance. After a difficult time under the Somoza regime—which no hon. Member would wish to support—Nicaragua has established a Government who are well to the Left and who contain strong elements of Marxism. The question is whether Nicaragua will go the way of Cuba. Will the Americans handle the Nicaraguan Government just as they handled the revolution in Cuba? It would be a tragedy if the United States of America were to push Nicaragua ever increasingly into the Soviet sphere of influence. It is not inevitable that it should move into that sphere. Of course, Nicaragua will remain non-aligned, but, properly and sensitively handled, there is a possibility that the Nicaraguans will choose a more genuinely non-aligned position that is closer to that of Yugoslavia than to that of Cuba. Cuba is not, in any real sense of the term, non-aligned.
El Salvador is a much more difficult problem. In 1978, human rights in El Salvador were so bad that the then Government felt that we had to stop selling Ferret cars to the Government of El Salvador. Because of our concern about the deteriorating situation, we acted in an unprecedented manner. In retrospect, that was the right decision. Since then, the situation has steadily and progressively deteriorated. All hon. Members want genuine elections to be held in El Salvador. However, the Government must decide whether, in present circumstances, it is possible to hold an election in El Salvador. The Lord Privy Seal made the under-statement of the year when he said that conditions for the elections were much less than perfect. Let us hear from one of Oxfam's most experienced field workers in El Salvador. His reports make clear
"a grotesque and horrifying picture of terror and violence which has made normal life impossible for the majority of El Salvador's
216
people. Over 300,000 people, mostly the poor and disadvantaged, have taken the dangerous journey across the border to neighbouring countries. There is no shortage of documented reports of the harassment that they suffer on the journey with many being massacred before they reach safety."
Reports—not only from Oxfam, but from others—all too often make it clear that the Salvadorean security forces have perpetrated such atrocities. The Lord Privy Seal was quite honest when he said that he did not believe that President Duarte had full control over the security forces. I share the right hon. Gentleman's belief. We can no longer believe that President Duarte is in control of the military junta. Oxfam states:
"Inside El Salvador it is reliably estimated that 250,000 to 300,000 people have been forced to abandon their homes and flee the threat of violence. A large proportion of these people have drawn together for mutual protection in 80–100 sanctuaries".
We have reports from people who have visited those sanctuaries: virtually everyone to whom one speaks talks of an experience of violence and horror that is guile shocking, with grandparents and babies murdered, mostly by para-military assassination groups. These are by no means circumstances in which it is possible to hold a fair election.
One of the things the Lord Privy Seal must consider is that in the United States at the moment there is considerable anxiety not that President Duarte will win but that we might see a Right-wing extremist element win, the unsavoury nature of which can hardly be over-emphasised. I do not believe that these conditions can be described as "much less than perfect". I feel that they are already intolerable.
There is a very interesting analogy with the Canadian situation. I think that Prime Minister Trudeau wanted to have an election. As the House knows, Canada has taken a very close interest in this region where it has tended to concentrate much of its aid and support. The Prime Minister wanted to send observers. In the last few days, however, the people who were sent to El Salvador came back and reported that these were no conditions under which to hold elections. In consequence, Canada has gone back on its earlier decision to send observers.
Mr. Wischnewski, who was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the German Administration and is a prominent figure in the German Social Democratic Party, described elections in the present conditions as "a farce" Anyone who knows him knows that he is a man who would not make such an allegation unless it was on very good evidence. Not a single European Community member State is sending observers.
Why is it then that the British Government have sent observers? The explanation from the Lord Privy Seal is, totally inadequate. The Government's decision has been condemned by practically every outside observer. The Observer newspaper called it a bad blunder for Britain. The Sunday Times has attacked it. Very few people in this country who have any understanding of present conditions in El Salvador can justify that decision.
The Lord Privy Seal says he thinks that it will help us to form a judgment. He must know that two observers, however distinguished, are simply not going to be in a position to cover the whole area of this country. The danger of giving anyone the impression that we would accept the outcome of this election is that we are effectively saying that this is a possible way out of the present dilemma. It is not. I believe that President Duarte knows this himself. I believe that even if he were to win

217
the election he would seek to attempt negotiations. However, this will be much harder once the elections have been held.
What I fear is that he will not have a mandate to conduct those negotiations. In my view, it would now be far preferable for the United States Government to follow the constant advice from Mexico and Venezuela—two countries to which they are close and which understand the Caribbean basin—to put the whole weight of American diplomacy behind a negotiated settlement.
There are amongst the El Salvadorean guerillas many political views, covering almost the whole spectrum. I think that the guerrilla movement, if it were to achieve the position of a Government—through the ballot box, one hopes—would be well to the Left, but that is not a situation that is either unusual or unique.
I am loth to make parallels with what has happened in Zimbabwe; I believe the situation is very different. Nevertheless, this business of trying to pre-empt negotiations by internal elections is fatally flawed, as it was in Zimbabwe.
There is a world of difference between the Government sending official observers and Members of Parliament, journalists and outside observers going. The Government will have a much greater degree of commitment to the election result. I ask the Lord Privy Seal, who has already isolated himself in the Community by sending observers, how much harder will it be for him and for the British Government to say that these are unfair elections if, for example, President Reagan's Administration were to say that they were fair? It is putting a very heavy burden of responsibility on two observers, however distinguished.
I welcome the fact that the report will be published and that the Lord Privy Seal has stressed the importance of a political solution. Nevertheless, I believe he will regret this decision to tie Britain into this election in El Salvador. It would have been far better, not to have washed our hands of it, but to have shown a greater recognition of the limited influence we possess, to stay within the broad span of opinion in Western Europe and in many other countries, and, rather than sending observers, to have committed ourselves to a negotiated settlement. There is no other solution. It would be far better also to commit ourselves to increasing aid wherever we can, to buttressing those three democratic States, Belize, Costa Rica and Honduras, and trying to modify the American position over Nicaragua.
I do not want us to supply arms to Nicaragua, as the French have done, but I hope we will make it very clear to the Nicaraguans that we are not putting them into the Soviet sphere of influence, that we wish to have relations with them, that we will have a distinctive and different position towards them from that of the United States and that we will not in any way use our connection with what are often termed, rather pejoratively, the "mosquito Indians" to encourage the destabilising of Nicaragua. It will be very helpful if the Lord Privy Seal or whoever winds up will give us a clear commitment that the British Government will not be party to any destabilising of the Nicaraguan Government.
There is only one way in which we shall stabilise Central America. It is through much greater economic aid. The poverty is appalling. It will also be necessary for all those Western nations that sell arms to stop pouring them
218
not just into Central America but into Latin America generally, because there is a grave danger of the wars and the armaments from Central America slipping further down into Latin America as a whole.
The way to outwit the Cubans and the Soviets is the way in which successive British Governments have now moved into Africa. It is to recognise national independence, to recognise that there will be revolutions and changes in the political atmosphere, Left and Right, and that it is not in our interests to distance ourselves from those movements or to force them to look only to the Soviet Union. It is in our interests to attempt a negotiated settlement, whether within existing Right-wing politicians in control of the Government, a junta or a regime, and to encourage the guerillas to come to the negotiating table, to compromise, to give up their arms, to have a ceasefire controlled by some outside monitoring force and to hold fair and free elections. This is what the Organisation of American States wants and this should be the policy of the British Government.
8.18 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: We have a long historical association with the Caribbean basin. We still have important interests there. Nearly 2 million of our population have their roots in the Caribbean. Therefore, what goes on there must naturally and properly be a matter of considerable concern to us.
In the days when we had political responsibility we tried to help the evolution and development of the area by the unfortunately abortive West Indian Federation, by the Commonwealth sugar agreement, by preferential arrangements, some of which have been continued by the Lomé agreement, and by a military presence to help maintain stability.
President Reagan's Caribbean basin initiative seems to me to be in the tradition of what we tried to do on a smaller scale. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), unlike the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), made no reference to the President's initiative. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East may be right in saying that it is not on a big enough scale—only time can tell—but the total absence of any reference to it by him made me wonder why the Labour Party chose to have this debate at all. It did not seem to be to reinforce our natural concern about the Caribbean. It did not seem to be to come to the support of President Reagan's initiative, or—what an Opposition might well have done—to press my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to make a small contribution ourselves towards it.
Mr. Clinton Davis: When the right hon. Gentleman reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) he will see that in fact my right hon. Friend referred to the Caribbean basin programme.
Mr. Amery: If the right hon. Gentleman did so, it was so brief a reference that it would hardly have sunk into the consciousness of the House.
The gravamen of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and of what the right hon. Member for Devonport said, was to register a protest against our sending observers to the elections due to be held in El Salvador. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East produced the argument that there

219
was no register. That is a bit silly. We had two elections in Rhodesia—one lot which the right hon. Gentleman opposed and one lot which he approved of. There was no register in either case. By the standards of the observers who watched both, they were held with remarkable fairness and gave a pretty good idea which way the peoples wishes were going.
After all, one can boycott an election, and the boycott is also quite an important vote and can be registered as such by those who watch. There is by no means any certainty that intimidation, which will come from both sides, will affect the outcome all that much. But both right hon. Gentlemen said "No. What we need is a political settlement."
What is the alternative to an election? It is a negotiation between the junta and the guerilla bosses. Is that really a better way to proceed than having elections first, which will at least give us some idea where various people stand?
Neither right hon. Gentleman has much of an opinion of the junta. I do not have much opinion either of the junta or of the guerilla leaders, but I am not sure that I would like to see the fate of the Salvadorean people settled entirely between those two, with the United States, with perhaps the help of Mexico, on the one side, and the Cubans, with the help of the Soviets, on the other, trying to tell the people of that small country how their lives should be determined. I am not sure that the negotiated settlement in Nicaragua looks very healthy at present.
So why was this debate held? Almost every Latin American country, including Costa Rica, to which the right hon. Member for Devonport paid tribute, supports the holding of the elections. Mexico and Nicaragua—and Cuba, of course—are the outstanding exceptions. I think that I am right in saying that virtually all the other Latin American countries concerned have come out in support of holding the elections.
So why this debate? I shall tell the House. It has been held in an attempt to justify the growing neutralism of the official Labour Party, by trying to equate the breaches of human rights that are undoubtedly taking place in Central America with what has been going on in Afghanistan and Poland. It has not been said, but that is the underlying theme. That is why Labour tabled the motion.
Of course, every guerilla war is rough. I have taken part in such wars. Those in the resistance movements with which I worked were not all angels, and the Germans that we fought against were not all fiends, but there were plenty of fiends on both sides. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East talked about the fearful derogation of human rights in both Guatemala and El Salvador. It has been just as bad in Nicaragua, and over the years it was just as bad in Cuba. But, if we are serious, we are not talking about the situation in El Salvador alone. This is not a morality play; it is a global issue.
Let me explain what I mean. I do not know whether the Cuban people were happier under Batista than they are under Castro today. I do not think that anybody knows. I am inclined to think that they probably did better under Batista, but I may be wrong. What I do know is that when Cuba was under Batista it was not an international problem. Cuba today is a major military and political base for Soviet imperialism.
Nobody can question that. One has only to look at the 15,000 Cubans in Angola, the 15,000 in Ethiopia, the 4,000 in south Yemen and many others dotted about in other places. They are the Gurkhas of the Soviet Empire.
220
They are pretty strongly represented already in Nicaragua, along with North Koreans and East Germans. The right hon. Member for Devonport says that we might just pull Nicaragua back from the brink. I hope that he is right, but I am not sure that we shall do it by making concessions or urging concessions—it is not we who can make them—on our American allies at this stage.
There is a real danger that Cuban imperialism, which is a front for Soviet imperialism, will spread, and spread quite quickly, to Central America. Can we be indifferent to that? Of course not. Those who, consciously or unconsciously, serve the purposes of Soviet imperialism can welcome the development, but the facts are not in doubt about the extent to which Soviet influence has already penetrated—total control of Cuba, partial control of Nicaragua and considerable control of the guerrilla movement in El Salvador.
That is something to which the rest of us cannot be indifferent. We are allies and friends of the United States. That does not mean "the Americans right or wrong" any more than "our country right or wrong" is a good doctrine, but here is a forest fire burning at the Americans' back door. They face the danger. They run the risks. They have to play the hand, and if they play it wrong the loss will be theirs more than that of any others.
After his youthful flirtation with Communism, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East became almost a lackey of the United States. I am sorry to see him today moving—no doubt for internal, domestic reasons—to a position almost of neutralism. We would show ourselves poor allies and no friends of the United States if we did not offer it our support in the present crisis.
8.27 pm
Mr. Stanley Newens: No one who studies the situation in El Salvador today can have any doubts about the appalling suffering which its people have experienced over recent years. Journalists, priests, politicians, relief workers and all those others who have visited the country tell a similar story of cruelty, murder, poverty and misery.
Of the population of about 4½ million, 300,000 are estimated to have fled abroad and 350,000 have become refugees in their own country. In the past two years about 30,000 people have been beaten, tortured, hacked, shot or otherwise cruelly done to death.
While the economy sags, savagery reins supreme, trampling underfoot all the civilised values that we in this House claim to stand for. If we have a spark of compassion or humanity in our being, our hearts must go out tonight to the poor and oppressed people of El Salvador. That is why I am proud that the Opposition tabled the motion.
Where the main responsibility lies is not in question in the eyes of the vast majority of observers. Bill Yates of Oxfam tells of the savage reprisals by the junta's armed forces. The Trocaire Catholic Agency for world development speaks of lists of alleged traitors published in a daily newspaper by the armed forces to be hunted down and eliminated. An Irish parliamentary delegation states that the security forces are primarily responsible for 36,000 murders. Even The Observer of 21 February, which places part of the blame on the guerrillas and their Christian Democrat and Social Democrat allies, says:
"All impartial observers agree that the Duarte junta, the Salvadorean armed forces, which President Duarte nominally controls, and the death squads which work hand in glove with the army have been responsible for the bulk of the 30,000 killings estimated to have been committed over the past two years."

221
There can be no dubiety about what the vast majority of independent observers have concluded. Yet President Reagan in his speech to the Organisation of American States on 24 February, as in previous statements, puts the blame entirely on guerrillas
"armed and supported by and through Cuba,"
and fails to mention the atrocities of the junta. I am at least relieved that the Lord Privy Seal was prepared to concede that there had been some atrocities committed by forces under the control of those authorities.
Anyone who has looked into the previous statements of the American Administration on El Salvador knows how little reliance can be placed on much of what they say. On February 23 last year the State Department released a White Paper said to provide concrete evidence that outside forces were supplying the guerrillas in El Salvador. It was based on 19 of 80 documents alleged to have been captured from a guerrilla hiding place. The diplomat John D. Glasman, who was responsible, has now withdrawn a large part of what was said. The Wall Street Journal of 8 June last year—hardly a Left-wing source—commented:
"Several of the most important documents were attributed to guerrilla leaders who did not write them. Much information in the White Paper cannot be found in the documents at all."
The Sunday Times of 14 June stated:
"former CIA members have claimed the documents were forged."
It would be tedious, and I have not the time, to go through all the details. There can be no question, however, that the information which has been circulated by the United States to justify their claims that the Cubans are involved is totally discredited. That shows the lengths to which the United States Administration are prepared to go to justify their support for a vile and wicked regime.
There is, furthermore, genuine fear in the Caribbean that the United States may take military action against Nicaragua, Grenada, or Cuba. It is clear that vast amounts of money are being spent to destabilise those countries. United States Governments have a long record, of which they should be ashamed, of supporting reactionary dictators in Latin America.
Before we talk about aggression on the part of the Cubans, we should recall some Latin American history. The Cubans have never attacked the United States, but the Bay of Pigs assault was launched with the backing of the United States against Cuba. There are no Cuban forces in the United States, but there are United States forces on the soil of Cuba. Whatever people such as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) say about the situation in Cuba, let them recognise, if they have any respect for morality, that Cuba is no longer the centre for prostitution, drug taking, corruption and gambling which flourished under Batista.
Those of us who claim to have decent moral standards should recognise these things instead of brushing them aside as some right hon. and hon. Members are inclined to do. The United States Government's policy is a patent effort to crush underfoot any attempt by the people of El Salvador to rid themselves of a vile dictatorship if that threatens United States interests. To hold elections in El Salvador in the circumstances which prevail at present is farcical, as every country in Europe save one has recognised by refusing to send observers. Britain is alone in Europe in agreeing to give some legitimacy to them by despatching observers for the event.
222
To conduct a fair election in El Salvador now is like trying to conduct a plebiscite in the middle of a civil war. As The Observer put it, to seek to establish the fairness of a Salvadorean election in 1982 is in the same realm of absurdity as trying to find out how much snow is falling in the Sahara desert or whether the Ayatollah Khomeini is a communicant member of the Church of England.
It is absurd that we should be sending observers to El Salvador. We know very well what the situation is at present. Why then are the Government to send observers? It has been rumoured that one reason is that Britain is seeking to inveigle the United States into making financial concessions on the Trident deal. It has been rumoured also that the Foreign Office has been seeking to influence the BBC and the IBA not to allow an appeal to be broadcast to raise funds for the victims of the war. These are serious charges and when the Under-Secretary of State replies I hope that he will make it clear that the rumours are untrue. If he does not, the Government will be even more discredited following the decision that has already been taken.
The position that the Government have adopted is characterised by double standards. The Government are insensitive to a situation that cries out for compassion. Their present stance justifies, and will only earn, that contempt of many in the Third world whom we should be seeking to make our friends. Britain should stand out for human values in other countries apart from Poland and the Soviet Union. I entirely support the criticisms which have been voiced on many occasions about what happens in Poland and the Soviet Union, but Britain must stand out equally strongly against the cruelly oppressed members of countries which are ruled by dictatorships nominally friendly to the West. In fact, this Government have double standards.
If the Government wish to retain a single shred of decency they should take their courage in their hands and stand out against the appalling and cruel deeds that are now being perpetrated in El Salvador, which they can genuinely do only if they cancel the decisions to send observers. They should tell President Reagan clearly that they will not turn a blind eye to murder and that they will not send observers who will serve only to legitimise the farce which is due to take place.
The Government should make it clear, on behalf of the people of Britain, that we stand out for human rights, even for tiny El Salvador. If the right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench do not have the courage to take that stand this evening, many hon Members will be proud to go into the Lobby to speak out for the British people as a whole in condemning the appalling state of affairs which presently prevails in El Salvador and on which this Government refrain from coming clean.
8.41 pm
Sir Frederic Bennett: There were several moments during the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) when, although one generally accepts what is his point of view, even I found myself a little staggered. For example, he said that there was no question—it was only an American invention—that Cuba was playing any role of a subversive nature in either Nicaragua or El Salvador. Even Mr. Castro would not agree with him on that. He recently claimed proudly that

223
he is playing a decisive role in those two countries. The hon. Member for Harlow finds himself to the Left of Mr. Castro which is an unusual position, even for him.
The hon. Member for Harlow also said that the Americans were in Cuba, referring to their base, which, as he knows, is perfectly legal and constitutional. He also said that there were no Cubans in America.
Mr. Newens: No armed forces.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman meant no Cuban armed forces and I am prepared to give him that point. There may not be Cuban armed forces, but I wonder whether he considered, when judging Cuba, that there are over 2 million Cuban refugees now in Florida. If his remarks are correct, it is they who should be helping to build a new Cuba rather than being refugees in the United States. That point is much more telling than the presence of a few thousand American troops in Cuba. Nobody could legally disallow their presence; they are there by treaty arrangements, in the same way that we and others countries have forces in various parts of the world. The real question we should ask is why there are more than 2 million refugees, who gave anything to get to the United States and escape from the Government of which the hon. Member for Harlow spoke so highly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) spoke about oppression and said that he was unsure about whether the Nicaraguans and Cubans were happier now than under the previous dictatorial regimes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was jeered for making such remarks. The 2 million who escaped do not sound overjoyed at the change. The easiest way to discover whether they approved of their Governments would be for them to vote. If we are not to have free elections in El Salvador, there might be free elections in Cuba and Nicaragua. Such elections would prove to all hon. Members and observers whether those people approve of the regimes. Surely that would be the best test, rather than making assertions that they are happy, which none of us is capable of substantiating. The people have so far had no such opportunity of expressing themselves.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion also spoke about the reasons for holding this debate now. I am always pleased when we use the Opposition's or the Government's time for debates on foreign affairs because there are too few rather than too many such debates. However, it is worth asking why, with the massive horrors now occurring in the world, we should choose tonight a very narrow issue, not just on El Salvador—which is important—but on whether we should send observers. The ready answer, at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion hinted, is that it is one subject on which every Labour Member can go into the Lobby. Anything in this debate that is a criticism of the United States of America and a defence of regimes that are unfriendly to Britain is sure to get the maximum support from Labour Members. It was a very wise choice by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Harlow said that he was equally concerned about events in Russia and Poland. He did not mention Afghanistan, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt about that. It is odd that, on one of the rare occasions when we discuss foreign affairs, he did not say that El Salvador is important, but that the forgotten war in Afghanistan is more so, since Afghan refugees are more
224
numerous than the entire population of El Salvador. We could also discuss what is happening in the Soviet Union, Poland or Iran, where the Shah was replaced by a diabolical regime. I wonder whether Opposition Members believe that the Iranians are feeling more cheerful since the famous revolution took place.
Mr. Clinton Davis rose—
Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall not give way. I have studiously avoided interrupting in the debate, because I believe that Back Benchers have a right to make the points that they wish.
It is a pity that the Opposition motion could not include a genuine debate on the real position in Cuba and in Nicaragua. There are two points of view about what is going on in Cuba, the amount of Cuban subversion and infiltration in the Caribbean and what is happening in Nicaragua. The hon. Member for Harlow read from some documents about what is allegedly happening in El Salvador and Nicaragua. I have read two sorts of document, and it would have been worthwhile to decide for ourselves, on the best information available, whether it is true that there is a massive arms build up in Nicaragua as a mainland base for a further Soviet-Cuban invasion.
The American reports about that are substantive. As we have heard, there are American advisers in El Salvador. No one denies the fact that in Nicaragua there are Russian, East German and many Cuban advisers. Yet they are not mentioned when we discuss affairs in that country. However, if we are to consider the matter impartially, it would be a good idea on another occasion to broaden the debate and not pick on one aspect of a highly complex and dangerous problem.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who opened the debate for the Opposition, made a rather freudian slip when he said that the revolution in El Salvador was not yet successful but that there had been successful revolutions in Cuba and Nicaragua. I wonder what he meant by "successful". Did he mean that the regime, which was highly unsatisfactory and distasteful, had been replaced by another no less distasteful dictatorship, or did he mean that he did not believe that Cuba or Nicaragua have bad Governments? Did he take into account the feelings of the people who live in the countries where those revolutions are supposed to have been successful?
I believe that the military, Right-wing or reactionary people have been guilty of the most appalling atrocities in El Salvador. However, from all the documentation that I have read—I am not as selective as some Labour Members—I know that an appalling level of atrocities has also been committed by the guerrillas with weapons supplied, undeniably, by Cuba through Nicaragua. I quoted Mr. Castro earlier. A leader of the Salavador guerrillas said only two or three days ago that he was proud of the fact that in the last few weeks of 1981 his guerrillas succeeded in killing 2,000 people. That was not a claim by myself but a proud admission of the success of their enterprise by the guerrillas.
I come finally to the narrow point of the elections. I cannot understand the point of view of Labour Members who always urge elections when it seems that they think that they will like the result but who always come later to take the opposite view. I am a member of the Council of Europe and week after week, month after month we were

225
told that the Turks must immediately have free elections. Curiously enough, the Left would earlier have been perfectly happy to have held elections in El Salvador to see what would happen. A strange turn around came, when the impression began to get about that, after all, the people of El Salvador might not want a Communist revolutionary Government and a Fascist type dictatorship, such as that which exists in Cuba, and nearly exists in Nicaragua. I wonder where, in Socialist thinking, the moment of parting came, when it was not, after all, a good idea to have free elections to let the people speak. It became so when, it seemed on the whole, that the Marxists would be able to get a better deal by negotiation, than by elections.
Over the years, these changes have come about, and have been followed on the Order Paper for longer than I care to remember. First, there is a dramatic urging of elections until the moment comes when those who advocate them think that they may not get a result that is satisfactory to themselves.
I tell my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that no observer sent to El Salvador will be able to say whether the elections were fair. I use that adjective, because I do not believe that the correct conditions obtain in El Salvador because rival parties use pressure, threats and intimidation. What we would regard as a fair result is not conceivable—I doubt that it is in many countries. I do not care how many observers are sent, elections judged by the word "fair" in our sense are not available.
However, I support the view of my right hon. Friend and the action that the Government are taking. They will be able to obtain a much easier result. They will be able to say whether the elections, bearing in mind the number of boycotts taking place, the level of intimidation, and all other factors, indicate that a majority of El Salvadoreans have said, as far as they can, what they want their future to be. It is for that reason that we should support the elections, and send observers. I wish my right hon. Friend the best of all possible success in what is a wise and statesmanlike policy.
8.53 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) in detail, save to remind him of one thing that has often been spoken of by Archbishop Helder Camara. In the context of America he has often spoken of the spiral of violence whereby the structured violence and pressure of poverty lead to a violent response on the part of the oppressed population, which leads to a further escalation of violence on the part of the forces of so-called law and order to maintain their position. Revolutionary violence is always caused by the violence of oppression, injustice and poverty. The sooner Conservative Members, who are opposed to revolutionary violence in Latin America, realise that, they will know that the causes of that structured violences against the poor and oppressed in that continent must be removed, the fewer will be instances of the kind of hypocrisy that we have had tonight.
I wish to speak about the position of refugees displaced from El Salvador and of those inside the country. The Lord Privy Seal, in opening the debate, referred yet again to the contribution that the Government have made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I hope that, in winding up, he will say what representations the
226
Government have made about the position of the Salvadorean refugees in Honduras, about whom we have heard recently from the delegation from the British Council of Churches and other international observers who visited the refugee camps.
The violence in El Salvador is following the refugees across the border, and a refugee relocation programme is now taking place. There is concern among many relief workers that the relocation campaign is part of a military strategy to clear the border zone between Honduras and El Salvador, and that the removal of refugees and relief workers may be a prelude to the creation of a free fire zone along the frontier in which Salvadorean and Honduras troops could collaborate to contain the guerrilla war in El Salvador. I therefore ask the Government what representations they have made and what discussions they have had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about what is happening.
I turn to the more general issue of the situation within El Salvador. As we heard, it is a country the size of Wales, and 36,000 people have been killed since the present Government came to power. In this debate, as in the official standard reply which the Foreign Office sends out to letters about El Salvador, we have the operation of a double standard. We are told in official Foreign Office statements that this Government have reminded the Government of El Salvador of their obligations not to murder their own citizens. Apparently, the Foreign Office does not send out letters reminding General Jaruzelski of his obligations. Clearly, there are double standards as between El Salvador and Poland or Afghanistan. I endorse all that was said on that subject.
The Prime Minister told the House, after appearing in a Ronald Reagan television programme for Poland, that there was no need for a "Let El Salvador be El Salvador" broadcast. She informed us that the elections in El Salvador rendered superfluous any further Government action to promote peace and justice in that country. The reason is, of course, that El Salvador is located in the United States' own backyard. Apparently, the Government are prepared to accept a bland statement that elections in the context in which they are being held in El Salvador are bound to be democratic. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), appearing on the television programme "Newsnight" the other week, said that it was important not to prejudge the elections, and tonight the Minister said the same thing. Apparently, the Government can prejudge the fact that elections will be democratic.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: The Minister did not say that at all.
Mr. Thomas: I have seen a recording of that television programme and the Minister said several times during the interview that the elections were democratic.
I refer the House to early-day motion 116, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends. It sets out the precise reasons why any elections in the present context of military activity in El Salvador could not be considered democratic. It is not merely an issue of the lack of electoral registers. The basic issue is that no candidate standing for the election has placed on the agenda a discussion of the causes of the conflict. There is to be no debate in the election in El Salvador on the gross inequality of wealth

227
and the institutionalised oppression and violence that have been part of the life of that country for 50 years. No candidate in the elections will discuss the deaths of 30,000 non-combatants and half-a-million refugees. Only the war itself, which is revolutionary violence and an uprising of last resort by the poor and Moppressed of El Salvador, has been the means of placing these issues on the international agenda. It is right that the House should discuss this issue and make it clear to the British Government and international opinion where we on the Opposition Benches stand on this issue.
It is not possible to speak in the context of the present war in El Salvador of representative elections. The interim archbishop, who stands in the place of the martyred Archbishop Romero, said that elections do not create democracy. It may be that the Government do not want to listen to the voices of theology and liberation in Latin America. The Government should understand that the Catholic Church, through people such as Archbishop Romero and his successor, speaks for the poor and oppressed in El Salvador. Such voices are often the only democratic ones that those people hear. The present archbishop has said that the elections are the manifestation of a democracy that is already at work.
In no sense can there be any such manifestation in this case. General Medrano, a leading member of one of the seven Right-wing parties that are contesting the election, said at a recent gathering of business men:
"A purely military government does not suit our purposes since that would be badly received abroad … for the time being we must wear democrats' clothing …"
Indeed, Signor Ungo, the president of the Revolutionary Democratic Front, has described the contest between the seven Right-wing parties as "fascist pluralism". That is what is being supported by Conservative hon. Members when they advocate sending observers to the elections. The Prime Minister has told the House that the Salvadorean Opposition has refused to take part in the election. We have heard the same view being expressed by Conservative hon. Members. How often must we tell the Government and the House that the Opposition cannot take part? All the major Opposition leaders have been named on a death list, publicised by the military. Parties cannot participate without furnishing the authorities with a list of supporters' names. To do so would be to place oneself on to a death list.
Even if parties were able to take part, how would it be possible to fight an election in a country that is fighting a war, and where a large proportion of the territory—at least about 30 per cent.—is out of the control of the present military Government and is therefore disenfranchised? The army will be overseeing the polling, and is under the command of the same officers who were responsible for the electoral frauds of 1972 and 1977. Will the two British observers be able to observe the conduct of those officers in the polling booths of the areas that are controlled by the Government?
There is no independent press, and there are no electoral rolls. We are concerned about the way in which voters will be identified. If voters are to have their hands stained with indelible ink after voting, that will ensure a high poll in the areas where the poll can take place. The army will be able to identify at a glance all those people who have not voted. Therefore the House cannot accept the present position in El Salvador as a context in which an electoral contest—in our democratic sense of the
228
word—can be held. Therefore, it is essential that the Government should now withdraw their proposal to send observers.
There is an alternative. The British Government can join with other States such as France, Ireland, Holland, Austria and Denmark in recognising the Salvadorean Opposition as a representative political force. It is important to rebut the allegation that was made in the House that the Revolutionary Democratic Front is constituted entirely of Left-wing marxists. The opposition in El Salvador is not Leftist in that sense. It is an extraordinarily broad church. It represents not only the leader of the Social Democratic Party of El Salvador but members of the Christian Democratic Party. It includes Leftist-oriented members of popular organisations. It is a coalition. To describe the Revolutionary Democratic Front as a coalition of Leftists is like describing as Leftist a British coalition of everyone from Tory "wets" to the Communist Party. That is not the position.
We must understand that it is a broad democratic movement, which has been driven to revolutionary violence because of the oppression in which it has operated. Therefore, the way forward for the British Government is to ensure that negotiations take place. Then we can talk of democratic elections taking place in a democratic context.
Do the Government agree with a statement made in Britain last Tuesday on television by American Defence Secretary Weinberger who said that he felt that there were no moral problems in supporting questionable Governments in Central America as long as they were "fighting Communism"? Is that the position of the British Government?
What position will the British Government take when the observers, if they decide to send them, come back and report publicly to the House that the elections have not been democratic? Will the Government take a new policy option and recognise that the violent oppression of the people of El Salvador must cease? It cannot cease by false democracy. It can cease only through the liberation for which Archbishop Romero and others have died.
9.6 pm
Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall refer to a number of points made by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).
Hon. Members have referred to Costa Rica. My first contact with Central America was at a Liberal conference in 1969 in Germany attended by the candidate for the Presidency of Costa Rica. I associate myself with hon. Members who have referred to the excellent record of democracy in Costa Rica. They have shown in an estimable way that there is nothing in the Central American situation that prevents the proper working of democracy. Therefore, I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said in urging economic support for Costa Rica and Honduras.
The Opposition motion, while referring generally to Central America, centres on El Salvador. The bulk of my remarks will be concerned with that. El Salvador has become a flail in the hands of those who are unsympathetic to Western pluralist democracy on a simple and, I am afraid, sound basis, as we have heard at Prime Minister's and foreign affairs Question Time—that it is inconsistent for us in the United Kingdom to condemn what is

229
happening in Poland or in Eastern Europe generally while at the same time our major ally, the United States, is propping up a regime that is responsible for horrifying breaches of human rights, to make no mention of killing on a savage scale.
If the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) had still been present I would have referred to what he said. We fail in our responsibility as a democratic House if we do not record our horror at the effect on individual men and women and their children of the harsh battle in El Salvador.
El Salvador is the crux of the debate. However, I must remark in parenthesis that United States policy in Guatemala is open to similar criticism. Criticism is an inadequate word—the policy is open to outright condemnation.
I speak as a friend of the United States, as a supporter of the Western Alliance, and as one who has no doubt about his preference for American democracy as against Eastern autocracy. As a Liberal I condemned Batista in Cuba, but I did not wish his replacement by a Castro. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Merioneth about the spiral of violence. However, I wonder whether the violence practised by the IRA is in his view structured, as is the violence in El Salvador.
I come to the nub of the matter. How should the large and relatively affluent democratic powers behave in their dealings with smaller States where things may go sadly wrong, as they have done in El Salvador, given that our capacity to stop change and maintain a status quo by military means is not matched by any easy equivalent capacity to promote democratic advance? That is our problem.
The Americans have simply taken the view that a Communist system, once established, because of its dictatorial nature, cannot be changed and so must be opposed, whatever objections there are to the regime that it seeks to supplant. As a Liberal I believe that to be a profoundly flawed analysis. We must face the fact that, military intervention excluded, we have a limited capacity to dictate to an independent country what it should do. We must be prepared to provide all possible support to democratic forces in undemocratic regimes. Bluntly, the Goverment should tell the United States that in supporting the people they are supporting in El Salvador and Guatemala they are assisting the advance of Communism. That is the effect of their actions, and it is counter-productive.
What should Britain do? First, we should tell the United States Government to revise their previous policy and to consider other possibilities. Secondly, we should take an initiative within the European Economic Community and build on what France has done with Mexico. That means withdrawing our observers. The Lord Privy Seal did not give an adequate response to my intervention earlier. We are isolated within the EEC. We are the only country in the EEC to send observers and to vote the way we did in the United Nations. That does not make sense. It is all very well sending these two estimable people as observers. I do not know the two people concerned, but I accept the assurance of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that they are good people.
I attended the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe elections. In practical terms, two people going to a strange country to
230
observe elections is an inadequate way of judging the system. It cannot be done effectively in that way. One cannot shuffle off responsibility on to two people, however estimable they may be.
Thirdly, if we are seriously interested in helping, rather that condemning, we must sit down with the Organisation of American States at the United Nations and work out what can be done. A democratic solution means more than disengaging and letting the parties fight it out. I take the Government's point in that respect.
The Americans can influence the situation effectively and we, in turn, must use all our influence on them to ensure that that is what they are doing. Unfortunately, that influence is being used in the wrong way. I do not believe that the Government, or the justified critics of what is happening, have properly thought this through. Sadly, the Government's approach is complacent.
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman refers to the importance of working with organisations such as the OAS. Does he recognise that the OAS voted in favour of sending observers to the El Salvador elections?
Mr. Johnston: I recognise that, and particularly that Costa Rica is willing to send observers. But I still maintain the view that the European Economic Community Governments, and Canada, have taken an opposite view. I, too, hold that contrary opinion.
The British Government have a remarkable ability to influence the United States. As the major advocate of Western pluralist democracy, the United States stands condemned in its attitude in El Salvador and Guatemala. We must do something positive to change that.
9.14 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: We are never sure whether the alliance holds together in the Lobbies, but if the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) gave their parties' views, and they are joining the Labour Party in the Lobby tonight, it is sad for democracy in Britain that they intend to vote against an electoral process.
I spent over three years in Latin America and, as a result, I often meet people from Latin and Central America as they travel through London. They are people from all walks of life, of all political shades, and some with no political persuasion. They have three points which they put to me on the treatment of their region of the world by the British and Western European media.
Their argument has been "We do not seem to exist at all. You do not talk of us". Lately, they have been saying "Why do you only talk of the horrors, killings and disasters in Central and Latin America?" Over the last year or so, there has been incredible puzzlement, to put it mildly, as they ask "Do you in Western Europe and Britain believe that the only killing that is done in El Salvador is done by the Rightists, by the army and by the Government forces?" They find inexplicable the diet that we are fed in Western Europe.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and a number of other hon. Members have referred to parallels with Vietnam. This is a point commonly made in the United States. One close parallel with what is happening in El Salvador is the large propaganda battle that is being fought. I commend to hon. Members an

231
interesting article in Encounter last August dealing with the manner in which the Western media helped to lose Vietnam, and all that this has meant for the people of Indo-China. It seems to me that the same sort of developments are now happening on both sides, on the extreme Right and on the extreme Left, in El Salvador.
I offer only one example because time is pressing. We were told last December of a massacre in a place called Mozote in which it was said 920 people were slaughtered. A well testifed and, I think, unchallengeable investigation subsequently proved that never had more than 300 people lived in Mozote. Yet the Western world accepted that 920 of the inhabitants of that place had been massacred. We must work much harder to penetrate the propaganda fog and barrage to which we are subjected.
There is a deteriorating situation in Central America. To that extent, I agree with part of the motion put down by the Leader of the Opposition. The situation is, for example, deteriorating in Nicaragua. It seems that the 10,000 Miskitos have been shifted en bloc because they are said to be a security problem for Nicaragua. Some of the compassion sincerely expressed by the Opposition might also be appropriate in respect of those unfortunate inhabitants in Nicaragua. If we look at Nicaragua and consider elections, we should remind ourselves that the Sandinistas came to power—everyone condemns the Somoza regime—on a promise of elections. Not surprisingly, that promise has receded. There is now talk of possible elections in 1985. This situation has shades of Angola.
Much has been heard from Opposition Members about elections in what was then Rhodesia. No one from the Opposition Benches has questioned why the people of Angola have never had the opportunity of elections. In talking of the situation in Central America, we should remind ourselves of Cuba. Why do 1 million people leave Cuba? That in itself is testimony of the situation in terms of human rights.
Many words have been expressed in the media and in this House tonight about El Salvador. A surprising contribution has come from Oxfam. All hon. Members have presumably had the benefit of the propaganda barrage from an organisation calling itself the campaigns department of the information department of Oxfam. I feel, as someone who contributes to Oxfam, that the status of Oxfam under the Charity Commission is called into question if it indulges in this sort of political propaganda. It would not be the first charity to be so scrutinised. It seems correct that the Charity Commission should look into the matter.
The propaganda tells a story. Like all good propaganda, it tells very far from the whole story. It is known that El Salvador and other areas of Central America have terrible problems arising from the oligarchies and military regimes.
Before 1979, 38 per cent. of El Salvadoreans were landless. That is a terrible condition when there is no other form of employment. The House has not been told by the campaigning department of Oxfam or anyone else of the effect of oil prices on El Salvador, that whereas in 1977 they could buy a barrel of oil for 5lbs. of coffee they must now pay 26lbs. of coffee for one barrel of oil. Those are the problems with which any regime would have to deal with and operate under.
We have also not been told of the efforts made by the reforming group in the present regime. It has been helped
232
by Napoleon Duarte, who is the one man in El Salvadorean politics who has made an impact on elections. He has been twice elected as mayor of San Salvador and obtained 28 per cent. of the vote in the presidential election of 1972, unlike Mr. Ungo who is no longer in the country and who obtained only 1.7 per cent. of the vote. President Duarte and the reformist military officers put a remarkably far-reaching and ambitious land reform programme into effect in October 1979. Of course, that programme has run into serious trouble, but it has also been extremely effective—1·25 million formerly landless peasants now have land. That was 70 per cent. of the land, and the proportion of landless people has now been reduced from 38 per cent. to 11 per cent.
That is progress, and it is to be welcomed. I am deeply sorry that there have been no other words of welcome for those efforts. Of course, such efforts create enemies on both the Left and the Right. Owners of more than 500 hectares, who lost some property, are bound to oppose the land reform programme and they have worked against the Government and the reformist group. So also have the people of the Left, who do not want people to own land as they feel that landed people are not good territory for their political objectives.
We have not been told that the Right-wing organisation Orden was banned and that more than 1,000 members of the armed forces have been forced to leave because they have been found guilty of the oppression of the El Salvador populace. We have not been told about the code of conduct on human rights that the regime has sought to impose. No one denies that there are horrors, but let us understand the real efforts that are being made.
We should also understand that the elections are welcomed by the embryo trade union movement, the campesino movement of peasants in El Salvador, and all the bishops. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was quite wrong in his remarks about the successor to Bishop Romero, as his successor has certainly welcomed the elections and has said that people must have the right to vote because that is the only way.
The former president of the International Court of Justice and former President of Peru, Mr. Bustamante, has also been in El Salvador recently. He is certain that the Salvadorean election commission is doing its job and he believes that the electoral process looks as if it is to be held cleanly and without tricks and that
"it will be a valid expression of the will of the Salvadorean people."
Again, we have heard much about the fact that other Western European Governments are not joining us. Be it noted that, apart from the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, we are talking about members of the Socialist International who made up their minds months ago in many countries. For them, the Frente Democratico Revolucionario is the legitimate representative of the Salvadorean people. They do not care if the archbishop in El Salvador says that it holds the support of only a small percentage of the people of El Salvador. The Socialist International has made up its mind. The Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party have all made up their minds that they do not want elections because they know who are the representatives of the El Salvadorean people in the House of Commons. I offer one other group that will accompany us—the Christian Democrats in West Germany. They are sending observers, and it is right that we should do so.

233
The United States of America has faced a difficult task—as we all have—in sorting out the extreme Right and the extreme Left. However, we must try to give the democratic process a chance. The American Government recognise that. They also recognised their duties, not only to El Salvador but to Central America as a whole, in the imaginative package that the President offered on 24 February. If the Opposition are genuinely worried about the deteriorating situation in Central America, they will support that American initiative and will vote with us for democracy in the Lobby tonight.
9.26 pm
Mr. David Winnick: One cannot help comparing the attitude of Conservative Members when we debated events in Poland with the attitude that they have adopted tonight. When we debated Poland, Conservative Members were full of indignation and anger at the imposition of martial law in Poland and the suppression of civil liberties—sentiments which we on the Opposition Benches shared. However, tonight Conservative Member after Conservative Member has tried to defend and justify the position in El Salvador.
There is a cruel, bloody and oppressive regime in El Salvador. The junta death squads carry out regular killings. There is no control or punishment of those thugs, who are usually connected with the army or security forces. We made our protest clear on Poland. We opposed what had happened and continues to happen in that country. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said, we do not believe in double standards. That is the essential difference between the Government and the Labour Benches.
A revealing report appeared in a British newspaper that is not normally associated with radical causes. Last month the Daily Express carried a lengthy article by its correspondent in El Salvador. He wrote:
"A corrupt, authoritarian, military junta hides behind the facade of a civilian Government—and every week there is a massacre to rival or exceed My Lai, in this region."
In the same article in the Daily Express—which I know a number of Conservative Members read regularly—the correspondent went on to say:
"Archbishops are murdered, American nuns are killed. Whole villages are laid to waste … By far and away most of these atrocities are being committed by people who come under the umbrella of the American-backed Government."
Those are not my words but the words of the Daily Express correspondent in El Salvador.
The elections in El Salvador will be a complete mockery in view of the situation there. The death squads with their hit lists of the opponents of the regime are hardly conducive to free and genuine elections. A number of Conservative Members said that we on the Left do not believe in elections when we believe that we are likely to lose. Let me answer that point here and now. I speak, I am sure, for all my colleagues as well as for myself. I believe in meaningful, genuine elections—be they in Eastern Europe, in our own country, in America or Latin America. Win or lose, the right to hold free elections and the right of people to vote is an essential right that generations in this country in previous centuries fought so hard to win. It is not, and never has been our view, that we are against any elections where Left-wing parties are likely to lose.
234
The situation in El Salvador is such that there cannot be genuine elections. We know that to be a fact. Therefore, the Government and particularly the Prime Minister will be making a stupid blunder when they send observers to those elections and when Britain is associated with that mockery of an election to be held at the end of the month.
No doubt it will be said—if it has not been said already—that our attitude to El Salvador represents another outburst of anti-Americanism. However, those of us who strongly oppose American involvement in Vietnam were frequently accused of the same sin. Who was proved to be right? Did those such as myself, who consistently and strongly opposed the American adventure in South-East Asia, or those Conservative Members who backed the United States to the hilt, do more ultimately to defend America's reputation and integrity?
Again, the American Administration talk of an international Communist-organised military campaign. This time, it is said to be in Central America. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) seems to believe that there is not only an international Communist campaign, but a neutralist campaign as well. Apparently the Opposition have tabled a motion only because they are part of a world-wide Communist-organised plot. Apparently all the blame for the situation in El Salvador can be laid at the door of Moscow, East Berlin or Havana. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Afghanistan?"] When that aggression took place—[Interruption.] Having shouted out, hon. Members should have the courtesy to listen to my reply. I condemned the Soviet Union's aggression. I did not find reasons for justifying the situation in Afghanistan. That aggression by the Russians was morally wrong and they have not had much success in the past two years. What was done in Poland was also wrong.
As I have said, there are double standards. We condemn oppression, crimes and atrocities, but Conservative Members are very selective and that has been shown in this debate. There is no international Communist plot in El Salvador. However, the junta and the death squads have shown great cruelty, with savage repression, killings and atrocities. No Conservative Member has denied the existence of those death squads or the countless murders that have been carried out. At the heart of the situation lies the deep poverty experienced by the majority of those in countries such as El Salvador and the existence of a relatively few rich and corrupt families.
If what is understood as Communism or revolutionary politics wins any success in Central America, responsibility and blame will rest largely not only with the corruption and poverty in such places, but with the United States for the manner in which it has backed such corrupt regimes to the hilt. I wonder whether Cuba would have taken the road that it took if the United States of America had not always been associated with the most reactionary and backward regimes and dictatorships in that country.
The Soviet Union is reluctant to allow countries in eastern Europe to take an independent path. Equally, the United States of America is reluctant to allow Latin American countries to be independent. Time and again, the United States of America has been on the side of tyranny in Latin America. I have the greatest admiration for the democracy and traditions maintained within the

235
United States, but the American Administration should allow that type of democracy to travel onwards into Latin America.
I am very pleased indeed that there are growing numbers of Americans in the United States, both in and out of public life, who are totally ashamed of what their Government are doing in El Salvador. It was these types of American whose voices were raised loud and clear against America's involvement in South-East Asia. Nothing would be worse than for our country to be associated with the type of policy being pursued by President Reagan and the State Department in El Salvador. We must not allow this country to be contaminated by the kind of policy that successive American Administrations, including the present one, have pursued in Central America. It would be against our moral interest and certainly against our national interest.
This is why the Opposition motion should be supported tonight. We should make it quite clear that we dissociate ourselves from President Reagan and his disastrous and criminal policies in central America.
9.35 pm
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: The situation in El Salvador is, of course, far removed from the ideal for the holding of elections, but I am not persuaded by what I have heard in debate this evening that that is a reason for abandoning the idea of going forward with the elections. Nor do I believe that the Government would have been right simply to take note that these elections were being held and to refuse to send observers.
From conversations I have had with him, the Minister will know that I have had severe doubts as to whether we should send observers, but I believe, on balance, that it is right to do so if for no other reason than that it would give this country an opportunity to influence American policy after the elections have been held.
I do not believe that elections can simply be held and, no matter what the outcome, we can leave it at that. Equally I do not believe that, welcome though the initiative of President Reagan last week was on economic aid and the reduction of trade barriers, this is all we need to do. Nor do I believe that we must just give more military aid to the region and leave it there. There is a very strong argument for moving beyond the elections, beyond economic and military aid, and taking positive diplomatic initiatives.
I suggest that if the United States were to initiate some sort of conference, embracing the hemisphere of which it is the most important constituent member, it might be surprised to discover that there is an area of agreement among such diverse countries as the United States, Cuba and Mexico, not so much political as on the fundamentals of the continued existence of such diverse countries in that hemisphere.
I am sorry that President Reagan seemed to overlook the offer of an initiative by the President of Mexico when he spoke last week. If it is not possible for the United States to take the initiative of which I speak, which is a political one, to build on the elections and on the military and economic aid of the United States, then perhaps we could look to the President of Mexico to take some steps in that direction.
I hope that, in the short time that I have been able to detain the House, I have managed to persuade hon. Members on both sides that once the elections have been
236
held and economic aid has been introduced under President Reagan's plan, and with the military aid continuing, there is a positive need for a diplomatic initiative in the near future. For this I hope we can look to the United States, assisted by this Government, who will be in a position to assist because they have decided to send observers to the elections.
9.39 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) for allowing me time to speak.
If such a debate as this had taken place in 1971 or 1972 it would have been at a time when it was possible to install President Duarte as the elected President of El Salvador, and much of the disaster that followed for that country during the past 10 years would have been avoided. It is always difficult to obtain the acceptance of both sides of the House for the kind of imaginative intervention which the Americans might then have been able to make to ensure that the military in El Salvador did not prevent Duarte from taking over in 1972.
I had the opportunity—I do not think that I can call it fortune—to go to El Salvador in 1978 to visit Archbishop Romero. After going there for the second time on Palm Sunday in 1980 for his funeral, I went to Washington to try to persuade the State Department to push for elections in El Salvador, at the time of the new junta following the Government of President Romero—no relation to the Archbishop. It was clear that, with the democratic forces—the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats—in Government, that was the time to have the elections. Sadly, the United States Administration believed that elections could not be held. Elections are now to be held, and it is clearly a matter of too little, too late, because Reuben Zamora and Guillermo Ungo are not taking part.
It is important to recognise that there are many people in the broad opposition groups who are not Marxists and who would like to find a way other than that advanced by the guerrillas and other fighters.
The question of the observers is a basic irrelevance to El Salvador, because the elections will not solve the problems. If elections can solve the problems in El Salvador, that solution will come when there has been national acceptance, covering the majority of people in the country and those who could represent them, that having elections without the warfare will lead to a satisfactory settlement, which even those who lose are willing to tolerate. At present it is clear that the far Left groups and the far Right groups are not willing to tolerate anything but a continuation of the fighting, bloodshed and indiscriminate slaughter.
The real question is how it is possible to build for the future. Recognising the limitations of the United Kingdom, I think that the important players are the United States, Mexico and Costa Rica.
I wish that Nicaragua could have set an example, because conditions there are not as bad as they are in El Salvador. There is no excuse for Nicaragua not to have held elections to show that many of the fears that have been expressed about that country are unjustified. If the regime in Nicaragua were willing to give an example, I believe many people in El Salvador would be willing to follow it, but that has not yet happened. We should maintain pressure to make sure that it does.

237
I hope that what President Reagan said last week about taking measures that are prudent and reasonable means that the American Government will move towards talks with the opposition groups. I would not ask them to sit down with Marxist guerrillas who are actually fighting the war, but I ask for the kind of contacts that we saw in a number of countries in Africa before independence. El Salvador has, of course, been an independent country for a long time, but we need to treat it as though it is not independent, because it and its people deserve to have the efforts of Europe, the United States and many of its neighbours in the region directed towards stopping the fighting and killing, which can be no satisfactory answer.
If the present elections led to the election of a group further to the Right than the present junta, that would be no solution. It would simply be a continuation of more of the same military oppression, going back to 1932, when the last bloody slaughter took place during an abortive uprising. I believe that if the extreme Left took over there would be the kind of development that has appeared in Cuba and may still occur in Nicaragua, which is not a very pleasant country for those who are not well in with the Government.
We need to detach President Duarte and those who support him from the ruthless people inside and outside the military. We need to make sure that those who are part of the FDR, the broad coalition on the Left, find that they can move away from the guerrilla groups that were operating at the time when the British bankers were kidnapped three years ago.
I hope that the question of the observers will not cloud the issues we need to take into account when discussing with the Americans and other friendly countries in Central America what can be done to help. The observer question is not the crucial issue. The crucial issue is how we can help, in our limited way, to stop the slaughter. If that does not happen with the elections, we need to build on what happens after the elections, as was so rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
9.45 pm
Mr. Clinton Davis: At the very beginning of the debate the Lord Privy Seal said that he shared everyone's concern for those suffering from brutality. He claimed that the Government were in no way selective in their condemnation of that brutality and that they frequently called on Central American Governments to bring offenders to trial. With what effect? Has anybody been brought to trial in Guatemala as a result of his diligent efforts? We all know that that country has been condemned, rightly, as the worst violator of human rights, not simply in Central America but in the world.
It is ironic that President Reagan broke the United States of America arms embargo, which had been imposed by President Carter, by supplying $3·8 million worth of jeeps and trucks recently, on the grounds that the United States want to help the Guatemalan Government to defend peace and liberty.
The Lord Privy Seal then waxed eloquent about Honduras. Amnesty has recently expressed grave concern about the situation there—a continuing chronicle of arbitrary arrests, torture, kidnappings and killings by
238
Salvadorean and Honduran security forces, largely killings of people who are seeking to escape from the fighting in El Salvador.
What effect has his cry to bring offenders to trial had on El Salvador? When President Reagan was recently extolling the record of the junta, to justify increased arms supplies to El Salvador, 700 peasants were massacred in a single village. There were at least 12,500 murders in 1981 and no officers have faced trial for slaughtering civilians. The only officers who have been brought to trial are those who are alleged to have been implicated in the murder of four American nuns a year ago.
We should not be reticent about criticising the assault on human rights whether it is in Cuba, Poland, Afghanistan or in the areas of the world which are the subject of today's debate. All such assaults are to be condemned.
As far as the Caribbean basin programme is concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said at the beginning of the debate, it is a great improvement on merely spending vast amounts on military aid to thoroughly discredited regimes. The sum of £350 million is to be provided by way of economic assistance, but the House will recall the qualification that my right hon. Friend expressed—I do not have to repeat it—and the credibility of that plan is also undermined by the litmus test of eligibility which is to be imposed, a blind adherence to the market economy practised by the Governments who are to be the recipients of that aid.
I believe that the Prime Minister of Barbados put it best when he said:
"Legitimate objectives such as population control programmes, water and sewerage services, roads, seaports and airports cannot be left to private enterprise, and yet private enterprise is the major criterion behind the Caribbean basin programme."
Nicaragua is to be isolated, indeed subverted, clinically, coldly and heartlessly. There is not a word of condemnation from the Lord Privy Seal for the fact that the United States of America is training ex-Somozan guards in Florida and three other States, as my right hon. Friend said, without let or hindrance so as to enable them to conduct their operations againt Nicaragua from Honduras. What else would be their purpose?
The whole process is aided and abetted by Her Majesty's Government. It is grimly reminiscent of the destabilisation and the eventual murder of the Allende regime in Chile. The bitter irony of that is that the Government refuse to assist Nicaragua's economic recovery, including ECGD help, because it was the Somoza regime that ratted on its obligations.
Nobody in the debate has denied the saga of horror that daily occurs, and has occurred for a long time, in El Salvador. The overwhelming majority of deaths has clearly been occasioned by the Government-backed death squads, despite what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) had to say. The Lord Privy Seal spoke glowingly of Mr. Duarte when the whole world knows that he is the prisoner of the extreme Right in the junta. With a straight face the right hon. Gentleman said that the conditions for elections in El Salvador are "much less than perfect". I refer him to an article which appeared recently in the International Herald Tribune. It read:
"But the armed forces, long a source of El Salvador's agony, are a state within a state. The generals have repeatedly and contemptuously ignored elected civil Governments; on one occasion they robbed even Mr. Duarte of the Presidency.

239
Therefore, it would be naive to expect the bloody conflict to be ended by the series of elections beginning in March. The country has seen plenty of votes, most of them crooked. It could even happen that the armed forces would rig the outcome to rid themselves of Mr. Duarte and put the extreme right firmly in control—the pattern now visible in Guatemala, where a similarly dubious election is also to be held in March."
In our view, the elections are bound to be a charade. That is not only our view; it is the view of every EEC country, the view of Canada and the view of many other countries. The example of Zimbabwe has been quoted, but let it be remembered that the civil war had been concluded by the time that the elections were held; albeit, the elections were held without electoral rolls.
The Government should not be joining in President Reagan's snub to President Portillo's bold and constructive initiative. They should be warmly welcoming it. They should not be suggesting that it is of no consequence because it is not precise. Indeed, one might accuse the Lord Privy Seal of exactly that offence. We should be saying "Yes, this is an initiative that promises reconciliation". We should not be joining in this charade of an election.
Above all, we should heed the fact that the real reason for unrest and civil war in Central America is desperate poverty and inequality. If we do not hear the voice of he hungry and the dispossessed, others certainly will. That should be the lesson of the Government instead of indulging, or helping to indulge, in an election that the late Samuel Goldwyn might have said is bound to be genuinely bogus.
9.53 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): In the past two months I have heard the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) speak on three occasions. I heard him speak on Poland and on Canada and this evening he spoke on Central Latin America. His speech on Poland was impressive. His speech on Canada was also impressive. In comparison with some of his other speeches his speech this evening did not come in the top league.
There is not a shadow of doubt about the importance of this debate. However, it was extremely disappointing that when the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) rose there were only eight Labour Members present to listen to his speech. There is no doubt that there is profound concern in all quarters of the House and among the British public about the growing instability in parts of Central Latin America and the tragic level of violence, much of which stems, as we all agreed, from the desperate economic and social conditions and injustices that have existed in many Central Latin American countries and in many parts of those countries over the past several years.
There is an urgent need to have a clear understanding of the complexities of the problems in this part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who knows it well and who has served in it, highlighted the problems extremely well. In certain countries in the past, such as El Salvador and Nicaragua, there have been dictatorships that have been exceedingly unattractive, to say the least. We also have countries, as many hon. Gentlemen said, which have hollow forms of democracy—some of them being very strong—for example, Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama.
240
There is no simple or easy way out of the problems in that area. It is no good suggesting that there is a single solution to those countries' problems.
One of the biggest dangers is that we see the very unpleasant totalitarian dictatorships of the Right but do not see a volcanic eruption as an attempt to obtain change. There is so often a serious move towards equally unattractive dictatorships of the Left wing.
Friends of the people of that area must surely give whatever encouragement they can to constructive and peaceful change. Many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), highlighted the fact that Cuba, supported to the tune of £3½ million per day from the Soviet Union, is able to exploit dissension by violent means in that area. They are a destructive force, whereas there are other nations in the region, such as Venezuela, Mexico and other Western nations anxiously working for constructive change, whether European, Caribbean, the Organisation of American States or the United States of America.
We must all do what we can to foster peaceful change. The British Government's objective is to work for better economic development in the area. The British Government make a considerable contribution towards that. We must also work for political and democratic evolution and for general security and stability. That is why, as the right hon. Member for Devonport and other hon. Gentlemen said, that the Caribbean basin initiative would be warmly welcomed. The combination of aid, trade and investment with the United States and other neighbouring Powers is surely something that we should all warmly support.
I owe an answer on the allegations of secret Central Intelligence Agency files being used for subversion in Nicaragua. First, the British Government have no knowledge of such files. Secondly, recent reports of United Kingdom support for that sort of subversion, of which we have no knowledge, is totally and utterly without foundation. The House listened with interest to views expressed about the initiative of the Mexican President and we certainly note the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). Anything constructive should be carefully studied. However, there is still much scope for more detail than is presumably contained in the Mexican President's statement.
I turn finally to the question of observers—the main burden of the debate. Support was given by my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar, Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), Wycombe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) to our decision to send two distinguished observers to El Salvador. We know about the desperate circle of violence in that country.
However, our objective is to do what we can, in our own modest way, to encourage peaceful change. The Mexican President is determined that the objective should be to hold elections. We believe that that objective is a step in the right direction and that we ought to do what we can to encourage it.
We noted that Roman Catholic bishops in El Salvador, and the Pope over the weekend, supported the concept of holding elections at the end of March. We noted that the Organisation of American States decided to send

241
observers, supported by Venezuala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Columbia, Panama, and Ecuador, all of which are democratic countries. That is a constructive step.
It would be easy to sit back and do nothing; we could sit back like armchair critics and do nothing. However, we believe that it is far more constructive to visit those countries and see the situation for ourselves and not prejudge whether these elections are a fair and valid test of opinion in that country. It is totally wrong for anyone in the House and for so many Opposition Members to prejudge the position. With the greater knowledge gained after those distinguished observers have been to that country, we shall be better equipped to be constructive about the future.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 300.

Division No. 81]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams,Allen

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

Allaun,Frank

Dean,Joseph (Leeds West)

Alton,David

Dewar,Donald

Anderson,Donald

Dixon,Donald

Archer,Rt Hon Peter

Dobson,Frank

Ashley,Rt Hon Jack

Dormand,Jack

Ashton,Joe

Douglas,Dick

Atkinson.N.(H'gey,)

Douglas-Mann,Bruce

Bagier,GordonA.T.

Dubs,Alfred

Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Dunn, James A.

Beith, A.J.

Dunnett,Jack

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

Eadie,Alex

Bidwell,Sydney

Eastham,Ken

Booth,Rt Hon Albert

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

Boothroyd,Miss Betty

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

Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b'ro)

Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)

Bradley,Tom

English,Michael

Bray,Dr Jeremy

Ennals,Rt Hon David

Brocklebank-Fowler,C.

Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Evans,John (Newton)

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

Ewing,Harry

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

Faulds,Andrew

Brown,Ron(E'burgh,Leith)

Field,Frank

Buchan,Norman

Fitch,Alan

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

Fitt,Gerard

Campbell,Ian

Flannery,Martin

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Fletcher,L. R.(Ilkeston)

Cant, R. B.

Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

Carmichael,Neil

Foot,Rt Hon Michael

Carter-Jones,Lewis

Ford,Ben

Cartwright,John

Forrester,John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Foster,Derek

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

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

Cohen,Stanley

Freeson,Rt Hon Reginald

Coleman,Donald

Freud,Clement

Concannon,Rt Hon J. D.

Garrett,John (NorwichS)

Conlan,Bernard

George,Bruce

Cook,Robin F.

Gilbert,Rt Hon Dr John

Cowans,Harry

Graham,Ted

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

Grant,George (Morpeth)

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

Grant,John (IslingtonC)

Crawshaw,Richard

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Crowther,Stan

Hamilton,James(Bothwell)

Cryer,Bob

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

Cunliffe,Lawrence

Harrison,Rt Hon Walter

Cunningham,G. (IslingtonS)

Hart,Rt Hon Dame Judith

Cunningham,DrJ.(W'h'n)

Hattersley,Rt Hon Roy

Dalyell,Tam

Healey,Rt Hon Denis

Davidson,Arthur

Heffer,Eric S.

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Hogg,N. (EDunb't'nshire)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

HomeRobertson,John

242

Homewood,William

Parry,Robert

Horam, John

Pavitt, Laurie

Howells,Geraint

Penhaligon,David

Hoyle,Douglas

Pitt, William Henry

Huckfield,Les

Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

Hughes,Mark(Durham)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Hughes,Robert (Aberdeen N)

Race, Reg

Hughes,Roy (Newport)

Radice, Giles

Janner,HonGreville

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Richardson,Jo

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Roberts,Albert(Normanton)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Roberts,Allan(Bootle)

Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

Roberts,Ernest (Hackney N)

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Robertson,George

Jones, Dan(Burnley)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Kerr, Russell

Rooker, J. W.

Kilfedder,James A.

Roper,John

Kilroy-Silk,Robert

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Kinnock,Neil

Rowlands,Ted

Lambie,David

Ryman,John

Lamborn,Harry

Sandelson,Neville

Lamond,James

Sever,John

Leadbitter,Ted

Sheerman, Barry

Leighton,Ronald

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Litherland,Robert

Short, Mrs Renée

Lofthouse,Geoffrey

Silverman,Julius

Lyon,Alexander(York)

Skinner,Dennis

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

Smith,Cyril(Rochdale)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

McDonald,DrOonagh

Snape, Peter

McGuire,Michael(Ince)

Soley,Clive

McKay,Allen (Penistone)

Spriggs,Leslie

McKelvey,William

Stallard, A. W.

MacKenzie,Rt Hon Gregor

Steel, Rt Hon David

McMahon,Andrew

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

McNally,Thomas

Stoddart,David

McNamara,Kevin

Stott,Roger

McTaggart,Robert

Strang,Gavin

McWilliam,John

Straw,Jack

Marks,Kenneth

Summerskill,HonDrShirley

Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)

Thomas,Dafydd(Merioneth)

Marshall,DrEdmund (Goole)

Thomas,Jeffrey(Abertillery)

Marshall,Jim (LeicesterS)

Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)

Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)

Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Tilley,John

Maxton,John

Tinn,James

Maynard,MissJoan

Torney,Tom

Meacher,Michael

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Mellish,Rt Hon Robert

Wainwright,E.(DearneV)

Mikardo,Ian

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Watkins,David

Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

Weetch,Ken

Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)

Wellbeloved,James

Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

Welsh,Michael

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Whitehead, Phillip

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Whitlock,William

Morton,George

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

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

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

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Winnick,David

Newens,Stanley

Woodall,Alec

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Woolmer,Kenneth

Ogden,Eric

Wrigglesworth,Ian

O'Halloran,Michael

Wright,Sheila

O'Neill,Martin

Young, David (Bolton E)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Palmer,Arthur

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Park,George

Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Parker,John

NOES

Adley,Robert

Ancram,Michael

Aitken,Jonathan

Arnold,Tom

Alexander,Richard

Aspinwall,Jack

Alison,Rt Hon Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Amery,Rt Hon Julian

Atkins.Robert(PrestonN)

243

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

Fox,Marcus

Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Fry, Peter

Banks,Robert

Gardiner,George(Reigate)

Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Bendall, Vivian

Garel-Jones,Tristan

Bennett, SirFrederic(T'bay)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Best, Keith

Goodhew,SirVictor

Bevan, David Gilroy

Goodlad,Alastair

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gow, Ian

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Grant,Anthony (HarrowC)

Blackburn,John

Greenway,Harry

Blaker,Peter

Griffiths,Peter Portsm'thN)

Body,Richard

Grist, Ian

Bonsor,SirNicholas

Grylls,Michael

Boscawen,HonRobert

Gummer,JohnSelwyn

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Hamilton, HonA.

Boyson,DrRhodes

Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)

Braine,SirBernard

Hannam,John

Bright,Graham

Haselhurst,Alan

Brinton,Tim

Hastings,Stephen

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hawksley,Warren

Brotherton,Michael

Hayhoe, Barney

Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Heddle,John

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Henderson,Barry

Bryan,Sir Paul

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt.Hon.A.

Hicks,Robert

Buck,Antony

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Budgen,Nick

Hill, James

Bulmer,Esmond

Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

Burden,SirFrederick

Hooson,Tom

Butcher,John

Hordern,Peter

Cadbury,Jocelyn

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

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

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

Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

Chapman,Sydney

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Churchill,W.S.

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

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

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kaberry,SirDonald

Clegg, Sir Walter

Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine

Cockeram,Eric

Kimball,SirMarcus

Cope,John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Cormack, Patrick

Kitson,SirTimothy

Corrie,John

Knight, MrsJill

Costain,SirAlbert

Knox, David

Cranborne,Viscount

Lang, Ian

Crouch,David

Langford-Holt,SirJohn

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Latham,Michael

Dorrell,Stephen

Lawrence, Ivan

Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Dover,Denshore

Lee, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

LeMarchant, Spencer

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

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,SirWilliam

Loveridge,John

Emery, Sir Peter

Luce, Richard

Eyre,Reginald

Lyell, Nicholas

Fairbairn, Nicholas

McCrindle, Robert

Fairgrieve,SirRussell

Macfarlane,Neil

Faith, MrsSheila

MacGregor,John

Farr,John

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Fell,SirAnthony

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)

Finsberg,Geoffrey

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

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Madel, David

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

Major,John

Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

Marlow,Antony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Marshall,Michael (Arundel)

Forman,Nigel

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Fowler, RtHon Norman

Mates,Michael

244

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Shelton,william(Streatham)

Mawby, Ray

Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Shepherd,Richard

Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

Shersby,Michael

Mayhew,Patrick

Silvester,Fred

Mellor,David

Sims, Roger

Meyer, SirAnthony

Skeet, T. H. H.

Miller,Hal (B'grove)

Smith,Dudley

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Speed,Keith

Miscampbell,Norman

Speller,Tony

Mitchell,David(Basingstoke)

Spence,John

Moate,Roger

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Monro,SirHector

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Montgomery,Fergus

Sproat,Iain

Moore,John

Squire,Robin

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Stanbrook,Ivor

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stanley,John

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Steen,Anthony

Mudd,David

Stevens,Martin

Murphy,Christopher

Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)

Myles, David

Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)

Neale,Gerrard

Stokes,John

Needham,Richard

Stradling Thomas,J.

Nelson,Anthony

Tapsell, Peter

Neubert,Michael

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Newton,Tony

Tebbit,Rt Hon Norman

Normanton,Tom

Temple-Morris,Peter

Nott, Rt Hon John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Onslow,Cranley

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Thompson,Donald

Osborn,John

Thorne,Neil(IlfordSouth)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Thornton,Malcolm

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Townend,John(Bridlington)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Parris, Matthew

Trippier,David

Patten,Christopher(Bath)

Trotter,Neville

Patten, John (Oxford)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Pattie,Geoffrey

Vaughan,DrGerard

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Percival,Sir Ian

Waddington,David

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Wakeham,John

Pink, R.Bonner

Waldegrave,HonWilliam

Pollock,Alexander

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

Porter, Barry

Walker, B. (Perth)

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wall,SirPatrick

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Waller, Gary

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Walters,Dennis

Rathbone,Tim

Ward,John

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Warren,Kenneth

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Watson,John

Renton,Tim

Wells,John(Maidstone)

Rhodes James, Robert

Wheeler,John

Rhys Williams, SirBrandon

Whitelaw,Rt Hon William

Ridley, HonNicholas

Whitney,Raymond

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Wickenden, Keith

Rifkind,Malcolm

Wiggin,Jerry

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Wilkinson,John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Williams,D.(Montgomery)

Rossi, Hugh

Winterton,Nicholas

Rost, Peter

Wolfson,Mark

Royle, SirAnthony

Young, SirGeorge(Acton)

Sainsbury,HonTimothy

Younger, Rt Hon George

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Scott,Nicholas

Tellers for the Noes

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

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 expresses its concern about the situation in parts of Central America, endorses the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to encourage democracy and stability in the region,

245
welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government and this House to inform themselves about developments, and supports Her Majesty's Government's intention to help achieve a just and lasting end to the fighting in El Salvador.'.
It being after Ten o'clock,MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (7) and (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to put at that hour.

Central America

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1982–83 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Question,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1983 a number not exceeding 76,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service,
  put and agreed to.

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1982–83 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Question,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1983 a number not exceeding 186,000 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 60,000 for the Regular Reserve, a number not exceeding 88,000 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 12,600 for the Ulster Defence Regiment,
  put and agreed to.

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1982–83 (AIR) VOTE A
  Question,
  That during the year ending on 31 st March 1983 a number not exceeding 95,000 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 10,775 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 1,000 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force,
  put and agreed to.

  CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1981–82
  Question put,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,051,785,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1982 for expenditure on Civil Services, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 174 and 197:—
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 249.

  Division No. 82]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley,Robert

  Braine,SirBernard

  Aitken,Jonathan

  Bright,Graham

  Alexander,Richard

  Brinton,Tim

  Alison, RtHon Michael

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Ancram,Michael

  Brotherton, Michael

  Arnold,Tom

  Brown,Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Aspinwall,Jack

  Bruce-Gardyne,John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

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

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)

  Buck,Antony

  Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Budgen,Nick

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Bulmer,Esmond

  Banks, Robert

  Burden,SirFrederick

  Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

  Butcher,John

  Bendall,Vivian

  Cadbury,Jocelyn

  Bennett, Sir Frederic(T'bay)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

  Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

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

  Best, Keith

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chapman,Sydney

  Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

  Churchill,W.S.

  Blackburn,John

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Body,Richard

  Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bonsor,SirNicholas

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Boscawen,HonRobert

  Cockeram,Eric

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Conlan,Bernard

  Boyson,DrRhodes

  Cope,John

  246

  Cormack,Patrick

  Kitson,SirTimothy

  Corrie,John

  Knight,MrsJill

  Costain,SirAlbert

  Knox,David

  Cranborne,Viscount

  Lang, Ian

  Crouch,David

  Langford-Holt,SirJohn

  Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

  Latham,Michael

  Dorrell,Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dover,Denshore

  Lee, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  LeMarchant,Spencer

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lennox-Boyd,HonMark

  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,SirWilliam

  Loveridge,John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Luce,Richard

  Eyre,Reginald

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fairbairn,Nicholas

  McCrindle,Robert

  Fairgrieve,SirRussell

  Macfarlane,Neil

  Faith, MrsSheila

  MacGregor,John

  Farr,John

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Fell,SirAnthony

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)

  Finsberg,Geoffrey

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

  Fisher,SirNigel

  Madel,David

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

  Major,John

  Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

  Marlow,Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

  Forman,Nigel

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mates,Michael

  Fox,Marcus

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mawby, Ray

  Fry, Peter

  Mawhinney,DrBrian

  Gardiner,George(Reigate)

  Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mayhew,Patrick

  Garel-Jones,Tristan

  Mellor,David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Meyer, SirAnthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miller,Hal(B'grove)

  Goodhart,SirPhilip

  Mills,Iain(Meriden)

  Goodhew,SirVictor

  Miscampbell,Norman

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  Gow, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

  Monro,SirHector

  Greenway,Harry

  Montgomery,Fergus

  Griffiths,Peter Portsm'th N)

  Moore,John

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Grylls,Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Gummer,JohnSelwyn

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hamilton, HonA.

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)

  Murphy,Christopher

  Hannam,John

  Myles, David

  Haselhurst,Alan

  Neale,Gerrard

  Hastings,Stephen

  Needham,Richard

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Nelson,Anthony

  Hawksley,Warren

  Neubert,Michael

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton,Tony

  Heddle,John

  Normanton,Tom

  Henderson,Barry

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow,Cranley

  Hicks,Robert

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Osborn,John

  Hill,James

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hooson,Tom

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hordern,Peter

  Parris,Matthew

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

  Patten,Christopher(Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Patten,John (Oxford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pattie,Geoffrey

  Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Percival,Sir Ian

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pink, R.Bonner

  JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

  Pollock,Alexander

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Kaberry,SirDonald

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Kimball,SirMarcus

  Raison, Rt HonTimothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rathbone,Tim

  247

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton,Tim

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  RhodesJames,Robert

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  RhysWilllams,SirBrandon

  Thompson,Donald

  Ridley,HonNicholas

  Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)

  Ridsdale,SirJulian

  Thornton,Malcolm

  Rifkind,Malcolm

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trippier,David

  Rossi, Hugh

  Trotter, Neville

  Rost, Peter

  van Straubenzee, SirW.

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, DrGerard

  Sainsbury, HonTimothy

  Viggers, Peter

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Waddington,David

  Scott,Nicholas

  Wakeham,John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Waldegrave,HonWilliam

  Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Shelton,William(Streatham)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Shepherd,Richard

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Shersby,Michael

  Waller,Gary

  Silvester, Fred

  Walters,Dennis

  Sims, Roger

  Ward,John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Warren,Kenneth

  Smith,Dudley

  Watson,John

  Speed, Keith

  Wells,John(Maidstone)

  Speller,Tony

  Wheeler,John

  Spence,John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Sproat,Iain

  Wiggin,Jerry

  Squire,Robin

  Wilkinson,John

  Stanbrook,Ivor

  Williams,D.(Montgomery)

  Stanley,John

  Winterton,Nicholas

  Steen,Anthony

  Wolfson,Mark

  Stevens,Martin

  Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

  Stewart,A. (ERenfrewshire)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Stokes,John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  StradlingThomas,J.

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  NOES

  Adams,Allen

  Cohen,Stanley

  Allaun,Frank

  Coleman,Donald

  Alton,David

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Anderson,Donald

  Cook, Robin F.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cowans, Harry

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Ashton,Joe

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

  Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)

  Crawshaw,Richard

  Bagier,Gordon A.T.

  Crowther,Stan

  Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)

  Cryer,Bob

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Cunliffe,Lawrence

  Beith,A.J.

  Cunningham,G. (IslingtonS)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)

  Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Dalyell,Tam

  Bidwell,Sydney

  Davidson,Arthur

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Boothroyd,MissBetty

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b'ro)

  Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

  Bradley,Tom

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Brocklebank-Fowler,C.

  Dewar,Donald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  Dixon,Donald

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

  Dobson, Frank

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

  Dormand,Jack

  Brown,Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

  Douglas,Dick

  Buchan,Norman

  Douglas-Mann,Bruce

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

  Dubs,Alfred

  Campbell,Ian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Campbell-Savours,Dale

  Dunn, James A.

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunnett,Jack

  Carmichael,Neil

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Eadie,Alex

  Cartwright,John

  Eastham, Ken

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

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

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

  248

  Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)

  Marks,Kenneth

  English,Michael

  Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)

  Ennals,Rt Hon David

  Marshall,DrEdmund(Goole)

  Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)

  Marshall,Jim (LeicesterS)

  Evans,John(Newton)

  Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)

  Ewing,Harry

  Mason,Rt Hon Roy

  Faulds,Andrew

  Maxton,John

  Field,Frank

  Maynard,MissJoan

  Fitch,Alan

  Meacher,Michael

  Fitt,Gerard

  Mellish,Rt Hon Robert

  Flannery,Martin

  Mikardo,Ian

  Fletcher,L.R.(Ilkeston)

  Millan,Rt Hon Bruce

  Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

  Miller,Dr M.S.(E Kilbride)

  Foot,Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)

  Ford,Ben

  Mitchell,R.C.(Soton Itchen)

  Forrester,John

  Morris,Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)

  Foster,Derek

  Morris,Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)

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

  Morris,Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Freeson,Rt Hon Reginald

  Moyle,Rt Hon Roland

  Freud,Clement

  Mulley,Rt Hon Frederick

  Garrett,John (NorwichS)

  Newens,Stanley

  George,Bruce

  Oakes,Rt Hon Gordon

  Gilbert,Rt Hon Dr John

  Ogden,Eric

  Graham,Ted

  O'Halloran,Michael

  Grant,George(Morpeth)

  O'Neill,Martin

  Grant,John (IslingtonC)

  Orme,Rt Hon Stanley

  Grimond,Rt Hon J.

  Owen,Rt Hon Dr David

  Hamilton,James(Bothwell)

  Palmer,Arthur

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

  Park,George

  Harrison,Rt Hon Walter

  Parker,John

  Hart,Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Parry,Robert

  Hattersley,Rt Hon Roy

  Pavitt,Laurie

  Healey,Rt Hon Denis

  Penhaligon,David

  Heffer,Eric S.

  Pitt,WilliamHenry

  Hogg,N.(EDunb't'nshire)

  Powell,Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Price,C.(Lewisham W)

  HomeRobertson,John

  Race,Reg

  Homewood,William

  Radice,Giles

  Horam,John

  Rees,Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Howells,Geraint

  Richardson,Jo

  Hoyle,Douglas

  Roberts,Albert(Normanton)

  Huckfield,Les

  Roberts,Allan(Bootle)

  Hughes,Mark(Durham)

  Roberts,Ernest (HackneyN)

  Hughes,Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roberts,Gwilym (Cannock)

  Hughes,Roy (Newport)

  Robertson,George

  Janner,HonGreville

  Robinson,G.(Coventry NW)

  Jay,Rt Hon Douglas

  Rodgers,Rt Hon William

  Johnson,James (Hull West)

  Rooker,J.W.

  Johnson,Walter (Derby S)

  Roper,John

  Johnston,Russell(Inverness)

  Ross,Ernest (Dundee West)

  Jones,Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Rowlands,Ted

  Jones,Barry (Bast Flint)

  Ryman,John

  Jones,Dan (Burnley)

  Sandelson,Neville

  Kaufman,Rt Hon Gerald

  Sever,John

  Kerr,Russell

  Sheerman,Barry

  Kilfedder,James A.

  Sheldon,Rt Hon R.

  Kilroy-Silk,Robert

  Shore,Rt Hon Peter

  Kinnock,Neil

  Short,Mrs Renée

  Lambie,David

  Sllverman,Julius

  Lamborn,Harry

  Skinner,Dennis

  Lamond,James

  Smith.Cyril(Rochdale)

  Leadbitter,Ted

  Smith,Rt Hon J.(N Lanark)

  Leighton,Ronald

  Snape,Peter

  Lewis,Ron (Carlisle)

  Soley,Clive

  Litherland,Robert

  Spriggs,Leslie

  Lofthouse,Geoffrey

  Stallard,A.W.

  Lyon,Alexander(York)

  Steel,Rt Hon David

  Lyons,Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Stewart,Rt Hon D.(W Isles)

  Mabon,Rt Hon Dr J.Dickson

  Stoddart,David

  McCartney,Hugh

  Stott,Roger

  McDonald,DrOonagh

  Strang,Gavin

  McGuire,Michael(Ince)

  Straw,Jack

  McKay,Allen (Penistone)

  Summerskill,HonDrShirley

  McKelvey,William

  Thomas,Dafydd (Merioneth)

  MacKenzie,Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McMahon,Andrew

  Thomas,DrR.(Carmarthen)

  McNally,Thomas

  Thorne,Stan(PrestonSouth)

  McNamara,Kevin

  Tilley,John

  McTaggart,Robert

  Tinn,James

  McWilliam,John

  Torney,Tom

  249

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

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

  Wainwright,E.(DearneV)

  Winnick,David

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Woodall,Alec

  Watkins, David

  Woolmer,Kenneth

  Weetch,Ken

  Wrigglesworth,Ian

  Wellbeloved,James

  Wright,Sheila

  Welsh,Michael

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  White, J.(G'gow Pollok)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitlock,William

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

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

  Mr. George Morton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1981–82
  Question,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £407,552,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1982 for expenditure on Civil and Defence Services as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 173 and 179,
  put and agreed to.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1980–81
  Question,
  That a sum not exceeding £14,620,065·17 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended 31 March 1981, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 172,
  put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1981 and 1982; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Rampton Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
10.29 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having given me the opportunity to raise this Adjournment debate, and the Attorney-General for coming to the Chamber to answer it. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who are here to give me a great deal of support, as they have done throughout the long troubles of Rampton hospital.
It is nearly three years since a television programme called "The Secret Hospital" was broadcast by Yorkshire Television on 15 May 1979. It was, in effect, trial by television. To call it a show trial would not be too abusive a term. Before the programme, there had been several investigations into Rampton hospital. In 1968 the Dolphin report was published; in 1969 a Select Committee looked at the situation; in 1971 there was the hospitals advisory committee; and in 1973 there was the Elliott report. There were further reports by the General Nursing Council, the Butler committee and even The Guardian. Over a thousand visitors a year have visited the hospital, ranging from church councils to women's institutes. It could hardly be called a secret hospital. Although it was a top security hospital there was no secret as to the treatment given to the patients.
The Yorkshire Television programme alleged that patients had been kept naked and abused, had been beaten up and kicked with hobnail boots and had been strangled with wet towels to restrain them. Many other allegations were made against the staff, ranging from theft to other serious offences. The programme was based on evidence submitted, in the main, by two ex-patients—a Mr. Stephen Wilkins, who had been convicted of raping an 83-year-old lady and who committed two more murders after his release just after the programme was shown, and a Mr. Len Harding who had originally been in Rampton for one attempted murder and after being released then murdered an old lady for 2s.6d. He was sent back to Rampton.
The allegations were serious and caused a nation-wide sensation in May 1979. Every newspaper in the country and every television programme demanded an investigation. The staff were abused in the local pubs and shops and their children were spat at in the street and abused in the playground. None of them at that time could reply because they were governed by the Civil Service secrecy laws which prevented them from making statements on the truth of the allegations or of defending themselves at all. Because of the serious allegations, the Secretary of State for Social Services referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and asked for a full inquiry into the organisation of the hospital. The Boynton committee was set up to report on every aspect of Rampton's organisation and administration.
The Boynton committee reported in December 1980, 18 months after it had been set up and 15 months ago. The committee did a good job of investigation. It recommended about 200 changes to the hospital, of which 195 were fairly trivial technical administrative changes which were in progress anyway. The vast majority of the evidence of the Boynton committee exonerated the staff

251
and found that there was no evidence of brutality or practices such as using a wet towel around the neck to restrain patients.
After the Boynton report it was thought that the Director of Public Prosecutions would wind up the investigations into the allegations. However, nearly three years after that television programme the Director of Public Prosecutions still insists on investigating allegations made during the programme and since by the staff. I have twice requested the Attorney-General to wind up the inquiry on the grounds that everything which could by now have been found out and traced would have been found out and traced. However, the Attorney-General refused.
Out of a staff of 600 at Rampton Hospital, 200 have now been questioned extensively about the allegations. About 30 of the staff were notified at one time or another that proceedings might be taken against them. Some of them were notified as long ago as August 1980. That notification is a blight on the person concerned and on the hospital. A person could spend as long as 18 months in that tense situation, never knowing when the phone will ring and whether they can book a holiday. Those notified do not know whether they can change their cars or take out hire purchase on a television, because they do not know what will happen in a couple of month's time.
That terrible form of mental torture affects marriages and the relationships and atmosphere in the hospital. There is also an effect on the livelihoods of those concerned. Once a charge has been made, the staff concerned are suspended on basic pay. They can lose anything between £125 and £300 per month in allowances for anti-social hours and overtime. That represents a savage attack on their standard of living before they have been found guilty. Indeed, four of the nurses have been charged and found not guilty. One of them lost £2,000 in allowances and pay that he did not retrieve, although he was found not guilty. Eventually, he had to sell his house and move into tied accommodation in the hospital. That is drastic and severe punishment for someone who was found not guilty.
Since the programme, between four and 16 top detectives have been at Rampton every day for almost three years, investigating the allegations. I do not know the cost of the inquiry, because it is impossible for us to ask questions. The questioning is being undertaken by the Nottinghamshire police. However, it must have cost £100,000 to carry it out. The police have travelled far and wide—to America and to the Continent—to check and cross-check the allegations.
Staff have been suspected of informing on each other and that has led to a bad relationship between those suspected—often unjustly—of being informers and others. Some of the alleged incidents occurred as long ago as 1961. Staff who have long since retired—one of them is aged 78—have been investigated. Staff have been placed in an intolerable position. Those who are being questioned are in day-to-day contact with their accusers. That is not involved in the normal questioning of suspects. Staff have to work with the patients who accused them of brutality. Naturally, some patients will taunt the staff, will refuse to do as they are told, and will threaten to make allegations against the staff and to have them taken to court if they try to impose any discipline.
Hon. Members must remember that there are 600 patients, with records of severe violence. Many of them have long records of murder, violent assault and rape. It is not unusual for staff to be attacked by patients. During
252
a three or four-year-period there were as many as 2,000 attacks on staff by patients and hospital treatment was required in 300 of those cases.
Relationships are being soured because of the investigations. The staff complain that police questioning of the patients has not been carried out properly. I merely repeat the allegations that have been made to me and do not comment on whether they are justified. However, last Saturday I met the staff and two of their solicitors, who backed up the staff's points. The staff say that patients have often been questioned for long periods without being informed that they could be legally represented.
The staff allege that some patients have been questioned as many as 23 times in three months and that they have been kept without food and water for several hours during questioning. It is said that patients are being returned to the wards late in the evening in a distressed state. The staff allege that even high-grade psychopaths have returned in the evening, distressed at the police's incessant questioning. In addition, it has been difficult to calm them after such questioning.
The staff also allege that several patients wanted to withdraw statements that they had made and that the police refused that request. I stress that those interviewed, cross-examined and used as witnesses have been very ill, and have backgrounds of being mentally disturbed. Therefore, there is great concern.
The Prison Officers Association, the union that the nurses belong to, alleges that the police themselves are fed up with the whole business, that they are saying in confidence or informally to the nurses that it is a waste of time, that it has gone beyond a joke, and that there is nothing more to be found by the incessant questioning.
The feeling is that the Director of Public Prosecutions was going to draw the examination to a halt last summer, but that for some reason there was a change of mind. The information that I been asked to put to the Attorney-General is that a Mr. Maitland of the DPP's office was suddenly taken off the investigations last summer, that a lady replaced him, and that the investigations continued.
The nurses allege—I am not saying that this is true; I am merely doing my job as a Member representing them, by presenting their allegations to the Minister in charge—that all too often there has been pressure by influential relatives of patients in Rampton, threatening to allege that there has been a whitewash or cover-up if further prosecutions are not brought, and if the present situation is allowed to continue. I think that one person has been convicted after three years of the examination.
Surely three years must be long enough for any investigation—where the suspects and witnesses are there, in the same place. There is no need to search for an assassin, as with the Yorkshire Ripper. There is no question of witnesses being dead, like the victims of the Yorkshire Ripper. The accusers and the accused are there together under one roof. Surely there is no reason why the end of the investigations should not have been reached after three years.
I have been putting serious allegations to the Attorney-General on behalf of my constituents. I am grateful to the House and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this opportunity to put them, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, from neighbouring constituencies, for being here tonight and for the support that they have given me in the past.
10.42 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has dealt with the problem. He will appreciate that I shall take a certain amount of care in replying to him, because a number of cases are pending.
I should like to summarise the facts, which have also been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. Following the programme on Yorkshire Television in May 1979, the then Secretary of State asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate the allegations made on that programme. The Secretary of State also set up an independent review team under Sir John Boynton, which, in its report in 1980, made about 200 recommendations.
The central recommendation was the establishment of a review board, which was appointed last September. I understand that the board is making good progress to tackle the shortcomings identified in the Boynton report, and in implementing most of the specific recommendations.
The chairman of the review board and the management of the hospital are of course concerned about the length of the inquiry, just as the hon. Gentleman's constituents are, and they also have made representations on behalf of the staff.
I have been personally aware of the investigation since it was started, and I have corresponded about it on at least two occasions with the hon. Gentleman, as well as with other people. I should like to make it quite clear—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me—that the Director of Public Prosecutions and I appreciate the problems caused by an investigation which occupies this length of time. We are conscious of the need to bring it to a conclusion, when the inquiry has been properly carried out.
The DPP has a senior member of his staff on day-to-day supervision of the case. The hon. Gentleman was right: it was a Mr. Maitland, who was replaced last autumn by another of the DPP's senior professional staff. That was a routine shift involving a number of members of the DPP's staff, which required Mr. Maitland to go to another department. That is the only reason for the substitution. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing sinister in it.
I am sure that the House would agree that it is unthinkable in a civilised society that, for whatever reason, we should fail to try to protect adequately the interests of those who are less able than us to look after themselves. That applies especially to such a hospital, where there is probably, in almost every case, a degree of mental instability.
However, we must face the fact that there were over 800 allegations, many of them of great gravity. Since then—as is inevitable in such an inquiry—during the investigation many more allegations have been made. What happens is that Mr. X is seen because the investigator has been told by Mr. Y, who has complained, that Mr. X saw the incident. The investigator goes to see
254
Mr. X, who says "Yes, I saw that, but you should know that I also suffered at the hands of a nurse". In a sense, matters tend to snowball.
It is appreciated that the complainants may have unjust or improper reasons to complain, especially in a community such as Rampton. However, we must be satisfied that in the end justice has been done. There are too many occasions—I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—when the cry of "cover-up" is raised if one stops an investigation. If the allegation is serious, it must be examined. The trivial allegations are much easier to dispose of.
If one considers the matter impartially—I am sure that it must have crossed the minds of some of his constituents who work in the hospital—it cannot be in the interests of the staff or the patients that there should be any feeling that the matter has not been inquired into fully.
The present position is that four cases have been completed, involving five prison officers, four of whom were acquitted. There are four more cases awaiting trial, one due to begin shortly, with four defendants. There is a second case involving five defendants, a third involving two and a fourth involving one. The Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether to prosecute in four further cases, which, if he does, would involve another nine nurses.
Thus, it seems that we are at last approaching the end of the investigation. I cannot guarantee that that is the sum total of cases, since the police investigation into some outstanding allegations has not yet been completed, but it looks as though we have reached the end. However, everyone is anxious and aware of the need to achieve finality. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Director of Public Prosecutions and I are as conscious of that as everyone else.
May I end by paying a tribute to the staff at Rampton hospital. Theirs is a most demanding task, and the way in which they care for so many of the most seriously disturbed members of our society is widely recognised in Britain.
Mr. Ashton: Although it may not be a matter for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department, is there any way in which the staff who have been acquitted can have some form of compensation for loss of earnings or for any monetary loss that they may have suffered while suspended from duty?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is not a matter for me. I am concerned only with the mechanics of the prosecution process. If someone who has been acquitted can show that he has been put to a loss for which he should be compensated, it is a proper case for the Home Office to consider. Questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o' clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Greenland Fisheries
  Greenland Fisheries
  Denmark (Herring Catches)
  Denmark (Herring Catches)
  European Community (Exports to Russia)
  European Community (Exports to Russia)
  European Community (Intervention Stores)
  European Community (Intervention Stores)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Surplus Food
  Surplus Food
TRADE
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Pharmaceuticals
  Pharmaceuticals
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  European Community
  European Community
  Clothing Imports
  Clothing Imports
  Man-made Fibres (Imports)
  Man-made Fibres (Imports)
SCOTLAND
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Birth Weights
  Birth Weights
  Mortality Rates
  Mortality Rates
  Health and Unemployment
  Health and Unemployment
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
WALES
  M4 (Road Signs)
  M4 (Road Signs)
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
PAYMASTER GENERAL
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Street Crimes
  Street Crimes
  Strangeways Prison
  Strangeways Prison
  Criminals (Deportation)
  Criminals (Deportation)
  Police Service
  Police Service
  Racially Sensitive Areas
  Racially Sensitive Areas
  Grand National
  Grand National
  Resettlement of Offenders
  Resettlement of Offenders
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
ENERGY
  Sellafield (Radioactivity)
  Sellafield (Radioactivity)
  Oil Resources (Depletion)
  Oil Resources (Depletion)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Mr. Jack Lundin
  Mr. Jack Lundin
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Mr. T. Stuttaford
  Mr. T. Stuttaford
  Secretary of State for Employment
  Secretary of State for Employment
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Turkey
  Turkey
  President Reagan
  President Reagan
  National and Local Government (Privatisation)
  National and Local Government (Privatisation)
  Warsaw
  Warsaw
  Bedfordshire
  Bedfordshire
  Wales
  Wales
  Turriff, Aberdeenshire
  Turriff, Aberdeenshire
  Oral Questions (London)
  Oral Questions (London)
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Scottish Grand Committee
  Scottish Grand Committee
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Minister for Consumer Affairs
  Minister for Consumer Affairs
  Council of Europe
  Council of Europe
INDUSTRY
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Machine Tool Industry
  Machine Tool Industry
  Labour Productivity
  Labour Productivity
  Manchester and Salford
  Manchester and Salford
  Keighley
  Keighley
  Electronics Industry
  Electronics Industry
  Man-made Fibres Industry
  Man-made Fibres Industry
  Engineering Council
  Engineering Council
  New Technology
  New Technology
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Israel
  Israel
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Maclennan Inquiry
  Maclennan Inquiry
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Trade Unions (Political Levy)
  Trade Unions (Political Levy)
  Manpower Services Commission (Chairman)
  Manpower Services Commission (Chairman)
  Farm Workers
  Farm Workers
  Wandsworth
  Wandsworth
  Young Workers' Scheme
  Young Workers' Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance (North-West)
  Enterprise Allowance (North-West)
  Redundant Persons
  Redundant Persons
  Long-term Unemployment
  Long-term Unemployment
  Benefit and Redundancy Payments
  Benefit and Redundancy Payments
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Applications Registers (Company Practice)
  Applications Registers (Company Practice)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  European Community
  European Community
  County Durham
  County Durham
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Business and Professional Sector
  Business and Professional Sector
  Training
  Training
  Engineering Industry Training Board
  Engineering Industry Training Board
  Humberside
  Humberside
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Cumbria
  Cumbria
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Weekly Earnings
  Weekly Earnings
  Occupational Hazards
  Occupational Hazards
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Items in Lieu of Tax
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Suckled Calves
  Suckled Calves
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Murders
  Murders
  Unemployment (16 to 19-year-olds)
  Unemployment (16 to 19-year-olds)
  Liverpool-Belfast Ferry Service
  Liverpool-Belfast Ferry Service
  De Lorean Cars Ltd.
  De Lorean Cars Ltd.
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Ex-Prisoners of War
  Ex-Prisoners of War
  Riding Horses
  Riding Horses
  Tax Revenues
  Tax Revenues
  Prices
  Prices
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Government Departments (Costs)
  Government Departments (Costs)
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
DEFENCE
  Trident
  Trident
  Sting Ray
  Sting Ray
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Herring Catches
  Herring Catches
  Food (Ingredients)
  Food (Ingredients)
ENVIRONMENT
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Southampton (Western Esplanade)
  Southampton (Western Esplanade)
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Fluoride
  Fluoride
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmentally Sponsored Organisations (Manpower)
  Departmentally Sponsored Organisations (Manpower)
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Local Authorities (Fiduciary Duty)
  Local Authorities (Fiduciary Duty)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Psychogeriatric Wards
  Psychogeriatric Wards
  Smoking and Drinking (Legislation)
  Smoking and Drinking (Legislation)
  District Medical Officers
  District Medical Officers
  Alcohol and Malignant Disease
  Alcohol and Malignant Disease
  Acupuncture
  Acupuncture
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Hearing Aids (Insurance Cover)
  Hearing Aids (Insurance Cover)
  Health Care Statistics
  Health Care Statistics
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Waiting Times
  Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Vaccine Damage
  Vaccine Damage
  Pertussis Vaccine
  Pertussis Vaccine
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Child Deaths
  Child Deaths
  Vaccine Reactions Survey
  Vaccine Reactions Survey
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  "Care in the Community"
  "Care in the Community"
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Claimants (Computer Assistance)
  Claimants (Computer Assistance)
  Tobacco (Health Warning)
  Tobacco (Health Warning)
TRANSPORT
  Continental Lorries (Overloading)
  Continental Lorries (Overloading)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Side Guards)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Side Guards)
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts

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

Lord Forte
Sir Charles Forte, Knight, having been created Baron Forte, of Ripley in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Robens of Woldingham and the Lord Thorneycroft.

West London: Industrial Decline
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Molloy, and in his unavoidable absence, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper. May I also draw your Lordships' attention to a rather regrettable misprint? In the first line of the Question, as printed on the Order Paper, the word "present" should be "prevent".
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do to prevent the loss of light industry and the consequential rise in unemployment in West London; and whether they will make a statement.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are obviously concerned about the rise in unemployment throughout the country, as a result of the worldwide recession and the necessary restructuring of the British economy to deal with our longstanding industrial decline. The economy of West London has, in fact, suffered less than many parts of the country, and as the recession passes West London should be strongly placed to capitalise on the upturn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. Is he able to give to South-West London the same kind of assurance that he has given about West London?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, that is a separate question, which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, or the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, would be happy to table.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, contrary to the purport of his Answer, the widespread unemployment in the United Kingdom is not mainly due to the world depression? It is self-induced, due to the follies and ignorance of this Government.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, that, too, is a moderately separate question. But, in fact, as I told the noble Lord before, since we lost well over half our market share between 1960 and 1975, his assertion is not correct.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, despite the assurance which the Minister has given, is it not the case that light industries are closing down in Acton, Ealing and Southall? Are the Government's measures to help small businesses having any effect upon that?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the answer is: Yes, there are problems, for the reasons I gave in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, but there are also start-ups. The many schemes operated by my right honourable friend's department, aimed at encouraging new technology and small businesses, are available in this area which is geographically well located, and start-ups and improvements are taking place.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that under the previous Government the problem was to get firms to go out of London, and under this one the problem is to get them to come in and start businesses? Is he aware that the difficulties, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred, are just as apparent in South-West London as they are in all other parts of London, under the control of the present Government?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as I have already said, the reason for the current situation is, indeed, the recession. The period under the previous Administration—not the end of it—was one in which the growth of the free world had nearly doubled in the years that I have spoken of. We lost half our share and stood still. When that growth came to an end, recession was inevitable.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree—and as a citizen of Camden I must declare an interest—that one of the causes of small industries suffering in West London and in my N.W.1 area is the extreme height of the rates in those areas, which have been going up very fast and still appear to be going up fast? Would not something being done about the rates possibly do more to help small industries in all parts of London than anything else?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the increase of rates, and of costs of public sector activity generally, is one of the pressures on small businesses. My right honourable friends at the various departments are, as the noble Viscount knows, taking all possible action that they can to prevent that pressure from continuing to increase.

Travellers' Tax-Free Allowance Within EEC
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they

1173
are aware that the travellers' tax-free import allowance within European Community countries has remained unchanged for two years at £120, and whether they will now seek to increase the allowance.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the travellers' allowances are governed by Community legislation and can be increased only with the agreement of all member states. The intra-Community tax-free allowance in question has been under review by the Community for some time but so far without result. The Government have been and remain ready to agree to an increase in this allowance.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurance that the Government seek to increase the allowance. Would he, though, indicate to us whether he seeks an increase not only in line with inflation but also in real terms? Would he accept the principle that travellers, holidaymakers, should at the end of the day be allowed to bring in a reasonable amount of goods for their own use? After all, we are meant to have a Common Market.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that everything possible should be done to facilitate free movement among the member states of the Community. This is, however, a matter upon which the agreement of all member states is required, and so far it has not been possible to secure that agreement. The first step is to secure the increase of the present allowance, which is 180 European currency units, to the figure of 210 ECUs. Further increases are a matter which could be considered in the light of the circumstances then existing.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while supporting the general case which has been put forward by Question by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, may I ask the noble Lord, while he is pursuing his investigations into that aspect of the matter, to give consideration to bringing within the ambit of the Trade Descriptions Act the use of the words "duty free" by certain shops at various airports throughout the country?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is an important but quite a different question. The goods, in fact, are duty free. The point on which there is some difference of opinion is the extent of the mark-up applied by the traders in question to the ex-duty price.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, knowing the speed at which the EEC works, can the Minister give any forecast of the date when these negotiations are likely to be concluded?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I fear that I cannot give my noble friend the assurance for which he asks. We would hope, however, that agreement on the increase from 180 to 210 units would be secured in the not too distant future.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, does the noble Lord look with equanimity and candour at the possibilities of bringing in cars a couple of thousand pounds cheaper than we can buy them in this market? If
1174
so, what effect will this have on the British car industry?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, in your Lordships' House I have to look upon everything with equanimity. Nevertheless, I do not think that even the noble Lord's ingenuity would succeed in acquiring a motor-car for the sum of £120 which is the subject matter of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it possible for my noble friend to identify at this juncture the major stumbling block, or stumbling blocks, in reaching agreement?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords. The problem is that on the Continent of Europe movement between one country and another is much easier than movement between this country and the Continent. As a result, there tends to be a great deal of cross-border shopping, and it is the potential growth of such shopping which worries a number of the member states of the Community.

The Public Trustee: Unit Trusts
2.58 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will authorise the Public Trustee to appoint two or more officially quoted investment trusts to manage the funds in their responsibility on a unit trust basis.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the Public Trustee is already able to purchase shares in commercial unit trusts on behalf of trusts under his control. He is also the manager of the common investment funds for the investment of private money held in court, and provision is being made in the Administration of Justice Bill, which is now before this House, for the Public Trustee to purchase shares in these funds on behalf of trusts under his control.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that some of us see some advantage—to a certain extent, anyhow—in differentiating the trust function of the Public Trustee from the investment function by making use of the undoubtedly strong skills in investment management in the leading unit trusts and other units in the City, thereby at the same time saving on management costs by contracting the very large number of existing portfolios by the use of unit trusts? Is my noble and learned friend aware that his Answer indicates that that is the direction in which the Public Trustee may be moving?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is a difference between the unit trust to which I referred in the last part of my Answer and the commercial unit trust to which my noble friend referred in the first part of his

1175
supplementary. Some use, of course, has been made of commercial unit trusts under the Public Trustee's existing powers, but it is not often appropriate to put the whole of a single trust fund, which may vary enormously in its requirements, into a single unit trust. The object of unitisation is defeated if a small fund is to be spread over a large number of investment schemes in the commercial sector. The purpose of the new power which is being taken is to enable the Public Trustee to use the three main common investment funds for the purpose of trusts under his control, which will not incur this particular disadvantage.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us understood the purpose of the Question to be to inquire whether the Public Trustee could appoint one or more officially quoted unit investment trusts to manage the funds in his responsibility? Will the noble and learned Lord give the House an assurance that, should it be necessary for the Public Trustee to seek outside advice for the purpose of managing the funds under his control, he will not use designated unit trusts for this purpose but will take ordinary professional advice, by hiring investment consultants, investment analysts or such other skilled personnel as he may require for this purpose?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the purpose of my noble friend's original Question; I hope that I did not. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the Public Trustee has already the benefit of the advice of an honorary investment advisory committee. This is comprised of senior representatives from investment trusts, banks, merchant banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, and it meets five times a year to discuss our investment policy.

Part-Time Courses: Supplementary Benefit
3.2 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 they intend should be the effect on the entitlement to supplementary benefit of those unemployed persons who take up or who wish to take up part-time courses of up to 21 hours a week.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Government's policy is reflected in Regulation 7(2) of the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981. These continue the practice of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. They provide that an unemployed person engaged in courses of up to 21 hours a week continues to be entitled to supplementary benefit, provided he is prepared to terminate the course immediately if a suitable job vacancy becomes available and he fulfils the other conditions set out in that
1176
regulation. The detailed provisions of this regulation are under review at present.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that advice has gone out to some regional DHSS offices saying that, for those unemployed persons studying under the 21-hour rule, the 21 hours must now include the lunch break and private study? Is that DHSS policy and has the DES been consulted about this? Why has this instruction gone out if the matter is still under review?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the chief supplementary benefits officer is, I understand, about to publish guidance on the interpretation of the regulation. This will advise that the 21 hours should be interpreted as including all the time spent on the course; that is, time spent on project work, on private study and on lunch breaks, as well as actual teaching time. I should explain that his earlier advice, that only actual teaching time should count towards the 21 hours, would have had the effect of bringing within the scope of the concession, for example, sixth formers taking a full set of A-levels. Having taken further legal advice, he took the view that this was inconsistent with the original spirit of the concession, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. I should perhaps add that the chief supplementary benefits officer is independent from Ministers and is not required to consult with other departments.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some time ago I asked a similar Question? If the matter is now receiving special attention, will the Minister see to it that the position is clarified as soon as possible? My information is that educational practice is being cut down so that the education and feeding time come within 21 hours. The matter certainly needs clarifying. It will do good for the country if this matter is clarified and made clear to the public.
Lord Elton: My Lords, of course I will take note of what the noble Lord has said. If the noble Lord will cast his mind back to the day when he was a student he will recall that 21 hours of study is quite a long time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would agree to have a look at the special case of refugees, in the light of a case which I have drawn to the attention of his department concerning three young Cambodian refugees who wanted to take a course which would have been beneficial to them in adapting to life in England? They were young ladies from Cambodia, who wanted to acquire skills which would enable them to make a positive contribution to life in the United Kingdom. Is the Minister aware of the particular difficulties which generally arise in the case of refugees, because usually they do not have any relatives who would be able to make any contribution to their living costs? Therefore, it is essential for the refugees to be able to remain on the full supplementary benefit rate because the small allowances they would receive from LEAs would be totally inadequate to survive on.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this Government are well aware of the difficulties of refugees and we conduct ourselves towards them in a very humane manner. I will certainly take on board what the noble Lord has said and will take it back to the department with me.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, if one deducts from the limit of 21 hours five hours, say, for lunches and, say, 10 hours for private study one is left talking about one hour of study a day; that is what it reduces to, and this makes a nonsense of it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot say that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, although deeply respect his experience in the field of education. The length of a lunch hour is something I should not be prepared to prescribe, nor the scattering throughout the timeable of an institution of private study. As I understand it, when a person is required to be at an institution in order to pursue a course like this, all the time he is there counts towards the course and his qualification to supplementary benefit. If the person conducts private study at home or elsewhere, as I understand the regulations, that is nothing to do with it. It is not, therefore, a question of one hour of study a day but a question of enough study to do a part-time course as opposed to a whole-time course, because if it were a full-time course, the student would not benefit.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister two questions which occur to me. First, has he any idea of the numbers involved? Secondly, would he not agree that it is very unwise to persecute those who are striving to make the best of a bad job and to improve their prospects, pending the introduction of a fairer and more rational system of education maintenance allowances?
Lord Elton: My Lords, no assessment can be made at this stage of the number of cases. We are considering ways of monitoring. On the other question, I cannot accept that excluding all sixth form students from the area covered by supplementary benefit is in any way harrying part-time students who want to pursue a part-time career.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what is the policy in respect of day release trainees and apprentices who are made redundant or whose firms go bankrupt? Will they be allowed to continue their courses and to draw supplementary benefit, or will the whole value of the training they have had be lost?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is referring to the 12 months' unemployment requirement. This does not apply to people under the age of 21, and therefore if their courses amount to less than 21 hours a week and in other respects are in accord with the requirements of Regulation 7(2) then they will be able to continue their courses.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he will reply to an earlier question I asked him to
1178
which he did not respond: was the DES consulted before advice was sent out to DHSS offices?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I must re-emphasise that the advice does not originate from the Ministers of the department. It originates from the chief supplementary benefits officer, who is not a Minister and who does not operate under the direction of Ministers. I am not aware of whether he consulted with the DES or not, but that is his affair.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. Subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill may be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for a short period.
East Lindsey District Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time and referred to the Examiners.

Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 9th February, be approved. My right honourable friend who is now the Lord Privy Seal, in answering Questions on 19th March and 30th July of last year in another place, announced his decision to establish a Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland. The new department will take over the control functions of the present Northern Ireland Departments of Finance and of the Civil Service. It will be responsible for resource planning across the whole range of the functions exercised by the Northern Ireland Departments. The new department will also be responsible for personnel matters at present the responsibility of the Department of the Civil Service. Miscellaneous functions of the Department of Finance will be transferred to other departments.
This order gives effect to these decisions. Article 3 renames the Department of Finance as the Department of Finance and Personnel. Article 4 abolishes the Department of the Civil Service and transfers its functions to the Department of Finance and Personnel. Article 5 transfers miscellaneous functions of the Department of Finance to other departments. These

1179
are functions which would not be appropriate to the central control and personnel role of the new rationalised department. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved.— (The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for his explanatory outline of this order. The Minister will know of the great concern that was publicly expressed by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, that is the organisation in Northern Ireland representing civil service and public service staffs at all levels. The organisation was greatly annoyed and concerned when this departmental change was announced by the previous Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. Humphrey Atkins, in reply to a parliamentary Question in another place on 30th July last year. I think the manner in which it was announced may have given rise to some of the misgivings which subsequently emerged.
However, there was a series of discussions and consultations between the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance and the Government about the doubt and problems arising from the proposal. From informal consultations I have had with the officials of the Public Service Alliance I understand that, arising from a meeting with the noble Earl on 13th November last and a letter which the Minister sent on 8th December to the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, a number of the doubts have been removed and a fair measure of understanding has been reached.
In my discussions with the Public Service Alliance officials, I have every reason to believe that the organisation is fully committed to suitable consultations and negotiations about measures to improve efficiency. They are anxious that every effort should be made to provide an effective and efficient public service in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that the Public Service Alliance officials and the members of the organisation are somewhat reassured by the noble Earl's statement that the importance of the personnel functions are to be given a strong voice in the new department. It would be the wish of the Civil Service representatives that every facility should be given in the new organisation to the development of more progressive and enlightened personnel policies. With those remarks, I give our approval to the order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the Minister for introducing and explaining this order. I think it is a classic example of how complicated legal terminology can become, and how comparatively simple the basic aims. I am fascinated by the statement under "References in enactments" Article 7, subsection (2) which runs:
"The transfer of functions by this Order shall not affect any order, regulation, rule, appointment, direction, instruction, approval, requirement or authorisation made or given or other thing done (a splendid expression) by the transferor before the transfer date".
I imagine the legal draftsmen know what they are doing and I certainly would not challenge them on this point. I would only ask humbly that they might sometimes consider using the good old English word
1180
"begun" instead of the somewhat more ponderous "commence", as used here in the following subsection (3).
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I would like to support particularly the last remark of my noble friend on the Front Bench. We are quite prepared to support this order, but we are anxious that the noble Lord and his colleagues should be fully aware that when the facts which you have got to face are particularly difficult, as in Northern Ireland, altering the set-up of departments has very little to do with it.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords for their reception of the order. I would also like to take the opportunity, in commenting on their remarks, to pay my own tribute as the sponsoring Minister in Northern Ireland to the public service there, and to say, perhaps as a footnote to what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has just said, that whatever the problems in Northern Ireland, and there are many, the quality and calibre of the public servants and indeed of their unions are not the cause of these problems. They are excellent in calibre and quality, as I have personal reason to know.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, pointed out to the House that I met the union representatives on 13th November. We had a very full and frank discussion, and as a result I think I have been able to allay some of the anxieties which were then expressed. Of course, the new Department of Finance and Personnel, of which I am the sponsoring Minister, will continue to attach very high priority to good industrial relations in the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. The Civil Service unions will, of course, be able to take issues to the Permanent Secretary, and, where appropriate, to myself.
My Lords, it is the nature of the work of parliamentary draftsmen that they have to cover their bets. If they do not they quickly find themselves in difficulty. I will draw the point about the Saxon "begin" and the Latinate "commence" to their attention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
3.18 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrierose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
This draft order provides for the appropriation of both the 1981–82 spring Supplementary Estimates and the Sums Required on Account for 1982–83 by Northern Ireland Departments. These spring Supplementary Estimates represent the final adjustments to the spending plans of Northern Ireland Departments for this financial year as set out in the 1981–82 main Estimates and the

1181
autumn Supplementary Estimates covered by the Appropriation (No. 2) and (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Orders 1981 which were debated and approved by your Lordships' House in July and December 1981 respectively.
Detailed information on the draft order is to be found in the Estimates volume and the Statement of Sums Required on Account, copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office, and in the Explanatory Memorandum which I have circulated to those noble Lords who participated in the previous appropriation debate.
I shall now refer to the most important aspects of the draft order dealing first with the 1981–82 spring Supplementary Estimates which amount to £43·4 million. These bring total estimates provision for 1981–82 to £2,388·2 million. Under the heading of "Functioning of the Labour Market", that is to say Class II Vote 3, the House will see that a token Supplementary Estimate of £1,000 is sought to provide additional provision for demand-related grants schemes such as training on employers' premises, the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the job release scheme and apprentice training grants. I think that there is an error in my text and that that figure might be £1 million. Additional provision is also required to fund a severance scheme at Belfast Docks on which agreement may be reached in this financial year, and for the administrative costs of the industrial training boards until the end of 1981–82 pending the outcome of a review of their functions. A token Supplementary Estimate only is required for this vote—and may I now correct myself again? I am sorry about that, the figure is indeed £1,000—because sufficient savings to meet these additional needs have occurred in other areas. That is the point. The savings arise mainly because of a slower than anticipated expenditure rather than because of a deliberate reduction in planned expenditure.
Noble Lords will be aware that expenditure on this vote represents part of the Government's programme to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy and to alleviate the devastating unemployment in the Province. A permanent reduction in unemployment can only be achieved by world economic improvement, a stable financial climate in general, and in particular an increase in the level of new and productive investment in Northern Ireland. The Government are determined to play their part in bringing this about and your Lordships will recall that my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced on 13th August last year that the institutional arrangements in this field were to be quite radically reorganised with the setting up of a new industrial development board. Our plans are now well advanced, and I hope that we shall soon be able to publish a full account of our intentions along with the proposal for draft legislation. I would just add that the Government hope to announce the names of the chairman and the members of the board in time for them to start work—initially in parallel with the existing institutions—during next month.
At this point I have unfortunately to acquaint the House with an item of bad news. Some of your Lordships may have already heard of the statement made by my honourable friend the Minister of State
1182
responsible for industry on the closure of the British Enkalon factory at Antrim. This is sad and disappointing news particularly in view of the Government's willingness to consider substantial short-term assistance provided that the parent company could see a future for the Antrim factory, and also because of the improved productivity which was commendably achieved by the workforce in recent months. But the parent company has concluded that there is no prospect of commercial viability for its factory in Northern Ireland and the Government must, however reluctantly, accept that decision. It is to be hoped that the creation of the new industrial development board will enhance Northern Ireland's prospects of creating new jobs which will permanently sustain the local economy.
The current recessionary conditions all over the western world are not, of course, conducive to attracting inward investment. But in spite of these conditions there are some notable achievements by way of new investment such as Hyster and the expansion of well-established companies like Hughes Tool. I can assure the House that our performance in the Province in this field has not been hampered by lack of financial resources provided by the Government. As I have said, the world situation is having its effect but, of course, the image of violence portrayed abroad does not encourage would-be investors. That is why the Government are determined to play a part in encouraging the political progress that alone can consolidate the improved security position and alert investors at home and abroad to the many inherent strengths as well as to the potential strengths of the Northern Irish economy.
I turn now to those votes in the draft order for which the Department of the Environment is responsible and shall refer to the most significant items within them. An additional £9·1 million is being sought on the roads programme—Class IV, Vote 1—largely to meet the cost of a variety of urgent small-scale works, including a number which are related to housing projects and to commercial activities. The House will be aware, of course, that the road infrastructure of Northern Ireland is second to no other region in the Kingdom. Approximately £1·1 million of the extra provision is for repair of damage caused by rioting during the tragic hunger strike of last year, and for additional expenditure on street lighting because of increased electricity tariffs.
In the housing programme—that is to say Class V, Vote 1—a net additional provision of £11·8 million is being sought. The House will know from the announcement made on 6th January last by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that housing is regarded as a top priority within the social and environmental programmes for Northern Ireland and, indeed, the build-up towards the substantial increase in the housing programme announced at that time has already begun. The Supplementary Estimate reflects an increase of some £17·3 million in the housing grant payable to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, partly offset by shortfall in other parts of the Vote, giving us the net increase of £11·8 million. This addition of £17·3 million to the housing grant, combined with savings among other things in interest charges which fall in the housing executive's budget, will I believe enable the executive to redeem in 1981–82

1183
a £30 million bank loan which would otherwise fall due for repayment in 1982–83. Were such a repayment to be postponed until next year, our efforts to secure the expansion of the housing programme could be jeopardised and the improvement in the conditions of the Northern Ireland housing stock and the reduction of very urgent waiting lists would be further delayed.
The House will realise that crucial to all this has been the outstanding success of the Housing Executive in the sale of its houses to sitting tenants, and the consequent public expenditure resources which have been released as a result of this success. Not only is the Housing Executive's record in this respect altogether the best in the United Kingdom—local authorities please note—but the vast bulk of sales are being financed by private funds, chiefly through building society mortgages. I would like to offer my appreciation to the building societies who have responded so well to the encouragement which the Government and the Housing Executive have given them to expand their hoavities in Northern Ireland both in sales of executive ctiuses and also at the lower-priced end of the private market. The Government are very pleased that the societies are continuing with this support.
The supplementary provision sought for the Department of Education in Class VIII, Votes 1 and 2, relates mainly to increased costs arising from the 1981 teachers' salaries awards as well as additional costs arising through the deliberate expansion of the education service input to the Youth Opportunities Programme. Increases amounting to some £4·1 million on these Votes will be offset by decreases amounting to £1·3 million, largely resulting from revised estimates of provision required for a number of services.
I am sure that the House will be aware of considerable recent interest in the press and elsewhere on the question of teacher numbers. I think it is well worth making the point that, despite the very considerable pressures on public expenditure generally, despite the many competing priorities within Northern Ireland and also despite increased costs, nevertheless pupil/teacher ratios in Northern Ireland have been maintained.
The latest year for which actual figures are available is 1980–81, when the ratio in primary schools was 23.6 and that for the secondary sector, 15.5. In 1978–79 the equivalent figures were 23.8 and 15.6, so there was, in fact, a slight improvement. We expect, when final figures are available, that the resources being allocated to teachers in the current year will maintain pupil/teacher ratios at their present level, and the Government have already indicated that they will continue to attach the utmost priority, within the education budget, to provision for the teaching force in the next school year.
I shall now pass on to the health and personal social services field where provision is taken under Class IX in the Estimates. In Vote 1 the increase of £5.1 million consists of £5 million for additional expenditure by health and social services boards on backlog maintenance and replacement of essential equipment, and £0.1 million—£100,000—for grants to voluntary bodies in the health and personal social services sector. Under Vote 2, some £8.3 million is sought for demand determined expenditure mainly arising from general medical, pharmaceutical and welfare food services, and to a shortfall on receipts from health service contribu-
1184
tions. This is partly offset by savings on general dental and other services.
In the field of social security, falling under Class X in the Estimates, a net additional provision of £2.3 million is being sought in Vote 3—that is to say, family benefits—because the estimate of children qualifying for child benefit has been increased due to the growing tendency to remain at school beyond the minimum school-leaving age.
I turn now to the other element in the draft order; that is, sums required on account for 1982–83. These amount in total to £1,075.4 million and it is necessary to have these sums made available to Northern Ireland Departments by the beginning of the incoming financial year so as to enable services to continue until the balance of the 1982–83 main Estimates are debated and approved along with the next appropriation order, which will probably be debated in early July. The sums required on account for 1982–83 are calculated on the basis of a formula linked to the 1981–82 Estimates and, as such, they are not, of course, definitive of expenditure plans for 1982–83.
I trust that I have referred to the most important features of the draft order, but I know that individual noble Lords may well wish to raise other points. I am very much obliged to those noble Lords who have given me advance notice of the matters which are particularly of concern to them. I shall try to answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate. Those questions which remain unanswered will, of course, be dealt with in correspondence later. In the meantime, I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
3.34 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his outline presentation of this appropriation measure. I also wish to thank the noble Earl for making available, some two weeks ago, the Explanatory Memorandum which, as usual, has been most helpful. I have been looking in the Official Report at some of the previous debates on these various Northern Ireland appropriation orders. It appears to me that it has become customary on such occasions for those taking part to range widely over the prevailing economic and social conditions in Northern Ireland. Whatever may be the political merit of exercising this practice, it is obvious that when the appropriation order comes before us in this House there is little or no chance to change the amounts required for specified services. Nor is there any likelihood of additional finances being made available to improve existing services, where this may be considered desirable.
Last week I was privileged to share with others in several special industrial and community events held in Northern Ireland. These events were designed to attempt to find solutions to the desperate problems of chronic high unemployment and the serious decline in the Northern Ireland economy. Among those who played a leading part in some of the projects were the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Prior, and the noble Earl opposite, the Deputy Secretary of State, Lord Gowrie.
The noble Earl the Minister and this House will know that I strongly disagree with the Government's overall

1185
policies concerning the United Kingdom—social and economic policies which are having untoward results on employment and on industry in the Province, and which I believe are compounding our community tensions. However, it would be churlish of me if I omitted to state from this Box that Mr. Prior's and the noble Earl's positive, thoughtful and encouraging contributions to the events that they attended last week in Northern Ireland were warmly respected and supported. I would also add that it was pleasing to me to hear both the Secretary of State and his deputy, the noble Earl, pronounce that they were prepared to battle for the promotion of the Province's economic recovery and to work for the wellbeing of the Northern Ireland people. The noble Earl has clearly demonstrated that he is knowledgeably concerned about the current plight of Northern Ireland, and I believe that he has the commitment to tackle the problems resolutely.
Therefore, as we question and challenge some of these appropriation decisions, or the lack of decision, although we may not achieve any immediate change of direction, I am confident that the noble Earl will ponder and probe the relevancy of the points raised in this debate. I should like to turn to the order before us and to the spring Supplementary Estimates. I realise that it is extremely difficult to follow the type of discussion and debate that one would consider necessary in dealing with orders of this kind, because we are really dealing with four separate documents, and across the Floor of the House it is not an easy exercise to draw attention to them and to discuss them in a way that one would like. Nor do I want to become a single public accounts operator, or something like that.
However, there are matters which I think concern a number of people in Northern Ireland and I shall do my best to deal with them in a specific manner. First, I come to Class I—No. 5 relating to the Department of Agriculture. The heading is "A4—Programme for Forestry". The revised provision of £50,000 enables an increased uptake in grants to private planters. AZ shows a decrease of some £200,000 in the sales of forestry produce, and A3 indicates a decrease of some £47,000 on expenditure on the purchase of land and other capital equipment. I believe that there is wide support in the Province for a vigorous forestry development programme, and I welcome the increase in the Vote for grants to private planters, small as that amount is.
However, I would express concern about the decrease in purchases of land for forestry development. Was the loss of £200,000 on sales of produce due to a fall in quantity, quality or of standards—or was it price reductions? I should be glad to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the Forestry Division is being suitably encouraged to support the development of afforestation, improvements in forest recreation facilities and the efficient marketing of forestry produce.
I turn to Class II, concerning the Department of Manpower Services and the functioning of the labour market, to which the noble Earl made special reference in his presentation of the order. A Department of Manpower Services publication stresses that manpower and training are vital to the Province as a regional asset.
The publication states:
"the Government has striven actively to promote manpower and
1186
training arrangements directly related to the economic needs of Northern Ireland. Otherwise, plans for improving the unemployment position would be without practical significance. This inevitably entails a great deal of direct training activity by Government. Without it, it is impossible to break out of the vicious circle of restricted employment opportunities and hence limited opportunities to acquire a skill, which in turn must produce unused manpower reserves lacking immediate attractiveness to industry".
That is a clear and precise statement of improving the whole infrastructure of management and training schemes in Northern Ireland. It contrasts considerably with the position that we find when we examine the amounts in the appropriation order.
As to C.4, Training by Employers, Current Expenditure, the revised note is for an increase from £5 million to £7 million. I realise that the Minister has in his statement said that there has been a scaling down of the schemes. I may not be correctly quoting him here, but I understand he meant to convey at least that some of the schemes have not been taken to the full extent that was originally thought.
When we examine the Employment Services we find a surprising number and amount of decreases in expenditure. Under A.2, Employment Transfer Schemes, there is a decrease of £127,000; A.3, Enterprise Ulster, a decrease of £480,000; B.1, Schemes for the Disabled, a decrease of £4,000; allowances for disabled trainees, a decrease of £23,000; C.1, Government Training Centres, a decrease of £1,342,000; D.6, Youth Opportunities Programmes, a decrease of £2,296,000; and in D.12, Action for Community Employment, a decrease of £1,601,000.
It is apparent that there has been a marked change of policy and certainly a decrease of financial support for industrial training in Northern Ireland, a change which I believe has not the approval of employers nor of trade unions, nor indeed of educationists. Mr. Angus Gordon, chairman of the Northern Ireland Board of the British Institute of Management and a prominent leader of commerce in Northern Ireland, stated on 30th November last year:
"industry cannot afford to meet increased spending in the vital fields of training for young people and the re-training of adults. Further expansion in training must depend on Government".
Mr. David Tinkler, personnel director of Harland and Wolff, the Belfast shipyards, said at an apprenticeship prizegiving day meeting held on 17th February:
"Indeed, our fear must be that in the present economic climate we will be unable to provide training places to anything like our previous levels".
The noble Earl will know about the growing concern for the future of industrial and commercial training at all levels, and the awful hopelessness for the employment prospects of many young people.
May I ask the Minister whether he will consider making some urgent and fresh approaches to matters concerning the advisory, executive, and monitoring arrangements directly related to training and to the youth opportunity employment schemes? I am convinced from my experience over the years that there exists among trade unionists, management, educationists, and the Civil Service personnel a large fund of goodwill, experience and skill—goodwill, experience and skill which can be called upon to give leadership in the promotion of our valuable manpower assets, and especially in meeting the challenge of the new technology.

1187
In class IV.1, the Department of the Environment, Section E, Roads, other expenditure, the revised provision is for an increase of some £700,000 as compensation for damage for injury. Can the Minister indicate the nature of these claims and the reasons for the increase? In Section F, Transport Administration, which I think is related to the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, there is a purchase of office machinery to the amount of £162,000. I am all in favour of anything that may enable a more effective and efficient service, but it appears to me to be a large amount in respect of office machinery for an already long-established office.
Class IV.2, Transport Services, programme 4.2, Section A.1 Railways, grant towards concessionary fares reduced by £200,000; Section B, Road Passenger Services, grants towards concessionary fares reduced by £155,000. May I ask the Minister to whom these concessionary fares are made available? Does not the decline in the demand indicate a need by public service passenger transport—both rail and bus—to undertake some new marketing approaches to encourage the travelling public to use the public transport service? Section D, Road Safety Services, while I would be all for cutting out wasteful and unnecessary expenditure, here we have a reduction of £351,000, over one-quarter of the total budget for the road safety services. Can we be assured that these vital road safety services can be maintained, and indeed progressed and improved, with this particular cut?
The Department of the Environment, Housing Services, Section B.1, Assistance to the Voluntary Housing Movement: the expenditure on home improvement grants is considerably lower than expected, despite the fact that within the United Kingdom Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of dwellings capable of improvement; and also, that in the past five years the take-up has been growing dramatically. Is this not another indicator of the sad economic state of the Province and yet another example of the contradictions of a social strategy which depends greatly on private initiative and private investment at a time when the Government's economic policies are making private initiative—and private investment—more and more difficult?
Last year, and again this year, the Government announced massive rent increases. It is claimed that these steep rent increases are necessary to help in the financing of the housing programme by the Housing Executive. This may be so, but only if one adheres strictly to market values and the monetarist philosophy and blindly ignores the awful deprivation and terrible social consequences of bad housing, and indeed no housing for some people.
The Minister will know that many of the Northern Ireland district councils—that is, the local district councils—have in the past few weeks been, for the first time, united in supporting a call to withhold rent increases. I understand that at least three members of the board of the Housing Executive have publicly voiced opposition to the Housing Executive's financial programme being so dependent on these steep rent increases. The Minister in his opening statement said that the Government have given top social priority to
1188
housing, and this has been claimed on several occasions by Government spokesmen. Yet it seems that it is dependent so much on the capital investment to come from three major sources other than the Government. One is the building societies and finance from the sale of Housing Executive homes, about which the Minister has spoken and the efforts of which he has praised. From the point of view of the sale of publicly-owned housing, it has been, according to the Minister, the best in the United Kingdom, though in my view it has been an extremely bad thing and in the long term will not help in the provision of homes, and certainly it will not help to house the poorer sections of the community in Northern Ireland.
The second source on which the Government are depending is the integrated operations of the EEC, and the third is the rent increases of over 20 per cent. annually. Already arrears of rent to the Housing Executive are over £17 million, and the proposed increased rents will add greatly to the problems of arrears. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, in my view the rent increases are excessive with the result that the most vulnerable groups are being driven to further despair. Will the Minister urgently examine the financial arrangements of the Housing Executive in relation to housing needs generally, and will the Government undertake such a review in full consultation with the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Will the noble Earl also consider the general political and community consequences of the proposed new rent increases?
I come to Class V-I, the Department of the Environment, item A2 of which deals with water services. Under programme No. 6 we find, under new construction and improvements, a decrease of £800,000, while under the item concerning town and country planning and comprehensive development schemes we find a decrease of £1 million. It is stated that both have been caused by slippage in those two major capital works schemes, but is the Minister satisfied that everything has been done to progress those capital works programmes? Not only could those schemes have provided much-needed employment, but the improved services, particularly of water, could have greatly assisted the community, and of course the delay will probably lead to additional cost.
Finally, I come to the statement of sums required on account for 1982–83. As the Minister indicated, these are not definitive amounts of expenditure or plans for the next financial year, but there is a temptation, even at this stage in the debate, to try to influence the Minister to go along some different routes to promote the economic recovery of the Province and the wellbeing of the Northern Ireland people. However, from the several meetings we had last week in Northern Ireland, I know the noble Earl is fully apprised of the plight and problems of workers in many sections of the community. I will refer to a few, and I place them on the record so they may know that this House is concerned about them; this is not the time nor the occasion to debate such matters in detail, but as I say, they should be on the record.
We have De Lorean; the Belfast Shipyard; Short Brothers and Harland; the closure of mills and factories; the chronic male unemployment in Strabane, Newry, Derry and throughout the Province; the tragic closure,

1189
to which the Minister referred, of British Enkalon at Antrim; the many and growing number of closures and bankruptcies among small companies; the high unemployment among construction workers; the severe fall in incomes among the farming community; and the continuing problem of energy, particularly in relation to gas and electricity, with which I would have welcomed the opportunity to deal in detail, but I will not do so at this time.
Will the Minister consider making suitable arrangements for the Secretary of State, Mr. Prior, and the noble Earl himself, along with other Northern Ireland Ministers to undertake a series of urgent meetings with the Northern Ireland Economic Council with a view to enlisting the support and co-operation of all sections of the Northern Ireland community in a programme of industrial and economic recovery and development? The Minister referred to the forthcoming announcement in relation to the Industrial Development Board. I welcome the announcement on the subject, although we have certain reservations about its structure and the way in which it will come into being. It will certainly be some time before that board will be able to operate in a way which will enable it to give the necessary input to the needs of Northern Ireland. Hence, between now and April I should like to see a climate of opinion created to enable the board to enter a much more hopeful situation. Therefore I suggest, almost in the form of a proposal, that we should have an initiative for economic recovery; let the Secretary of State invite a response from the Northern Ireland people and politicians to co-operate in a sense of common purpose and wellbeing. With those remarks, I support the Motion.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his clear introduction and explanation of the order. There are a number of questions I wish to put to him, about almost all of which I have given notice. I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, with interest. My first question is to ask what was the cost to the British taxpayer of supporting the Ulster economy for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available. The order shows that there are many points of outlay, but perhaps most in the public mind at present are funds towards the electricity support grant, to the De Lorean car industry, to which Lord Blease referred, to Harland and Wolff for shipbuilding, to Short Brothers for aircraft construction, to the very worthwhile Local Enterprise Development Units and so on.
Two further points arising out of that question are these: do the Government know how those who advocate an independent Ulster expect to compensate for the presumable loss of such funds, and does not the provision of such funds afford some lever, particularly on those who term themselves loyalists, to co-operate with this and other United Kingdom Governments in their persistence and most patient attempt to find some solution to the political problems of Ulster? It is clearly understood that such a solution must be acceptable to, even if not considered ideal by, all parties who seek to achieve their aims by the ballot and not the bullet.
I should perhaps make it clear that my party in no way advocates the suspension of aid. Looking back
1190
on the history of Ireland as a whole, there have been tragic and far-reaching events—perhaps the great famines of the 1840s were the most striking—brought about by an unswerving reliance on the undisturbed play of market forces rather than a recourse to the dictates of common humanity. I was much shocked when I first saw the old-fashioned slums in so much of Belfast, even today, and am disturbed that more, even at a time of desperately high unemployment in the Province, seems not to be possible. I noted what the Minister said on housing and I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, on the subject. At the same time I return to the point that as we British offer the hand of friendship in the most practical way we can, we are surely entitled to expect the maximum co-operation from all who want to see a prosperous and peaceful Ulster, in whatever political context.
My second question follows an article in the February edition of the magazine Scope, entitled "EEC Poverty Programme", and I will read the opening paragraph:
"One of the conclusions of an EEC report on the poverty programme that ran for five years in several European countries states that Northern Ireland and Naples are two of the worst areas of the EEC in terms of poverty, unemployment, housing and primary health care".
I therefore ask the Minister—perhaps I need to be reminded—what aid the Province has received from EEC funds to date, and are the Government seeking aid for the Province from EEC funds during the next five-year so-called poverty programme, and can he give any details?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I shall not take advantage of the debate on this order as I did last time, to make a number of general comments, beyond agreeing with the peroration of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in which he listed all the things which are so terribly wrong in Northern Ireland—things of which the Minister is fully aware but which need restating, and I am glad Lord Blease restated them. I shall be very interested in the answers to the questions, all of which were of a general kind, asked by my noble friend on the Liberal Front Bench.
I should like, very briefly, to follow the rather extensive examination of the order by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I have one or two points which I believe supplement the point that he made. First, with regard to Class I, Vote 5, relating to forestry, what does the word "remanet "mean? Is it a misprint for "remnant", or what? It is not a word that I have ever heard before. It is in the last line of the note. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain. It is always as well to have a faint idea of what the words that one is talking about indicate. The Northern Ireland forestry has always been excellent, and I am glad to see that it is going ahead in a perfectly normal way.
The labour market budgets worry me a little. The items under paragraph (i) in the noble Earl's notes relating to additional expenditure are all perfectly acceptable to me. However, they amount to £3·6 million, and the items that are being taken away—Enterprise Ulster, which I always thought to be most excellent, government training centres, Youth Opportunities Programme, shipbuilding redundancy payments, and Action for Community Employment—add

1191
up to £5·4 million. I am sure that there is a perfectly good answer to this, but on the face of it it seems that £3·6 million is being given with one hand, while £5·4 million is being taken away with the other.
Since employment is really the most important problem in Northern Ireland, that situation requires an explanation, which I have no doubt the noble Earl will give me in due course. But on the face of it, it looks rather odd.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on to his next point, will he very kindly repeat his first point about the word that troubled him in the forestry estimates? I did not quite catch the point, and I should like it looked at by my officials.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I agree that it is frightfully important to know what we are talking about. It is on page 3 of the noble Earl's notes to us, under Class I, Vote 5, two lines from the bottom of the paragraph, in Subhead A5:
"£17,900 to meet actual remanet expenditure".
"Remanet" is not a word with which I am acquainted. It may be a misprint, or it may be a mystery—I do not know—but I look forward to the noble Earl's answer.
With regard to transport, which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, mentioned, I do not think that any of us would object to a bit of money being spent on track laying. It seems rather a pity that £400,000 should come off road passenger services and £300,000 off road safety.
Of course housing should be the top priority, and the noble Earl said that it is the top priority. The difficulty is that it is the only labour-intensive occupation mentioned in the entire estimates. Though I am very glad that more money is being spent on housing, if everybody has been so successful in selling off their houses, I should like to know whether that money is being used for building more, because we see that fewer projects by housing associations are reaching completion, with a saving of £2·2 million. The whole housing position as expressed here appears very unsatisfactory, and since, as I say, it is one of the few labour-intensive occupations, it is frightfully important that we should push ahead with it.
Speaking of labour-intensive occupations, I would point out that forestry is the only agricultural activity mentioned. Agriculture is the most labour-intensive of all the occupations and one of the most important in Northern Ireland. I do not know why we do not hear more about it. In the last debate we all begged the noble Earl to devote more money in particular to the intensive end of agricultural production. I have no doubt that there is a good reason for the omission—but the matter is not mentioned.
With regard to Class VIII, Vote 2, is the figure of £1,000 correct, or should it be £1 million? It is stated:
"Higher and Further Education (Department of Education) £.1,000".
I am delighted to see that the Grand Opera House, Belfast, is to be put right, and I hope that the opera company, which I have heard and admired over there, will have the success that it deserves.
Of course, everybody is delighted at a little more
1192
being spent on health and personal social services, where the savings have not been as difficult to account for as elsewhere.
Why was there a shortfall in the land registry fees? Does this mean simply a collapse in industry generally, or what? It seems odd. At the moment I have lost the place in the notes, but it is somewhere towards the end of the details of classes. I ask for clarification.
I would float a question on two other points. The newspapers are saying that there will be very many bankruptcies as a result of De Lorean difficulties. I should like to know the noble Earl's view about that. Is it going to be a very serious economic situation for the Province? I do not know what can be done about it if that is to be the case.
Secondly, we have read with interest about talk of a new departure, which is not yet clear in anybody's mind. I want to say that we from this Bench maintain our bipartisan approach with the Government in continuing to try to find a modification of direct rule, in the direction of some local rule being returned, and we wish them every success in that. The news remains very worrying, and what worries me most about these figures is that they do not seem to be directed towards employment, as I feel they could have been.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister very much for his very clear presentation of the order and for sending me the explanatory memorandum. I should like to make a few comments about provisions in the order, mainly in support of my noble friend, and principally in the areas of employment and housing. I think of when we last debated a Northern Ireland appropriation order in this House and of the considerable political activity that there has been in Ireland, both North and South. I know that the plans for some kind of an elected assembly in Northern Ireland are welcomed and admired by many people in this House.
However, the economy of Northern Ireland has shown a tragic decline since the last debate, and is now in a desperately serious condition, following the tragic lay-offs at De Lorean, and Harland and Wolff, and yesterday the closing of British Enkalon. We all know that insecurity in Northern Ireland is the enemy of peace and progress and that it has both economic and political roots. To me the order does not seem to provide enough evidence that the Government intend to act decisively on the growing fear of unemployment in Northern Ireland. It provides not enough evidence that the Government intend to try to halt the collapse of the industrial base to a point from which it could not recover, even if there were a recovery in the British and world economics.
First, from the point of view of how the order affects the all-important issue of youth employment prospects, and in support of what my noble friend Lord Blease said, I should like to ask the Minister about the provision made for the Youth Opportunities Programme. In the order it is stated that arising from a slow build-up to the target levels there was a saving of £2x00B7;3 million in the estimates. Despite what the noble Earl said, it seems very surprising that, at the present time, with the prevailing employment crisis for school-leavers, there should be an actual lowering of provisions for pro-

1193
grammes designed to get young people off the streets and into some form of employment structure. While explaining that point, can the Minister also say why an additional provision of £0·7 million has been made for extra staff to meet further expansion of the Youth Opportunities Programme? Those two items would seem to be in direct contradiction, and I should be very grateful if the Minister could reconcile them for me.
On a similar issue, may I ask the Minister how it came about that there has been a saving of about half a million pounds in the provision for the Action for Community Employment, again through the target levels not being achieved? This job-creation enterprise, operated by the Manpower Services Commission, is a very important one, providing temporary employment for men who have been without work for over a year. I know that there is a constant demand for ACE workers, so it seems very surprising that resources for this scheme should not have been taken up.
While I am talking about this particular job-creation enterprise I should like once again to mention the anomaly which I have already pointed out in this House; namely, that an employing body in Northern Ireland taking on an ACE worker has to contribute 10 per cent. of his salary, while employers using similar schemes in the rest of the United Kingdom are not required to make any contribution at all. The reason why employers are not necessarily deflected from taking on ACE workers from this scheme is that very often they in turn apply to a charitable trust to raise that 10 per cent. I am myself closely associated with an organisation called the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, which I know is very often approached in this way.
Of course, the final result is that if these trusts respond positively and pay the 10 per cent., then some of their own very-hard-won resources are diverted from important projects for which they were in the first place destined. So really do wish that the Government would look again at this very unsatisfactory situation, because apart from the reasons have already given I know that workers engaged in this all-important field of community work feel very strongly about it and feel very bitter that there should be this anomalous difference.
May I now ask the Minister for clarification on something that I have perhaps got wrong. It is in the Estimates in Class V for housing services. In Vote 1 it shows that there has been an increase, as I read it, of £9·6 million for assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. This is certainly very much to be welcomed, but would the Minister say how much of that sum is accounted for by the sale of existing houses, how much is from (however successful it may be) income from next year's proposed rent increases and how much is from EEC money? In fact, therefore, how much additional Government money has been contributed? Secondly, how much of the £9·6 million will be in respect of loan repayment by the housing executive, and how much will be for the provision of new houses? Thirdly, regarding the provision for the housing associations, will the Minister please explain to me why, in view of Northern Ireland's obviously critical housing shortage, there was an actual reduction in the number of projects reaching completion, which
1194
accounted, as I read it, for a decrease of £3·3 million in the housing associations' grant?
Surely there is a desperately urgent case for an expansion in the housing programme. Apart from the need to create this better housing for Northern Ireland families—conditions which, after all, the Secretary of State himself has described as being three times worse than in the rest of the United Kingdom; but apart from that social need—an increase in the programme would also serve to create those desperately needed jobs in the construction industry; and, as we know, there are now 24,000 of those workers who are unemployed.
On another point, the present policy, whereby the increase in rents is meant to provide for some of the construction of new houses, cannot be right. It cannot be right for the Government to tell the Housing Executive that if they want to help those on the waiting lists get a house then it is the existing tenants who will have to pay for it. From another point of view one wonders how some of Belfast's most under-privileged tenants are going to be able to afford that rise of 22 per cent. due in April. Where will they find the money? Even by cutting down on their existing and, I should think, very modest expenditure on food, household and clothing needs it will be impossible for some families to raise it. So there will be no alternative for them but to go into debt—and debt is a state which is only too easily achieved in Northern Ireland on account of the higher unemployment figures and the higher energy prices.
May I make one short point regarding education? In the debate on the previous appropriation order I asked the Minister about the posssible closure of 12 controlled primary schools in Belfast. I understand that as a result of a public outcry in the affected localities the plan has now been abandoned, and there will be no closures. While saying how much I welcome this news, might I also say that I very much hope that, having survived, these primary schools will continue to receive sufficient provision for their efficient running.
May I also make one small further point about social welfare. 1 think there is often a danger, when viewing the overall Northern Irish situation, to be over-mindful of the high priority needs caused by the particular circumstances prevailing at the expense of the areas of social need which appear secondary. The particular case I have in mind is the effect on the old and the housebound of financial restrictions imposed on the health and social services. There is overwhelming evidence from social workers, from trade union officials and from people on the ground that the allocation of home help hours has been very much cut, and this, of course, has the result that in areas of great social need and deprivation it is the elderly and the housebound who are suffering particularly badly. Furthermore, it must be remembered that sums to provide home help serve not only to satisfy a very great social need but also to provide for socially useful jobs for women who desperately need any work they can find.
Finally, may I make one last point. It is one that I have previously mentioned in this House, and it has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, this evening. It concerns the part that the European Community can play in Northern Ireland's affairs,

1195
both from a political and from an economic point of view. I have always been convinced that if the Northern Irish can develop a trust and a reliance in the European framework as a means of finding agreement over economic issues, then this might lead them to wish to use it for seeking agreement on political issues and on more far-reaching issues.
Further, as I have said before, there is a great deal of potential economic assistance to be derived from the European Regional and Social Funds. This potential is confirmed by the fact that the European Commission rates Northern Ireland, as Lord Hampton was saying, as a priority area within the Community; and they have also shown their commitment by setting up the Integrated Operations Programme and the Martin Report to look deeply into Northern Ireland's economic problems.
So, as the Secretary of State has convinced us of his personal commitment to confronting the deplorable and tragic economic crisis in Northern Ireland, should he not justify and back up this commitment by himself working steadfastly towards turning this potential European economic assistance into something which might become a reality?
4.19 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I must preface my brief intervention by two apologies: first, that I was not present here when the noble Earl the Minister made his opening speech; and, secondly, that I have not given him notice of the question I am about to ask him. I must declare an interest in that, under the umbrella of my position as President of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors, there are referred to me numbers of inventions and we have to try to find outlets for the exploitation of those inventions in parts of the country. My question is: to whom in Northern Ireland should one refer those inventions for further consideration and appraisal, in the marketing conditions in Northern Ireland, in order that they might get some kind of start for marketing purposes? There have been two or three inventions referred to me from Northern Ireland, and we have been happy to find persons in this country who have been able to help the inventor in seeking a market for the invention.
As the noble Earl no doubt knows, there was an advisory note given by the Advisory Association for Research and Development to the Prime Minister, at her request, in March of last year, when she asked for advice on innovation and how inventions could be exploited. When I listened to the moving speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, when they were dealing with aspects of unemployment in the territory, it seemed to me that there is an opportunity for inventions or, shall I say, gadgets—not far-reaching inventions, not epoch-making discoveries, but gadgets—which could be exploited in the context of the present situation in Northern Ireland. I do not expect an answer tonight from the noble Earl as to where one should send these inventions, perhaps to his department or to any agency associated with his department or associated with the Government. I end, as I started, by apologising for the fact that, as at 4.30 I am unfortunately due to be at a Select Committee on trade mark law, European
1196
Communities law, under the chairmanship of Lord Scarman, I may not be present when the noble Earl replies.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, perhaps r may write to the noble Lord on both of those points.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I am interested to hear the point that the noble Lord has just made. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, and I served on a voluntary body called the Ulster Enterprise Voluntary Committee for a number of years for this very purpose of monitoring designs and inventions. Our main difficulty was that we did not have the technical expertise to be able to evaluate the various proposals that were put forward. We tried as best we could to refer them to those who might know; but, since then, the Local Enterprise Development Unit has taken over and perhaps the noble Earl might want to make reference to that in his winding-up speech; but I would agree that any original thought from any source should be exploited.
If I may, as I think is traditionally permitted in your Lordships' House, I should like to range a little wider than the actual provisions of the draft order. On Monday of last week the Secretary of State was good enough to permit an interview with the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and myself, at which the noble Earl on the Front Bench was present, and we are grateful for the generous amount of time that they devoted to that consultation. Since then, the Secretary of State has asked for ideas both from corporate bodies and from individuals as to how best to employ the £200 million devoted to the support of industry and the stimulation of job creation in Northern Ireland.
There is no single, simple solution to this problem. All that we can do is to chip away at it from various angles. I will make a quick (in the words of the training major) "appreciation of the situation". It seems to me that there are three main reasons for our very daunting economic situation in Northern Ireland at the moment. The first, is world recession; the second, the continuing violence, albeit on a reduced scale; and, third, the continuing political instability and uncertainty. Many people would say that the violence and the political uncertainty are the main cause of our problems and of the disastrous increase in unemployment.
But I would suggest that it is the world recession, coupled with the unpredicted increase in the price of oil, that has caused the loss of jobs. It is my belief that ICI, Courtaulds and British Enkalon would be in business still if it were not for the world recession. Similarly, if it were not for the world recession, I do not think that such institutions as Harland and Wolff and even De Lorean would be faced with the problems that they are facing. There is nothing that Northern Ireland can do about the world recession but what could be done would be to make economic conditions more favourable by reducing the costs of energy.
On several occasions, I have advocated the laying of an undersea gas pipeline to link the Scottish natural gas grid with the Northern Ireland grid, but Her Majesty's Government have turned this down on every occasion. Now, it looks as though a more likely possibility is going to be a pipeline to bring Kinsale

1197
natural gas from Dublin to the North. Kinsale is further away, and Dublin is further away, than the coast of Scotland. But if feasibility studies prove Kinsale to be more practicable, so be it. I would say this. Let Her Majesty's Government expedite plans to have that link-up so that cheap energy in the form of natural gas can be available to consumers in Northern Ireland, industrial, horticultural and domestic—horticultural, because the Dutch are able to beat us hands down because they can heat their glasshouses with natural gas; whereas only a handful of growers in Northern Ireland are left now who are able to make the sums work out so as to justify heating their glasshouses. The result is that the Dutch can beat us hands down, particularly early in the season, on lettuce and similar commodities and no longer can we complete with Guernsey over tomatoes in the months of May and June. This is what I would urge Her Majesty's Government to do and perhaps a modest number of jobs could be created by the installation of a plant whereby the gas could be compressed and liquefied and put into cylinders, small for domestic use and large for industrial use, and delivered all over the country without having to go into a lot of capital investment in extending a main grid. That is one suggestion I would make, returning to the matter of our full particiption in the EMS, which would mean instead of our importing so much of our horticultural produce from European countries, we should have a better chance of exporting to them when the conditions are favourable.
Turning to the second of the two points that I made, that militating against our economic recovery are the continuing violence and the political uncertainty, I think that these two are inter-related. I would repeat the suggestion (and I apologise for wearying the noble Earl on the Front Bench because he has heard me say this before) that Her Majesty's Government should consider a framework for a committee form of devolved government in Northern Ireland, maintaining the present or any future team of the Northern Ireland Office Minister, who would act as senior Ministers answerable at the Dispatch Box, perhaps on certain days of the week; giving a re-affirmation of the guarantee that Northern Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom for as long as the majority there so desire; and then having the chairmen of the committees of the proposed devolved assembly acting as junior Ministers also answerable at the Dispatch Boxes.
This, on the one hand, I would hope would reassure the Unionists that it was acceptable and that there would be no danger of a sell-out to Dublin. Similarly, I hope it would involve sufficient partnership, and that the members of the committees and the chairmen would be elected from the Floor of the House on a proportional basis according to the number of seats held by each party in that Assembly. I would hope that that would provide a sufficient degree of partnership to at least go some way towards satisfying the SDLP. I was much encouraged by what the Secretary of State said the other day, which in many ways reflected the suggestions that I made in your Lordships' House on 1st November, 1979. Whether, in the words of management consultants, this is conscious parallelism, I do not know. Anyway, I welcome the approach that is being taken by the Secretary of State.
1198
Having said that, I have a nasty feeling that, the way things are at the moment, he may be faced with deadlock because the politicians on both sides have got themselves onto hooks off which they will find it difficult to work themselves. Several public opinion surveys have indicated that at least the sample is very much more moderate in their outlook than the politicians who represent them. It must be admitted that if there were to be a referendum to ascertain the view of the entire electorate on principles rather than personalities, as I have suggested before, obviously the politicians would try during the run-up campaign to that referendum to undermine it if they feared the result. They would suggest that the questions were trick questions, however carefully they might be drafted. Nonetheless, at the end of the day a referendum might be necessary to ascertain whether or not the people want a devolved government and, if so, what sort.
A lot of thought would have to go into this. However, if I may say so with respect, my final warning is this: we could ill-afford another failed political initiative. It would undermine public morale; it would boost terrorist morale. It would be better to continue with direct rule or to move further towards total integration rather than to have an Assembly which did not work—
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, may I ask what questions the noble Lord foresees being asked in the referendum to which he refers?
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I did write to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, (I think it was) suggesting some questions. I am no demographer. Nor am I an expert on public opinion surveys. This is a very specialised field, because one has to ask questions to which there must be a clear-cut answer, "Yes" or "No". We already have a referendum coming up next year similar to the one held 10 years ago asking the electorate whether they want to remain in the United Kingdom or whether they would prefer to leave the United Kingdom and become part of a united Ireland. Those are the first two fundamental questions.
The next question—and I am not precisely specifying the wording—could be along the following lines: "Do you want a devolved Government for Northern Ireland or do you want to continue with direct rule or integration with Great Britain?" —government from Westminister, in other words. The next question could be: "If you want a devolved Government, do you want it to be on a partnership basis or on a majority rule basis?" Those are the questions that I have in mind. One appreciates that this matter will require a lot of work to be carried out and it will take specialist and expert advice to get those questions properly worded. However, to ascertain the view of the electorate rather than the view of the politicians, who are scared of having the word "traitor" shouted at them if they withdraw from their already stated position, is what I have in mind.
The point I was trying to finish on was that I think the removal of uncertainty is most important. Whereas I personally would favour a devolved Administration on a partnership basis, if the majority of the electorate would prefer to have continued direct rule,

1199
total integration or a devolved Administration by majority rule, so long as some minority participation on committees was guaranteed, then so be it. I should accept that. However, it is important to get rid of the uncertainty and to remove from the terrorist any incentive or sense of hope that by continuing terrorism it will be possible to influence the course of events.
4.35 p.m.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything and I apologise to the noble Earl for not having told him that I was going to speak. I shall be very brief. I am fired off by the tragic closure of Enkalon—the final closure, apparently, of Enkalon last night. I remember so well being approached by a senior official in the then Ministry of Commerce. I came from that area and I was asked whether I would help with the arrival of a new Dutch factory which I was told would be of great advantage to the country around Antrim. So the closure is tragic. I and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, can remember well Princess Beatrix coming over from Holland to declare the factory open. We thought it was going to be marvellous for that district.
As noble Lords know, Northern Ireland in years gone by was the head of the linen industry. Later on in our time it became the most important part of the man-made fibre industry in the United Kingdom. Now, over the past few years, we have seen closure after closure. I appeal to the Minister: will the Northern Ireland Office please make every effort to try to find alternative employment for the people in and around Antrim? Antrim used to be quite a small village. It was all built up for Enkalon; and, as the noble Earl knows, it is not only the people of Antrim who work in Enkalon. People come from as far away as Magherafelt. It draws people in from the countryside all round.
Also, people were encouraged financially to move from Belfast to Antrim in order to work at this marvellous new factory. Now it is closed. It is an absolute tragedy, when one knows the difficulties which already exist in Northern Ireland, that constantly rising unemployment should add to those troubles.
In addition to that, I should like to say that in my day Northern Ireland led the United Kingdom in the field of training and retraining. I should have thought that it would be very wise for this programme to be kept up in the hope that it will be possible to bring new industry or expand existing industry in the not too distant future.
Mark my words, my Lords, if unemployment in Northern Ireland is allowed to rise, any political solution will be totally impossible. I am sure that the noble Earl realises this. I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will bear this very important point in mind. I hope that my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will not be annoyed with me when I say that I personally do not have very much faith in referenda. If I may add a personal note to this, I remember that six weeks before I was kicked out from being Prime Minister of Northern Ireland a referendum showed that 80 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland wanted me to stay on. I am afraid that referenda in Northern Ireland do not really mean what they say. The trouble is that if someone knocks at the
1200
door and asks a question, one wants to give a respectable answer. It may not be what one really feels, but for the record one is going to say the right thing. This is why in my personal view referenda in Northern Ireland mean very little indeed. However, I wish the noble Earl and the Secretary of State well in the various attempts they are making to create some kind of "talking shop" at Stormont. But it is going to be very hard, as all of us who have, or have had, anything to do with Northern Ireland know only too well.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, may I intervene for a very few minutes? I do so as a past chairman of Harland and Wolff and I am moved to do so following a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in his very interesting speech. He referred to the apprentice school in Harland and Wolff and in particular to a remark made by the personnel director of the shipyard, Mr. David Tinkler—whom, incidentally, I had the honour to appoint—at the recent prize-giving to apprentices just the other day. In his speech he said, as I understand it, with sorrow that he feared very much that the level of the apprentice school would be maintained in the future with very great difficulty.
I should like to express the hope that everything will be done to maintain that school. When I was chairman, we had about 1,000 apprentices: I believe the present figure is roughly half that. Of course one realises that with the very dim outlook today for shipbuilding the world over and perhaps in particular as regards Harland and Wolff, not so many apprentices are needed. But we should remember that over the years Harland-trained apprentices have been used not only in Harland and Wolff but have found their way into many activities in the United Kingdom and indeed are to be found the world over—and very acceptable they are and great ambassadors for our skill and training. Therefore, the point I particularly want to put to my noble friend is that, in considering training and its effect on youth, everything possible should be done to maintain so far as possible that very excellent apprentice school. I personally have had the privilege of presenting prizes there on more than one occasion, and one realises what a feeling there is in that school and how important it is to maintain it.
4.43 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, if I may, I should like to congratulate all those who have spoken on the acute and expert points put to me. This, of course, brings a problem for the winder-up, because he needs to go into some detail which will be of interest to some while not being of such interest to others. I shall have to go at a bit of a gallop, because noble Lords did not rest on the heels of generalities but asked me quite informed and specific questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, whose general approach I very much welcomed, while disagreeing with some of his macro-economic strictures, as he will not be surprised to hear, asked me particularly about whether provision had been reduced in respect of the forestry estimates as regards recreation. I can assure him that the reduction of expenditure was entirely on the capital side and had no effect on recreation. The income is expected to exceed the forecast of £102,000 a year by £18,000: in fact I am glad to say there have been more

1201
visitors than anticipated. Northern Ireland is certainly one of the most beautiful parts of the Kingdom and I would urge all noble Lords to come and spend their holidays there. I shall be very surprised if they see anything which they consider to be out of the way, in security terms, in any of the rural areas there.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also asked why there had been a change of policy regarding support for industrial training and whether the Government would consider a fresh approach to advisory and monitoring arrangements for training. Of course, I note what my noble friend Lord Rochdale said in respect of the great training tradition at Harland and Wolff. The figures for expenditure under the general heading "Functioning of the Labour Market", do not represent a change of policy in relation to industrial training. The subheads referred to cover the employment services, the rehabilitation and employment of disabled persons and other labour market services, as well as industrial training. Additional provision is required for demand-related schemes: for instance, the training on employers' premises scheme, the job release scheme and also the provision of severance pay at Belfast docks as well as the administrative costs of the ITBs. The additional expenditure is covered in fact by savings from Enterprise Ulster, Government Training Centres, the Youth Opportunities Programme (of which more in a moment or so) and the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme. These payments arise from a slower take-up than was anticipated rather than from any policy decision on reducing expenditure. For example, in respect of the Youth Opportunities Programme, a decrease of £2,296,000 was due, first, to a slower buildup from the 1980–81 figure of 7,000 places to the 1981–82 level of 12,000 places, and, secondly, to a transfer of almost £1 million to the Department of Education to found Youth Opportunity Programme courses in colleges of further education.
On the question of advisory and monitoring arrangements for industrial training, the Government have, of course, launched a new initiative in the shape of the new Manpower Advisory Council. This has met twice and has proved to be an effective body, reflecting quite a spectrum of views, and certainly it is of great help to us in forming policy. However, I have to say that it is a matter of profound regret to us that at present the interested employees are not directly represented on the council. We would certainly welcome trade union participation in what we believe is proving to be a very useful body.
The noble Lord asked me about public liability claims against the road service. A study of the upward trend in the cost of settlement of public liability claims against the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland indicates no falling off in the standards of inspection and maintenance but rather a growing awareness of the operation of the law in this field. While not seeking to avoid its proper obligations to the public, the department has recently reviewed its arrangements to ensure that spurious and inflated claims are identified and challenged. The noble Lord will be well aware that we have quite a nice line in hyperbole all over Northern Ireland, particularly where claims of that kind are involved.
On the topic of concessionary rail and bus fares which the noble Lord raised, reduced fares on public
1202
rail and bus transport are payable by the following categories of person: schoolchildren under 16 years of age, persons over 65 years of age and registered war disabled persons. The reduction is 50 per cent. of the normal fare, and there are no limitations whatsoever on travel. I should perhaps add that all blind persons may travel altogether free of charge. The noble Lord referred to the marketing of these concessions. The transport companies are conscious of the need to bring the concessions to the attention of the public and there are advertisements in the press and on television for this purpose. I have no evidence in fact that people are not aware that they exist.
Regarding road safety, I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and also the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, an assurance that, despite a reduction in the provision for road safety services, the services will be maintained, and indeed we shall attempt to improve them. The reduction in the provision is largely due to delays in the purchase of equipment and materials. The operational and promotional activities have not, therefore, been at all affected.
The noble Lord asked me what would be the relationship between the Industrial Development Board and the Department of Economic Development. Since Ministers, and ultimately Parliament, must maintain accountability for the large sums devoted to the economy of the Province, and since, in many cases, social considerations have to be taken into account, it is intended that the IDB should be an arm of the new Department of Economic Development. Its chief executive will be the accounting officer for the votes allocated to industrial development. The board will be given a great deal of freedom to create an aggressive and successful organisation, and it will effectively have the operational and final say over a wide range of industrial development.
The noble Lord asked me about reductions in the water service and about comprehensive development. I can tell the noble Lord that slippage did, indeed, occur in the proposed Richmond development scheme for Londonderry. However, the House will recall that early in January this year the go-ahead was, in fact, given for the scheme to proceed and this has been very well received in the second greatest city of the Province.
On the subject of rentals and housing, obviously the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and I have different philosophies. I think it is an admirable thing, as a matter of general principle, that people should be able to buy their own houses, and it is an admirable thing, in the particular history of the Province, that last year it beat England to the draw in this respect. I was asked about the increase in rentals, in percentage terms and in comparative terms, by both the noble Lord and his noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. For housing executive tenants, it represents an increase of 22 per cent over the average rent payable throughout 1981–82 and the increases in Great Britain are 22 per cent. for England and Wales and 28 per cent. for Scotland. So that, relatively, I do not think the Province is faring too badly.
Nevertheless, the fair point was put to me, notably by the noble Baroness, that, given these higher costs and the lower income levels in Northern Ireland, those increases might place an intolerable burden on those least able to bear them. It is the policy of the

1203
Government that tenants who can afford to do so should make a greater contribution towards the costs of the houses which they occupy, but we are not, of course, unmindful of the need to cushion less well-off people from the full effects of increases. Sixty thousand housing executive tenants who are in receipt of supplementary benefit will, effectively, bear no increase whatsoever, while the 35,000 tenants who are in receipt of rent or rate rebates will pay no more than 40 per cent. of the full increase. Thus some 95,000 housing executive tenants, which is about half of the total number, will be exempted from the full effects of the rent increase.
If I may just illustrate the extent of the assistance offered by the rebate system, I should explain that a married man with two dependent children, and a wife not working, with rent and rates of £15 a week, will still be eligible for a partial rebate with a gross income, including child benefit, of over £6,000 a year, or £125 a week; and, again, that does not seem to me to indicate too severe a policy.
I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, said towards the end of his remarks, when he reverted to general questions about the relationship between economic and political advance in the Province. His remarks were echoed with some interesting suggestions from another Ulsterman in your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. It has been the Government's position that there is an infernal triangle, if you like, between security matters, economic matters and questions of political movement, and that we shall not really help any one of those attributes without the other. That is why my right honourable friend is at present engaged in consultations with many individuals, and all the political groupings in the Province, about what form the possibilities for a restoration to the Province of more responsibility for its own affairs should take.
Inevitably, when you are engaged in consultations, and seeing very many people who come in and out of your office, the air is alive with rumour and excitement, and the air is somewhat alive with rumour and excitement in the Province at the moment. But, in fact, we have made very clear our commitment to the guarantee and to the Union; our commitment to continued co-operation with the Republic, which has been so successful, particularly in security terms; and our commitment to the view that it is better, in terms of the Province, for there to be greater responsibility taken by people from the Province for their own affairs. Within that triangle, if I may again so express it, we are seeking to achieve some progress. I hope that that progress will come soon, because, as the debate has shown, the economy is sinking very fast in Northern Ireland and, if one compares it, relatively, even with the difficulties experienced in this country or in the Republic one can see that the special security situation and the image of the Province abroad have exacerbated an already difficult situation, rather than helped it.
Coming to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, he asked me what was the level of subvention to Northern Ireland from British sources. The total subvention last year was a bit over £1,000 million—£1,090 million. This represented about 37
1204
per cent. of the total public expenditure in Northern Ireland during that year. The latest estimate suggests that this proportion should be rather lower in 1981–82. Noble Lords will, I hope, acknowledge that this level of subvention is evidence of successiveUnited Kingdom Governments' commitment to dealing with Northern Ireland's problems. It is worth repeating the point that other relatively depressed regions in the United Kingdom also benefit from revenue generated in the more prosperous areas, and that it is the existence of separate Northern Ireland funds which makes it possible to measure the transfers more precisely in this case. But these transfers are very large and they are an earnest, not only of the commitment of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, but also of some obligation on the part of responsible people in the Province to try to make the necessary accommodations, one with another, without which normal political life cannot flourish, to see that these very large sums are put to creative use. We have always striven to make political progress on the basis of proposals that should recognise the existence of the two traditions in Northern Ireland and secure at least a minimum degree of consent from both of them. In our view, any other approach would be likely to prove counter-productive and would not make best use of the economic help that we seek to give and shall continue to give.
The noble Lord also asked me whether the Government were seeking aid for the Province from European Community funds during the next five-year programme —the so-called poverty programme. The Commission's final report on the first programme of pilot schemes and studies to combat poverty is now being considered by the Council of Ministers, and that means that there are not funds at present for which the United Kingdom Government can, in fact, bid. Therefore, we are watching this space to see what happens. However, in response to the noble Lord's question as to what aid the Province has received from Community funds to date, I can say that it has received £94 million from the European Social Fund, £69 million from the European Regional Development Fund and £24 million from the guidance section of the European Agricultural Fund, which adds up to a total £187 million. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, is known to be a great friend of his native Province. I think it is regrettable that he still subscribes to a party which now wishes to take us out of the Common Market, since the EEC has shown itself to be so anxious to help—and on a relatively considerable scale.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who, as spokesman for the Social Democratic Party, does not wish to take us out of the Common Market, asked me about the increase in agricultural support. The decision to increase the special aid available to Northern Ireland agriculture from £10 million in 1981–82 to £16 million in 1982–83 was taken following a recent review of the industry aimed at helping my colleagues and me to reach decisions on the necessary level of support. We were very mindful of the fact that the overall net income for Northern Ireland farming fell from about £67 million in 1980. So again, while one would always like to be able to get hold of more money, I think we have put our money where our mouth was in respect of Northern Ireland agriculture. On the word "remanet" it is, I am advised, a technical

1205
term which in layman's language might best be described as "remaining". In the Vote concerned, the expenditure to be incurred is that which is in respect of accounts still to be settled.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. One does learn something new every day.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in that case, so do I. The noble Lord asked me how serious, in employment terms, are likely to be the consequences of bankruptcies among De Lorean suppliers in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that I can do no more than speculate on this matter at the moment. But any loss of employment would of course be a very great blow to the Province. As has already been made clear by my honourable friend in another place, the Government cannot accept responsibility for the De Lorean Motor Company's liabilities. At the same time, however, individual Northern Ireland firms faced with temporary difficulties following the receivership but with firm prospects of viability may be able to get assistance from Government under our schemes for the maintenance and assistance of employment. Sir Kenneth Cork, as the receiver, has made it clear that he is committed to continuing the operation of the motor company, albeit at a reduced level. We must hope that his great talents succeed in bringing it off. I can also say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that I, like him, have had many happy nights at the Belfast Opera and look forward to many more.
I will try to deal with the points on the Youth Opportunities Programme raised by the noble Baroness in respect of the slower take-up. I can assure her that we operate the guarantee there, and we shall try to find a place for every young person who needs one. On the ACE programme, the 10 per cent. contribution required from employers is surely justified in the light of the encouraging response to the scheme by sponsors. They show no evidence of being put off by the contribution which we asked for from them.
On the question which the noble Baroness raised regarding the Class V, Vote 1, issue of the housing services, the additional provision is required to increase the housing grant to the housing executive, thereby enabling it to repay in the current year a 30 million loan which would otherwise have to be repaid in 1982–83. Offsetting savings on the executive's revenue expenditure, primarily on loan charges, results in a net provision of £9.6 million being required.
In determining the financial allocations for housing programmes for 1982–83, account has been taken of receipts from house sales, anticipated now to be in the region of £38 million, as well as receipts from the first tranche of European Community aid which may become available in 1982–83. Those would add up, according to the present estimate (and it must be an estimate), to some £4 million. Net rental income in 1982–83 is expected to be £98 million, an increase of £12 million. To put these figures in the context of the total capital and revenue expenditure for the housing executive, excluding loan charges, this is
1206
likely to be £275 million in 1982–83, which is an increase of £67 million over the current year. Loan charges are likely to amount to £130 million, and net rental income will meet only 48 per cent. of the housing executive's revenue expenditure.
I can reassure the noble Baroness about housing associations. The decrease in the provision for housing associations reflects the method of financing association schemes and the delay in converting the short-term loans provided while schemes are in progress into housing association grants when the schemes are completed. This is a purely technical adjustment and does not reflect any reduction in housing association activity. Indeed, during the course of the current year it was possible to increase the level of housing association expenditure by £2 million. Again, sitting where she does, I am grateful for the words expressed by the noble Baroness about the help which Europe can give and will continue to give. I hope that the noble Baroness will direct them not merely to me but to the policy-makers in the Labour Party.
I hope I have covered most of the points made to me. During this period of consultation, I shall take on board some of the political suggestions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I echo the sorrow expressed by my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine about the Enkalon closure. He will be aware that this is not due to any faults of the Province itself, whether in the image or in the performance of the Province, but to a really devastating deterioration in the terms of trade where fibre carpets are concerned, due mainly to American competition and cheaper feedstock there. I will do all I can to find alternative employment round about Antrim—which will of course be extremely difficult at this time. I am grateful for the way in which the House has received the order. I shall deal with any points that I have not covered by correspondence.
Lord Blease: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him, when he has an opportunity tomorrow to read what I have said about a co-operative approach to an economic initiative, to give the matter serious examination?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I did make a note of that point and I shall examine it seriously. We had discussions last autumn with some of the political groupings about the way forward for the economy. Last week, the noble Lord and I both attended a very lively conference at the polytechnic on the economy. I will see whether we can knit some of these ravelled strands together. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is yet one more argument for trying to achieve more political responsibility, more devolved activity, in the Province. It is more convincing if the Province itself tries to deal with some of the difficulties in the economy, albeit with the help of funds raised by the rest of the British people.
Lord Blease: I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Limitation Amendment (Northern Ireland Order 1982)
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrierose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, limitation of actions is not the least technical branch of our law, nevertheless it is important not only to practising lawyers but to all whose business takes them into our civil courts. The main purpose of the law in this area is to prevent the bringing of stale actions and to relieve potential defendants of the burden of defending claims on which the dust has settled. The order implements almost all of the recommendations contained in the Law Reform Committee's final report on the law of limitation of actions and corresponds to the Limitation Amendment Act 1980 which introduced similar provisions for England and Wales.
If I may turn now to the content of the order, the House will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to describe each article in detail, but it might be helpful if 1 highlighted the more important changes in the law that this order brings about. Article 4 deals with the difficulty that has arisen in the law relating to the repayment of loans, particularly loans between members of a family or friends. The present law is that the lender's cause of action for recovery of the loan begins at the time when the loan is made, which means that he will lose his right to recover the money six years later. The effect of Article 4 is that time will not begin to run against the lender until he has made a written demand for repayment. This is a solution more appropriate to the relatively informal arrangements of the sort that prevail in some family circumstances.
Article 5 deals with the rights of the owner whose property is stolen. The present law is that an owner of goods loses his right to recover them from the thief six years after the property is stolen. There is no justification in principle for giving a thief good title, as it were, to the property as against the owner, at that or any other date.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Quite right, my Lords.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am glad to have that learned applause at this point. Article 5 remedies that injustice so that a thief can no longer set up a defence of limitation, but protects a subsequent purchaser for value who has acted in good faith.
Article 7 deals with that branch of land law known as adverse possession. In future, when determining whether occupation of land is adverse to the owner's rights, thereby leading to the extinguishment of his title, the courts will be obliged to look at the actual facts of the case before holding that an implied licence has been granted by the owner to occupy the land—such a licence would prevent extinguishment of his title. This article has been found necessary in order to clear up any misunderstandings there might have been due to recent decided cases. Article 9 provides that no acknowledgment or part payment made in respect of a claim after the expiry of the relevant limitation period shall operate to revive a remedy that has
1208
already become statute-barred. That will reverse the existing rule.
I come now to Article 14, which does not appear in the order as it was published as a proposal. Its inclusion arises as a result of representations made by members of the Northern Ireland judiciary and legal profession after the consultation period for the order had ended. It was represented to me that the limitation rule in respect of claims against the Land Registry insurance Fund (a fund designed to compensate persons who suffer loss as a result of mistakes in the registry) was such as was liable to cause injustice. Having examined the existing limitation period, which is that claims must be brought within six years of the date of the erroneous registration, I was persuaded that this can indeed lead to cases of injustice, for it can easily arise that the mistake might not come to light until after the expiry of the limitation period due to the length of time that may elapse between transactions in one piece of property. Accordingly, I have decided to insert Article 14 into the present order, which lays down a new principle in respect of claims against the Land Registry Insurance Fund. Time will not begin to run until the date when the claimant discovers the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a more equitable rule which effectively means that the limitation period does not commence until the mistake is discovered.
Due to the need to reconsider the representations to which I have referred, and then to settle on the appropriate reformulation of the legislation, there has been, I am afraid, some little delay in the order coming before your Lordships' House. However, out of the delay has come a positive proposal which commands the support of the legal profession and which I believe has to some degree justified that delay. This order is an important piece of law reform legislation which introduces timely amendments and updates the law of limitation of actions. 1 beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved.—(The Earl of Cowrie.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am advised by my friends that this is a very useful piece of law reform. I am aware of the consultations which the noble Earl the Minister entered into earlier, when he came to Northern Ireland, and of the amount of useful change he made to the original proposals. From this side of the House, we welcome the order.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to echo what has been said by my noble friend Lord Blease. There is a certain air of familiarity about this; we have been working on this for some years and it is excellent that the initiative has been taken to extend the reform to Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and by his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civic Government (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.16 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Discharge of Junctions of licensing authorities]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
1: Page 2, line 15, leave out ("3") and insert("2").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of the discharge of the functions of licensing authorities. To understand this, one has to go through a very long and complicated schedule—Schedule I to the Bill. It means that the licensing authority, according to the Bill, has to consider an application for a licence within three months. I have more than a feeling that many people would think that was far too long. Remember, this is not a decision but just the start of the consideration. It may well be that the very elaborate and complex procedures in the schedule about the whole business of licensing mean slowing up the more expeditious way of dealing with licensing that presently exists. I am suggesting that three months should be replaced by two months in respect of consideration of the application for a licence. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the House may recall that we discussed this proposal in some detail on the basis of an identical amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, moved in Committee. On that occasion I stressed that while licensing authorities should indeed be able to consider and dispose of most applications for licences well within the three-month period, it was important to remember that Clause 3 prescribed not a minimum nor a recommended period, but a maximum.
I still feel that we must allow local authorities some room for manoeuvre within which to deal with applications, and I fear that an unqualified maximum of two months for first consideration of an application might not be sufficient. It would put considerable pressure upon authorities over the summer period, when meetings may be infrequent, and it may be difficult within a two month period to carry out the prior consultation required by law and to consider the application substantively. If a two month maximum were imposed, local authorities might be tempted simply to put the matter formally before a committee before that period and then to agree, without further discussion, to adjourn the application for the time being.
I am bound to say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, conceded this point when we discussed the matter in Committee, and that he also agreed that power to adjourn would be necessary in certain circumstances. Given that need, I doubt whether in fact the noble Lord's amendment would speed matters up appreciably. I am in full sympathy with the principle behind the noble Lord's amendment, but, as I stressed during our previous discussion on this point, the Government have sought to strike a balance between the demands of the administrative procedures laid on local authorities and
1210
the desire of those applying for licences for quick decisions by providing not merely that applications must be considered within three months but that a decision must be reached on them without unreasonable delay. In all the circumstances I still think the clause as drafted gets it about right.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is a disappointing result; I had hoped that mature reflection by the Government would, as it has in other cases, lead to a change of heart. I am not going to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Licensing—Further provisions as to the general system]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 82, line 16, leave out head (iii).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we go from page 2 to page 82, such is the way we deal with things in this strange Bill. We are now on Schedule 1, which deals with the whole question of further provisions as to the general system of licensing. It will he noted that later on I have an amendment suggesting that we forget about this schedule altogether and start again. But, turning to this amendment, I suggest we leave out paragraph (I) (c) (iii), which specifies and implies that the applicant may not be a natural person. We have had this before, natural person, and individual natural person. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates that this has caused some concern to some local authorities. Glasgow certainly suggests that it introduces the concept of a non-natural person holding a licence. It is an unsatisfactory concept.
It has always been of the essence of licensing in Scotland that the licence was granted to a particular person whom the licensing authority regarded as being fit and proper to hold the licence. In the case of a non-natural person it is difficult to see how the rule of a fit and proper person can be applied. In addition, although the provisions relating to the transfer of licences are no longer incorporated in the Bill—we had some discussion about that at the earlier stage—in the majority of cases the non-natural person will simply be a limited company, and the legal persons of a limited company exist quite separately from the owners of the company and its officers, both of whom can frequently change without affecting the status of the company itself. It can be foreseen that the concept of a non-natural person could be a loophole in the licensing system enabling what the Government objected to, the transfer of a licence taking place without it appearing to have occurred in law. It is because of this seeming change in the system of licensing in Scotland that I have put down this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I wonder if it would be convenient for the House and the noble Earl if I referred now to my amendment which follows later on, Amendment No. 20, about a material change. It arises in this way. We start from the point from which the noble Lord himself started. His amendment deals with sub-paragraph (c) (iii). Following on that, you have paragraph 5(6), which relates to the granting of

1211
a licence in relation to an employee or agent named in "paragraph (1)(iii) above". Then we go to the question of what happens when the holder of the licence who is one of the persons mentioned—this is a rather peculiar paragraph, so perhaps I had better read it:
"Where a licensing authority grant a licence in respect of which an employee or agent has been named under paragraph 1(iii) above, the licence shall be granted jointly in the names of the applicant and of the employee or agent, and in such a case any reference in this Schedule or in Part I or II of this Act to the holder of a licence includes a reference to one or both of those persons, as the case may require".
Then you get the case where the holder of the licence, the applicant, wants to change the employee or the agent. The question then arises whether that is or is not a material change in the application. That comes up again in paragraph 10(7), which is the amendment to which I am referring. I take it that it would be a material change, and I want to know how that is going to be conducted in relation to this. It does seem to me that it opens the question whether the licensing has to be gone over again. There is provision for a varying of the licence and it provides for procedures for appeal and so on. I should like to know what the position is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that this is a very unsatisfactory situation. I am not certain that it has been precedented. No doubt my noble friend will be able to tell us.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, may I say by way of preliminary that it is not this provision in this schedule which enables a non-natural person to hold a licence? Therefore, even if this provision were deleted from the paragraph, it would not have the effect, for instance, of stopping a company from holding a licence; a company or indeed a partnership is a person in law. It would require a specific, and I suggest a highly undesirable, exclusion to prevent companies or partnerships or whatever from being licence-holders. In fact the provisions in this part of the schedule are based on similar provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which relate, not unnaturally, to liquor licensing. So far as I am aware, they have not created any particular problems. The reason for having the requirement in the schedule for an application from a firm or company to name the employee with day-to-day responsibility is that it enables the police to consider whether or not he is a fit person to manage or oversee the activity. It also enables the police or the fire authority to know who they should approach in the event of an emergency. Where the licensee is a named individual person, he may be contacted at his home address, which will be known to the police, if there is an emergency. If the licensee were a company or a partnership, with premises which one assumes would be quite frequently unmanned at night or at week-ends or holidays, there would be no known person whom the police could contact in the event of an emergency. Those are the reasons for drafting the sub-paragraph in this way. I suggest that they are compelling reasons.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn put a point to me. I appreciate that he is no doubt helping the House to consider this matter in a speedier fashion than it would if we took the amendments one by one. The sub-paragraph as drafted is sufficient to indicate that a change of name of employee or agent is a material
1212
change. The sub-paragraph talks about a change in any event, in the particulars of the application either for the grant or renewal of a licence. The amendment deals, so far as my noble friend is concerned, with a change of the person named in the licence and not of the applicant. So, in as kindly a tone as I can, I would say that his amendment, is not particularly helpful because of the way in which he has drafted it and anyway it is unnecessary because of the way in which the sub-paragraph is drafted at present. In other words, I think that the present wording adequately covers the situation and I hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, the intention was helpful and I am sorry if my noble friend does not find it helpful. I do not intend to press the matter but shall wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has to say.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I did agree to a certain extent. This is one of the further complexities that arise because of the use or the relevance of a "non-natural person" being given a licence. I do not think that the reasons are quite as compelling as the Minister of State has put forward. I think that that was a phrase thich came to his mind to try to persuade us without giving us any justification for the wilting of this compulsion of the draftsman about which he spoke.
The noble Earl suggested to his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that his drafting had not been helpful. We would never have started on this Bill if the drafting had been helpful. Indeed, we have only to look at the 203 amendments on the Marshalled List to endorse that point. They are not all my amendments—they mainly come from the draftsman who has been given time to have another look at the matter. So let the Minister be careful about how he rejects well-meaning amendments and amendments that might really be worthwhile.
I shall not press the amendment. The noble Earl suggests that it goes back and uses the language of the 1976 licensing law of Scotland. I remember someone being Secretary of State at the time when it started on its proceedings, although I was not Secretary of State when it was finalised with very considerable changes, of which I would not have approved, particularly in relation to Sunday drinking in Scotland. However, I hope that the Government will have another look at this matter—there is still a long way to go—and see whether or not the fears of Glasgow in respect of this and the legal consequences of it, are as they suggest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 82, line 23, at end insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 82, line 28, after ("constable") insert (", the local weights and measures authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. With this amendment I should
s
1213
like to speak to a number of other amendments all on the same point—namely, Amendments Nos. 7, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27 and 29. This amendment has to do with the way in which an application is handled by the licensing authority and it raises a question as to whom the application should be sent to as well as to the chief constable and the fire authorities.
Perhaps I may briefly go over what happens. Applications for the grant or renewal of licences go to the district authority or the Islands area who are the licensing authorities for their respective territories. Under Schedule 1, paragraph 2, the licensing authority sends a copy to the chief constable and the fire authorities, who may object and make representations within 14 days of receipt of the copy. The applicant is responsible for giving notice to every occupier and every person who is an owner of premises in the same building and they, too, may object or make representations. So, too, may any member of the public in the case of an application for a grant or renewal of a licence of a prescribed class—that appears in paragraph 2, sub-paragrah (6). In such a case the local authority must give public notice of an application. The licensing authority may also give public notice of applications not of a prescribed class, if they wish. In that case the public may make objections or representations.
Clearly it is right that the police and the fire services should be apprised of the application so that they may give their comments in so far as public safety and order are concerned. It seems reasonable that individual neighbours and members of the public should also be given an opportunity to protect their private and individual interests.
But what of the interests of the consumers as a class? The proper authorities to comment on the protection of consumers are surely the branches of the regional authorities and Islands authorities who are described as local weights and measures authorities, but who go under different names in different regions. They are sometimes called the consumer protection department; sometimes the trading standards department and sometimes the fair trading department. They administer various Acts of Parliament dealing with weights and measures, trades descriptions, fair trading and so forth. They are particularly well placed and qualified to give advice on applications for various types of licences because they and their staff have a day-to-day knowledge of the marketplace including knowledge of second-hand dealers, scrap metal merchants, street traders, garages and so forth. Indeed, that relates also to taxi licensing. They know who is likely to sell unsafe goods—for example, perhaps a scrap merchant selling unsafe oil heaters—or who is likely to give short weight, poor quality or to mislead consumers in one way or another. Surely the licensing authorities should send a copy of each application to the consumer protection authorities as well as to the police?
I agree that, so far as the all-purpose Islands area authorities are concerned, all that they have to do is to send a note down the corridor and perhaps they can consult their consumer protection services on the spot. But that can be drawn into the general situation here and if it needs a particular drafting adjustment
1214
that is all right because it can be made very simply. But the district authorities would, in my view, serve their inhabitants' interests better if they were required to notify the consumer protection departments of their regions. It should help them considerably if they were to have formal links with consumer protection departments. A parallel case can be found in consumer credit licensing where links have been arranged between consumer protection departments on the one hand, and the licence issuing department of the Office of Fair Trading on the other hand. There do not appear to be any administrative difficulties as regards that and I see no reason why there should be administration difficulties as between a licensing authority—that is a district authority or Islands area—and the regional authority in the form of its consumer department.
The records which the consumer departments maintain about previous convictions for unfair trading or about complaints against traders who have persistently flouted their legal obligations, have certainly helped to identify applicants for licences who would not really be suitable to hold those licences. So it seems to me that there is a strong case for writing into the schedule:
"the local weights and measures authority",
of the regional authority as well as the police and the fire service. I do not understand why it should delay things in any way. It will have the great advantage of keeping the consumer services close to the other services involved, and I should have thought that it would have made for a better system of licensing than if it was not in the Bill. I beg to move.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend has been kind enough to speak to a number of amendments in his name on the schedule before us this afternoon. As he has pointed out, all these amendments seek to extend to regions, in their role as weights and measures authorities, the right to be consulted on applications for licences. There are later amendments on the Marshalled List which, similarly, seek to extend other powers of inspection and entry to the weights and measures authority.
At the outset we cannot accept any extension of the two categories which we have already identified in the schedule; namely, the police and the fire authority. Indeed, as regards the latter—the fire authority—some amendments which are in my name later on the Marshalled List restrict even that right. We believe that there is no end to the various official bodies which could claim that they should be included in the statutory consultation process.
However, the Government are most anxious that the licensing authority should not be put to more work on licensing than is absolutely necessary. In our view we have got the balance just about right. The two categories identified in the schedule are those with the major interest in public safety and public protection. But if an authority has doubts about an individual application, then, of course, it can consult the weights and measures authority, but in a non-statutory way. However, I should he loath to think that an application could be refused because of mere doubts about a trader which were expressed by the weights and measures

1215
authority and which were not supported by evidence of relevant convictions. Any relevant convictions and the evidence would be a matter for the police.
I would ask myself—I am sure that your Lordships will accompany me in this particular query—do we need the weights and measures authority to be statutorily consulted about taxi or hire car vehicle licences, boat licences, window cleaners' licences, late night caterers' licences or even places of entertainment licences? I think that in all these cases the answer must be, No. We understand the concern of my noble friend, but I would certainly emphasise that non-statutory consultation will always be possible and that the involvement of the police will ensure that proved breaches of consumer law and, indeed, many other things which were spoken of by my noble friend, can be brought to the attention of the licensing authority. I think that as we have the measure in the schedule at the moment, we should not ask for more than that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, there is a certain amount of merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put forward because, when you take the whole spectrum of licences that are involved here, it may well be that the weights and measures authority has an interest. I am wondering whether the Government would think about it, not by making it statutory to consult, but by giving them the right in specific cases to object. I think that that would probably meet the point that the noble Lord has in mind. As the Bill stands at the moment, I do not think that they have any right to object to a licence being given to any person, and it may well be, from their own experience, that they should be able to exercise that right.
It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would like to speak on this when I move a later amendment on this particular subject. I think that this would be a way of meeting the point, without giving them an overall right—as has been given to the chief constable and to the fire authority. I think it was the Minister of State, during the Committee stage, who appreciated that there were cases where the fire authority need not be consulted, and we are changing the Bill to that effect.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for what I think is a sound suggestion. I was a little worried about one remark that my noble friend Lord Lyell made. He said that he would not like the idea of objections being made on—and I cannot remember what he said—I think, suspicion, but at any rate without conviction.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, he said "doubts".
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I do not see how that could happen because the purpose of notifying the weights and measures authority would be to enable it to make its recommendations, reservations or objections publicly, and it would have to do that. I certainly agree that it would be quite wrong to let it do it privately. Yet this is what the Government seem to be suggesting; that it should consult privately and that that should then influence the granting of the licence. I do not think that that is what the Bill intended. I am rather surprised that my noble friend said so.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I could correct a doubt that could be in my noble friend's mind. I said—and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, seemed to agree with me—that I would be loath to think that an application could be refused by the licensing authority because of doubts about a trader expressed by the weights and measures authority which were not supported by evidence of relevant convictions. I think that that goes a long way towards meeting the point that has been expressed by my noble friend, but, in addition to the comments that I have already made, I would also stress that there is no need to give the express right to bodies—such as consumer authorities or weights and measures authorities—to object; any interested body has the right to object to the licensing authority when licences have been applied for.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, and perhaps I may add, when notice has been given to the public, in which case of course the weights and measures authority and the regional authority would be treated simply as a member of the public in that regard. I should have thought that this was a strange way of going about things. I really think that my noble friend ought to look at this again, if only to see whether some means should be given of encouraging the regional authorities and the weights and measures authorities to take an interest in these proceedings.
One must remember the way in which weights and measures authorities work. In Scotland they do not bring the case to the Procurator Fiscal on every occasion. It is well known that, to a large extent, their method is to work by giving guidance to those concerned—to warning them, helping them and so forth. It may very well be that this kind of thing ought to be taken note of in some form or another at the time of the granting of licences. I do not see any objection to this. Of course, under the Fair Trading Act, there are special proceedings where it is not a question of convictions at all.
Perhaps my noble friend might have a look at that before the next stage of the Bill. It seems to me that the weights and measures authorities have a real contribution to make to this licensing business. It is worth recognising that and getting their co-operation rather than expecting them to look through public notices and saying, "Oh, we don't like that chap, and we will object to him". I shall not pursue this further now.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord appreciates that not all applications for a licence are subject to public notice.
Lord Drumalbyn: Yes, my Lords, I said in my introductory remarks that, although any application for a licence can be published if the local authority wishes it to be, it does not have to be. It is not a prescribed duty. I entirely agree with that, which makes the case greater. I am grateful to the noble Lord. He makes my case for me there. That is something worth looking at. I do not pretend that the drafting of this would be perfect in any case. I rather agree that perhaps I went rather wild in bringing in all kinds of licences, some of which are not applicable, although one or two of those mentioned could be. For example,

1217
of all the offences that the weights and measures authorities have fixed on, more important than any other perhaps is the changing of the odometer. This comes again closely to the licensing of taxi-drivers and all that range of activities. One wants to see that the public, the consumer, are going to get the best possible service through the use of licences given. It is with that in view that I moved this amendment. However, I do not press it now. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 82, line 28, after ("and") insert (",where me activity is wholly or mainly to be carried on in premises,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30. All these amendments arise from an undertaking which I gave in Committee to examine the possibility of limiting the duty of licensing authorities to forward all licence applications to fire authorities and to consult fire authorities on all temporary licences and on every variation and suspension of a licence.
As a result of my undertaking, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, withdrew a series of amendments which in fact qualified the duty of licensing authorities in this regard, and the Government have now tabled this particular amendment, No. 5, and the others, most of which are consequential, which limit the duty of licensing authorities to send copies of licence applications to the fire authority to cases where the activity involved is to be wholly, or mainly, carried on on premises, and a number of consequential amendments placing similar qualifications on the role of the fire authority as competent objectors to licence applications, and on the duty of the licensing authority to consult the fire authority on temporary licences and on the variations and suspension of licences already granted.
I think it was clear from the discussions in Committee that a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House thought it unnecessary to trouble the fire authorities with applications which did not relate to premises, and therefore had no significant safety interest. Indeed, we were left with my noble friend Lord Stodart wondering what the appropriate celebration might be on this, the first occasion when he had a recorded agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, so obviously something had to be done. I hope therefore that these amendments will commend themselves to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I dare not speak for the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, but, speaking for myself, I am grateful that the Government have seen fit to do this. It is eminently sensible, and so long as we can be assured that there is no deprivation of "chippies" by fire around any part of Perthshire, then I shall be delighted to accord a vote of thanks to the Government in this case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 82, line 30, after ("mainly") insert ("to be").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment
1218
clarifies the fact that applications for grant or renewal of a licence are made in respect of activities or phases of activities to be carried out in the future, and not in respect of current activities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 83, line 35, leave out ("and the fire authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 83, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) in relation to an application in respect of a licence relating to an activity wholly or mainly to be carried on in premises, the fire authority;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 83, line 39, after ("mainly") insert ("to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 83, line 41, at end insert (", any owner or occupier of neighbouring property, and the local community council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment, as indeed have been all amendments so far moved. It deals with a point that I suggested might be relevant to the inquiries of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We come to who can object and make representations in respect of the applications for, or granting of, licences. First of all, for any kind of licence at all it is the chief constable and, where appropriate now, where premises are involved, the fire authority. That is for any kind of licence. Then,
"in relation to an application of which public notice has been given …".
That is strictly laid down as those classes of licence which are prescribed by the Secretary of State, and over and above that those that the local licensing authority think should be advertised. In that case any member of the public is empowered to object.
Then we have a third category. I nearly suggested that this could be left out because the people involved in it really are members of the public. This is in relation to a licence concerning
"an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises forming part of a building …".
Then we have the relevant and competent objectors:
"any owner or occupier of other premises situated in the building".
First, surely any member of the public is equally allowed to object. I am suggesting, for the avoidance of doubt, that the other people who should be allowed to be competent objectors, where it is a question of the activity carried on in premises forming part of a building, should be neighbouring proprietors—not just people who owner-occupy property in the building but those who are neighbours.
The other phrase I have is,
"and the local community council".
They should have a locus in this. The Government are always inviting the local community councils to

1219
take a greater interest in civic matters within their areas and often the question of what is being, or is not being, granted a licence is a matter of concern to them, and they should be given a locus there.
If I am told that an amendment such as this is not necessary because members of the public, if the matter is advertised, will have the right which the amendment seeks to provide, I would point out that it may well be that such a licence will not be advertised, so that the only people with a competent locus to object will be owners or occupiers "situated in the same building". I want to widen that so that it applies to occupiers or owners of neighbouring property.
The simple reason for my proposal is to encourage people to take an interest in their areas. We set up local community councils under the 1973 Act, and already people complain that they have no power and nothing much to do. I should have thought we were here dealing with the very essence of their concern in an area and that they should be given power to object if need be. Let us remember that we have yet to debate some important proposed new clauses, including one from myself, dealing with certain establishments which may be in parts of buildings; and in respect of those I am sure people in neighbouring property, and the local community council, will be interested and would like the right to object, if they cannot be consulted in the first instance.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, there have been criticisms of the drafting of the Bill to the effect that it is both cumbersome and bureaucratic, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would probably count himself among the critics.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Never!
The Earl of Mansfield: I am heartened to hear that, my Lords. In any event, if the amendment were accepted it would result in a considerable amount of extra work for those concerned with the making, scrutiny and disposal of licence applications. Whatever the criticisms of the Bill and its procedures may be, the situation would not be helped by adding to the duties of the licensing authority, which is what the amendment would do. What it would not do would be to confer on neighbouring proprietors or community councils a right they do not already posesss. They can already make objections and representations as seem appropriate to them, and, if those objections are reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that they are taken into consideration by the licensing authority. However, the amendment would impose on licensing authorities an absolute duty to consider, through not necessarily to accept, objections or representations from those services.
One could complain that the amendment does not seek to define a "neighbouring" proprietor. How far would it extend beyond adjacent proprietors? It would apply, I suppose, only where the licence application related to a part of a building and not where the premises were detached. The amendment would impose no duty to notify neighbouring proprietors or community councils, though I believe that if the amendment really were to have any effect, that would have to be done.
1220
The list of competent objectors in paragraph (3) seeks to identify those with an obvious and immediate interest in licence applications. It is deliberately kept short to avoid placing additional unnecessary duties on licensing authorities. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted which would prevent anyone with a legitimate interest from making objections or representations to a licensing authority about any licence application. For the variety of reasons I have given, although I appreciate the noble Lord's motivation, his amendment would not do what he seeks to do and it would certainly cause much extra work.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I accept that the amendment alone would not do what I want to do, my Lords, but when it came to the consequential changes that would need to be made I am sure I should get the help of the Scottish Office draftsmen; or, failing that, I should burn some midnight oil in order to do it. And remember, we have a long way to go with the Bill; we have Third Reading to come, and then it must go to another place and, having pointed the way, I am sure there are people there capable of dealing with the necessary consequential amendments.
I am glad that on this occasion the Minister did not use the phrase "compelling reasons"; he should forget such words because there is nothing very compelling about most of the arguments being used by Ministers about the Bill. As for defining "neighbouring", that could be done without much trouble, should it be necessary. Again, I return to my submission that a great deal of work would not be involved. After all, how many community councils will there be in a particular area in respect of a licence? There will be only one. I recollect that at an earlier point we were told that a person applying for a licence in a building must give the other people in the building an intimation of that application for a licence. From that point of view, therefore, work is placed on the applicant as well as on the licensing authority.
I am not happy about the reasons given by the Minister, but I do not propose to press the amendment at this time. Remember, it is the Government's own idea that people should take an interest in what is happening in their areas. That was one of the purposes for the establishment of community councils. If the noble Earl objects to the phrase "neighbouring proprietors", he could delete that and just insert "community councils". As a matter of fact, when this matter was put to me from Glasgow, they also included "church authorities" which, it was pointed out, may also be concerned with the kind of licences for which applications may be made. Certainly it is not only people living in a particular building who will be concerned with what may happen in that building. People in neighbouring buildings may fear that the value of their property could be considerably affected by what is licensed in the area. I hope the noble Earl and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will examine the matter further between now and the next stage of the Bill. I know that Lord Lyell will give all his weight to it—
Lord Lyell: I will?
Lord Ross of Marnock:—and I am seeking to influence him so that he comes on my side in this matter.

1221
I know how open-minded he is—and I said "open-minded"; I did not use the word "empty". I am sure he will come round to my point of view that this is a meritorious amendment, which, in the mean-time, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 83, line 43, after ("shall") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it might be helpful if I spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. These amendments are designed to meet my undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to restructure this sub-paragraph in such a way as to make it more readily comprehensible. It is now clear that a competent objector has two main tasks; he must both lodge his objection with the authority and intimate it to the applicant. Noble Lords may wish to note that when this sub-paragrah is next reprinted, the words from "and" on page 84 will be taken out of the indentation and will form a separate sub-clause qualifying both 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b). This realignment should make the meanng of the sub-paragraph even clearer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 17:
Page 83, line 44, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
Page 84, line I, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
Page 84, line 4, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(iii)").
Page 84, line 9, at beginning insert ("(b)").
Page 86, line 17, after ("any") insert ("such").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 87, line 31, after first ("and") insert (",where the application relates to an activity wholly or mainly to be carried on in premises,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, through a slip of the tongue Amendment No. 17 was moved en bloc with a group of other amendments, and I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to tell him the reason for the amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 19, I have already spoken to it with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 89, line 30, after ("and") insert (", where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 91, line 7, after ("(d)") insert ("where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 91, line 21, after ("(c)") insert ("where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 92, line 33, after ("and") insert (", where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 93, line 5, after ("or") insert (", where the licence relates to an activity wholly or mainly carried on in premises,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 93, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
("(a) the receipt of each application or
(b) their final decision on each such application, cause details of such receipt or final decision to be entered in the register.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we discussed this paragraph in Committee, I stressed that since licence applications relate to activities which may affect the amenity, welfare and livelihood of other members of the community, the Government felt it important that access to inspect the register of applications should be free and unrestricted. Since then, we have looked again at the drafting of the paragraph, and concluded that there is an ambiguity in its drafting which might lead licensing authorities to believe that there was no need to enter details of a licence application on the register until after a final decision had been taken on it. Clearly that interpretation would severely limit the usefulness of the register, since early awareness of applications on which decisions are still pending is an important part of the public right to monitor the licensing procedure at every stage. Accordingly, the amendment redrafts part of paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to make it clear that licence applications must be entered on the register as soon as they are received, with a separate and later entry relating to the decision taken upon them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 94, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) A competent objector may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of a licensing authority under paragraph 3(5) above

(a) that his objection or representation was frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) as to the amount of expenses awarded against him.

( ) The agent of a competent objector may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of a licensing authority under paragraph 3(5) above—

(a) that his objection or representation was unauthorised; or

(b) as to the amount of expenses awarded against him.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House might recall that in Committee we had a discussion as to whether licensing authorities should have the right to dismiss objections as being frivolous, vexatious or unauthorised and then claim expenses without there being any right of appeal against their decisions, and I

1223
promised the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that I would look again at the point. I am quite sure that the paragraph will be used very rarely and the amount of expenses claimed thereby are likely to be very small. Nevertheless, there is an argument on grounds of principle for providing an appeal against a licensing authority's decision to treat an objection as frivolous or vexatious, and the amendment inserts the necessary right of appeal into paragraph 17 of the schedule, which deals generally with appeals to the sheriff against a licensing authority's decision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 33:
Leave out Schedule 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I felt that it was important to give the Government an opportunity to justify the whole bureaucratic procedure in respect of licences. Remember, my Lords, that this licensing business covers everybody: window cleaners, scrap metal dealers, auctioneers, booksellers, secondhand clothing dealers—they are all there. According to this great schedule nobody yet knows how they are going to be treated. It depends very much on decisions of the Secretary of State which applications should be advertised, and even that does not end the matter; if it thinks fit, the local authority can itself discriminate and say that certain applications have to be advertised. Obviously all this will lead to very considerable delays, and that is why the minimum of three months was suggested in respect of my first amendment.
The City of Glasgow, for instance, without the help of the Scottish Office and the proposed bureaucratic procedure, has been dealing with between 5,000 and 6,000 licences a year. It is felt that there will be a great licensing machinery. One has to give some local authorities merely the scent of a new structure and it will be erected—and it will cost money. The people who will have to pay might well be the ratepayers, though the Government suggest that the whole licensing procedure will pay for itself; that is to say, it is the applicants who will pay. However, in some cases, so far as I can see, the local authorities will have to pay because they, not the applicants for the licences, will make the decision about advertising.
When I first looked at this proposal I thought it was quite a good thing, but now 1 am not so sure, because it is all so complex. No one reading the Bill can be terribly sure what will happen regarding any particular kind of licence. The Bill has had its Second Reading and the Committee stage, and now further amendments have been put down and may be passed. Yet I do not know what will happen about window cleaners, for instance; I do not know whether anyone will look after them at all, because very considerable changes have been made.
We are talking about the whole licensing procedure before we have dealt with the individual licence applicants—taxi drivers, scrap metal dealers, itinerant metal dealers, secondhand dealers, as well as window cleaners and others who may well come into it. I therefore hope I will get a vote of thanks from the Government. There are local authorities complaining about this,
1224
particularly the district of the City of Glasgow, who have probably more experience of dealing with licensing than the Scottish Office has, certainly. I am now giving the opportunity to the Government to justify the change which is being made in this respect. We have struggled along since 1892 under the old formulas—and we have not done too badly. Certainly the 1892 Act needed cleaning up and bringing up to date, but whether or not this is the best way is up to the Government to justify. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord objects to the schedule—otherwise, he would not have moved that it be deleted from the Bill—but what he does not say is what he would do by way of providing any alternative provisions for the licensing authorities to adopt; because what the Bill does is to set up licensing provisions (in some cases mandatory, in most cases optional) where the licensing authority have resolved that this or that activity should be licensed. So what Schedule 1 does is to set out the procedures to be followed with regard to the licensing of these various activities, and it provides for the submission of applications, for dealing with objections and representations, for the disposal of applications, for the issue of temporary licences, for the duration of licences, for the notification of changes and alterations affecting licences and for the variation and suspension of licences, and it sets out the appropriate fees for licences and appeals to the sheriff.
There are no existing provisions in current legislation for a licensing procedure in respect of the activities identified in the Bill. Therefore, the draftsman (so to speak) on the instructions of the Government had to sit down and devise one. I maintain that a standard procedure should be laid down in fairness to the applicant, the public and the police or fire authority where appropriate, and not least the licensing authority, which is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to grant or renew a licence. So, taking the point shortly, if Schedule 1 were deleted there would be no procedure whatsoever for dealing with licences.
What the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has not said—very wisely, I think—is that he is advocating an ad hoc method of dealing with applications under these provisions. So (dare I use the word?) there are compelling reasons to have some sort of procedures to be followed, and I really think that as this Bill has pursued its way through the House these are, if not the best that can be devised then at least the best that can be devised in the current state of knowledge so far as this Bill is concerned.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we have been considering this for (how many years is it?) 12 years. The current state of knowledge spans quite a long time. Indeed, when the Minister says that there are no procedures at the moment in respect of some of these activities for local authorities to issue licences, perhaps he will tell me exactly how the Cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh have been dealing with the question of taxis over the past decade. Let us go back probably 40 or 50 years. Of course they have powers; but in later parts of the Bill we are taking those powers away by taking away the powers that they have under

1225
private legislation or under by-laws. The question arises, having taken away powers that they presently have: Is this the best way to deal with it?
I admit that I am being destructive, but there is nothing to prevent us getting rid of Schedule 1, and when we come to the point of the changes we are going to make in the 1892 Act taking into account that that has been done. So, with all due respect, the Minister of State keeps using this phrase "compelling arguments". I do not know who they are compelling. They might compel him, but I do not think they compel very many more Members here. It is a way of dealing with it, and it seems on the face the right way; but the more we go into it in respect of the different kinds of licence, the way the Bill has been drafted we do not know yet which licences arc going to be subjected to the whole gamut of advertising, appeals, decisions following objection and then appeals to the sheriff, and so on.
There are improvements within it; there is no doubt about that. You could hardly have worked away all these years and not got some improvement. But I can tell the noble Earl that there is also a recipe for delay and for further expenses in respect of dealing with these licences which do not exist at the present time. I am sorry he did not seize the chance to trumpet abroad the tale of triumph of how the Government have wrestled with this whole question of licences and come up with something really satisfactory and important. He has not convinced me; he has not compelled me. But I doubt whether he will think about it again. I have a feeling that this is the whole question about this Bill, that we have been looking at it for so long we had better get something on the statute book, and then, later on, we will have a look and see whether it works. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Rights of entry and inspection]:
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 27, after ("authority") insert ("or the local weights and measures authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need hardly draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that I had difficulty in drafting this amendment. The point really is that there are certain functions, in pursuance of the functions conferred on the licensing authority, which can equally be exercised by the weights and measures authorities. In the exercise of certain of the licensing activities the weights and measures authorities will have normal access in the course of their business into the various premises.
What I was really trying to get at was some way of co-ordinating the work and getting co-operation between the two services. I do not for a moment suggest that the amendment I have put down would succeed in doing that. For one thing, the weights and measures authorities are mentioned only once in the paragraph; that is,
"Without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, an authorised officer of the licensing authority",
and then I was proposing to put in "or the local weights and measures authority" before the words
"or the fire authority or a constable …".
Then I have taken out the word "respectively" so as not to narrow down their functions too closely.
1226
I can only put it in this way to my noble friend. If he has any sympathy at all with the purposes of this amendment, will he have a look at it to see whether he can draft an amendment in such a way as to achieve the objective of better co-ordination in the issuing of licences? I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend has pointed out that these amendments follow on from the group of amendments that he spoke to earlier. My noble friend has suggested that—
Lord Drumabyn: My Lords, would my noble friend forgive me? That is only partly true, if I may say so. They do not necessarily follow on. They would stand on their own. One was the question of notifying the local weights and measures authorities of applications. This is the exercising of the function and making certain that the duties which the local weights and measures authorities perform are performed in such a way as to work together with the licensing system.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend and the House will see that in some respects—if that would please my noble friend—this group of amendments is similar to those moved, and I would say at the outset that the Government would resist any extension of the three categories of authorised person already identified by my noble friend in the clause; namely, a local authority official, the police or the fire authority. We believe these three categories are sufficient for the purposes of this clause which concerns the right of entry and inspection. If we increased the category we believe there would be no end to the various official bodies which could legitimately or otherwise claim that they should have a power of inspection and entry to premises. However, the Government are very keen that the businessman carrying on his legitimate activity should not be plagued—and this is not to strong a word—by a steady stream of callers from statutory bodies wishing to inspect premises. In our view, we have got the balance right and the three categories identified in the clause are those essential to ensuring that the licensing requirements are being adhered to. The Weights and Measures Authority, which, incidentally, is not the licensing authority but the regional authority, already has powers to enter and inspect weightng apparatus or equipment. I cannot see that it requires the wider powers suggested by this amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, it is not a question of seeking wider powers. It is one of co-ordinating powers which exist. If this does not appeal to my noble friend, then all I can do is to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford)My Lords in calling Amendment No. 37, I have to point out that if this is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 38.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 4, leave out from ("licensed") to ("to") in line 6.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 39,44 and 141. This group of amendments arises from the discussions we had in Committee about the window cleaning licence provisions. As well as the general question of the need for a discretionary power of licensing window cleaners—on which the Government's views are unchanged—noble Lords queried the need to make special provision for production of a window cleaner's licence as provided for in Clause 45(2) and 45(4). There was also some debate as the appropriateness or otherwise of the words used in Clause 45 of requiring a window cleaner to "forthwith exhibit" his window cleaner's licence.
I have given much thought to what noble Lords have said and I recognise the strength of feelings which a number of your Lordships expressed. I cannot say that 1 wholly agree with all that was said, but, on the other hand, I recognise that the existing provisions in the local Acts, such as the Edinburgh Act, do not require special arrangements for the production of licences and I am also conscious that there are general provisions in Part I of the Bill which can be used to some effect. As is evident from these amendments, therefore, it will be seen that I have decided that on this issue I should accept the view of the majority of speakers in the debate and I propose to modify the window cleaning provisions accordingly.
The first group of amendments to Clauses 5 and 7 are, in essence, paving amendments to the substantive amendment to Clause 45. They also achieve the object which my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, sought of substituting for references to "exhibition" of licences references to the "production of licences". Lord Airedale wrote to me saying he approved of these changes. The main amendments to Clause 45 delete subsections (2), (3) and (4) and the effect of them is that there is no special provision in Clause 45 for the production of licences.
So, window cleaners are brought into line with all the other activities in Part II and, under Clause 5 of the Bill, an authorised officer of a licensing authority or a police constable may require the production of a licence if they have reasonable grounds for believing that an individual is carrying on an activity as a window cleaner. Under Clause 5(2) the person concerned is not required to produce his licence "forthwith" as was the case with the proposals in Clause 45 in relation to the window cleaner, but is merely required to produce the licence "within a reasonable time". Thus, with these amendments, there is perhaps a slight lessening in the rigour of requirement on the window cleaners. The main point remains the same, however: if a police constable or authorised officer finds someone in suspicious circumstances who claims to be a window cleaner the constable will be entitled under Clause 5 to require production of the licence and, under Clause 7(7), failure to do so within a reasonable time thereafter could be an offence.
I bring forward these amendments with some misgivings. I did think that the previous provisions for immediate production of a licence made sense in the special circumstances of window cleaners, but I have to accept that they are not features of the existing legislation, and I am prepared to bow to what was I think the
1228
general view of the House as expressed in Committee. I therefore commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, during the earlier stage many noble Lords queried whether window cleaners should require licences at all. It came out that it was the police who, from the point of view of prevention of crime, were concerned that there should be a licence for window cleaners. Originally it was not just the chief constable or an authorised officer who could ask the window cleaner to show his licence but "any other person" with a reasonable cause for concern. What immediately jumps to the mind in the case of "any other person" is the person most concerned, the person who is having his windows cleaned. There have been many recent cases—and I read of one a fortnight ago, not in Scotland but in Engand—
where a burglary took place. In recollection, the person concerned realised that some people had cleaned the windows two days before and, indeed had "cased the joint". There may therefore be some justification for the police concern.
I think that originally the provision was too elaborate in regard to why a window cleaner (apart from anybody else) should have to exhibit. The question of exhibit was, of course, nonsense. He now has to show his licence or produce it. It leaves us with the original clause very much decimated and Clause 45 consists now of only about two and a half lines. It is easier to read and understand; as to whether it makes sense, we still have time to look at it and see.
For my part, I have followed up the argument that the Government have used in regard to the need to prevent crime, against someone by some excuse getting into a house and effecting a burglary then or returning later to do so. I thought of the other tradesmen who are entitled to enter a house and casually invite householders to have this or that done. In Glasgow, the city authority felt that chimney sweeps should be involved, mainly, I suppose, in the tenement areas in Glasgow where the sweeps still insist on going inside to clean the chimneys, whereas many others do it from the outside. I think the Government did the right thing. They listened to the House. If the House is not satisfied with what the Government have done, they have time for second thoughts. I do not propose to oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("exhibit") and insert ("produce").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Offences, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 3, leave out ("premises, vehicle, vessel,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("exhibit") and insert ("produce").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 5, line 26, leave out ("more") and insert ("both").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 as well as moving Amendment No. 45. As presently drafted, Clause 7(8)(c) empowers a court which has convicted a licence holder of an offence under Clause 7 to disqualify his premises from use for the purpose of the same kind of licence for a period not exceeding five years. This provision derives from Section 67 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, but on further consideration we feel it to be unnecessary in respect of the types of premises licensed under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, if this was done for the purpose of clarity, may I suggest that the Government have another look at this. It is far from clear. It is confusing to find the words "an order" will be on line 26 and also on line 27. It could be better phrased and far better drafted than it is. As to the sense of it, I do not disagree with that.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is not a drafting amendment. The purpose of these amendments was to remove a provision which we do not think is justified in this Bill. I shall certainly have a look at the drafting.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, if I may just draw the noble Earl's attention to how it reads now—I presume he has done this—it says:
"in addition to any other penalty which the court may impose, make an order in accordance with both of the following paragraphs, that is to say an order".
and so it goes on. You have the words "an order" twice within a line and a half. It does not make for clarity at all. If it is not drafting—and I agree with him what is left out in paragraph (c) is not drafting—then there is scope now for proper drafting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 27, after ("say") insert ("an order").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 31, leave out paragraph (c).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("or (6)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 together. These amendments have the effect of deleting the shared liability of joint licence holders for offences under Clause 7(6). The offences covered by subsection (6) include refusal to permit the entry of an authorised
1230
officer or constable; obstruction; refusal to permit inspection of plant or stock in trade; and failure to produce a licence. All arc individual acts committed on a single occasion by a particular individual, and it now seems to us unjust that joint liability for them should automatically attach to the joint licence holder in his or her absence.
Joint liability is, however, retained for offences of breach of licence conditions under Clause 7(2), since such offences are much more likely to represent a continuous state of affairs. Offences under Clause 7(1) clearly cannot be committed by an applicant for a licence, since before a licence is granted there are no licence conditions to violate: accordingly, reference to the liability of a joint applicant is also deleted by these amendments from this subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("applicant or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Application of sections 10 to 29, 40 to 42, and 44 to 46]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("10") and insert ("23").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 50 we can also take Amendments Nos. 51 and 57. They relate more or less to the same point. Amendments Nos. 51 and 57 are pretty well consequential or necessary to cleaning up if we are going to accept Amendment No. 50, as I hope the House is. This particular clause deals with the licensing and regulation of particular activities. There are only certain licences in respect of which it is made mandatory within the Bill. Other aspects of licensing follow from a resolution passed by the licensing authority. The changes that I make here—I suggest Section 23 go 29 for Sections 10 to 29—will mean that the licensing of taxis and hire cars will now, if accepted, become compulsory, taken out of the optional licensing part of the Bill into the mandatory one.
Time and again the Government have told us how many of the licensing authorities presently license taxis and it is pretty well the whole lot of them. When I consider the licensing that is going to take place within this, one of the most important aspects is the licensing of taxis. What I am suggesting is that we make the licensing of taxis mandatory, not subject to a resolution passed by the council. If the figures given by the Government are correct, then it virtually is mandatory; but why not make it so? It is important from the point of view of what we have on the question of licensing of taxis. There is the fitness of the actual vehicle and the fitness of the driver. It does not matter which part of Scotland one is in, one wants the same high standards and powers given to the district council to enforce those high standards, many of which will be laid down by the Secretary of State as is later on in the Bill. That is the substance of the amendment: to take the licensing of taxis and hire cars out of the optional part of the Bill and put into the mandatory part. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should explain before I put Amendment No. 50 that, as the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 57 as well, if that is agreed to in due course, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 58.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the effect of his amendment would be that not only taxi but also hire car licensing would be mandatory. He does not produce much in the way of arguments—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, compelling arguments.
The Earl of Mansfield: Arguments at all, my Lords, I would say, as to why this form of licensing should be mandatory except in respect of the condition of the taxi and possibly of the driver. I concede that licensing is highly desirable, at least in the urban areas, and there are at present a number of anomalies where district councils such as Eastwood do not license taxis or hire cars. This then produces a problem about unlicensed "pirates", and that disturbs the nearby licensed trade.
I think it follows from the discussions we have had with the convention that most authorities will use the new powers to license taxis and hire cars, but in remote rural areas where no licensing exists at present I think it is difficult to argue that it should, and indeed must, in the future. I pray in aid the recommendation of the working party that taxi licensing should not be universal. I suppose it could be argued that because some authorities in the Central Belt do not now license taxis it means they will not necessarily do so in the future; but from what I have been able to glean I think the real reason why some of those authorities in the Central Belt have not so far adopted licensing is that they have been waiting for these provisions and powers to be given to them and they have waited until the enactment of this Bill. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that when it comes to discussing the details of the legislation with the convention, and in the circular which will no doubt be issued in the normal way after enactment, we shall want to make it clear that it is our view, in the light of police comments, that in the Central Belt and around urban areas it is desirable that local authorities consult about ensuring a uniform application of licensing provisions. But the fact of the matter is that at the moment 26 out of 56 authorities do not license taxis—I have the various lists here—and, really, if authorities such as Sutherland, Tweeddale or Kincardine manage to get along well enough without taxi licensing and without creating anomalies in adjacent areas, I do not think it is right for us to impose licensing upon them. For that reason I am unable to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I hope that the noble Minister will reconsider this. He said that 26 of the 56 authorities did not license taxis, and presumably hire cars as well. He argued that this should only apply in urban areas—
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have not got the exact figures on hire cars, but I believe that 30 out of 56 authorities do not license them.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, that assists my argument as much as the original reply. This would appear to be a case where, frankly, the argument in favour of my noble friend's amendment is a question of the safeguarding of the public. We are not looking at the immediate position but at something for the future. The whole provisions are now to be changed because my noble friend's amendment to delete Schedule 1 has been withdrawn, and the new provisions for licensing are all laid down in Schedule 1. This would appear to have been an opportunity to have a careful look at the licensing of taxis and hire cars. In fact, though this may be irrelevant, there may well be a case throughout the whole of the United Kingdom to have completely separate provisions for hire cars and taxis, and not in a Bill of this kind, because it is such an important provision and deals with the safety of the public. It is not something that is being argued for the sake of the taxi operator or the driver. It would ensure the proper condition of the vehicle and also of the driver, because he would have to be licensed as well.
We are talking about these new conditions and also, with regard to taxis, it will affect the question of taxi fares, which is very important. There appears to be no reason why this should not be mandatory. If any area has no taxis or hire cars then they need not worry about it, but surely it ought to be mandatory, so that wherever taxis or hire cars are in operation there can be a view-point for the whole of Scotland to safeguard the interests of the public.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I do not think we have actually heard any arguments which would lead us to believe that in the remoter areas such as Sutherland a great deal of harm is being done by not licensing taxis. In fact, a great service is being done in some of these remoter areas by some of the smaller and perhaps irregular taxi firms—people who are known non-drinkers—who turn out on a Saturday night to take people home, and they are doing a service. They are making quite sure that people are no, Lempted to climb into their own cars and go around to their own danger and to the danger of their neighbours.
I am sure that in some of the remoter areas such as Sutherland there are some people who use their own car as the local hire car, but they could not be inclined to turn their own car into a taxi in the true sense of the word, so that they need not display whatever notice might be demanded by a licensing authority. Therefore, you might be in danger of removing a service which is actually affording safety to the public, in an effort to afford greater safety where no danger actually exists; and so in this matter I would support the Government's view.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am myself in sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I think the House might well listen to him because he comes from a remote area, though perhaps not one as remote as Sutherland. In trying to reach a decision on this, I wonder whether my noble friend could indicate to us at what point he will discuss with the local authorities whether this or that district will have a taxi licensing system. Will it be before the Bill goes to another place, after the Bill has become law or what?

1233
We are to some extent legislating with at least one eye covered, if not both eyes covered, in this case. It seems to me that probably there is a strong argument for exemption from taxi licensing in certain areas. I wonder whether this will be the better way to deal with it rather than to impose on the mass of local authorities—the 56 or whatever number it is—apart from certain remoter areas, the duty to have a licensing system. It is very difficult to legislate in the kind of vague atmosphere that we are being asked to legislate in over this particular case.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, It was disappointing to hear from the Minister—
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I could perhaps answer my noble friend's point before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, decides what he will do about his amendment. I want to say to my noble friend that we are continuously being berated for not allowing the democratically elected local authorities to get on with their functions and to do their best by the local citizenry. But this is precisely what we are doing in this particular instance. May I remind the House that there are only two areas where mandatory licensing is going to apply. Those are in respect of public entertainment provisions and metal dealing—two very diffierent activities. The first relates simply and solely to public safety, and the second to crime prevention. In all other areas of licensing, it will be for the local authority to decide what is best for its own area. So if my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn says that this is vague legislation, I must say that it is vague only because it will give local authorities freedom to do what is right in their judgement.
Where is the overwhelming need to impose on all local authorities a system of licensing taxis? I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said on the subject, but I do not think that he produced any compelling reasons either for the prevention of crime, or for safety considerations, as to why all taxis and hire cars in Scotland need to be licensed. There are various provisions, such as the construction and use regulations, and also those which relate to what I might call elderly cars, which deal with safety. But there is certainly no reason that I have heard tonight why this general rule, so far as the Bill is concerned, should be breached in the case of taxis and hire cars.
I very much agreed with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said. Very different considerations apply in country areas, particularly in remoter areas, from what obtain in the central belt. I cannot believe that it will help the citizenry of Thurso town, if they are deprived of their very welcome hire cars on Saturday nights when they happen to be fu', merely because of a bureaucratic and unwelcome decision on the part of central Government. I have to say that I rely on what my noble friends have said, and I am really quite without sympathy so far as this provision is concerned, which I suspect seeks to impose uniformity where none is needed.
May I just say this to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn? A circular will be issued, in the way that
1234
circulars are, on enactment of the Bill-in fact, very soon after it becomes an Act. Generally speaking, we shall make plain in what kind of area it is desirable that taxis and hire cars should be licensed, and the kind of consideration that licensing authorities should give to the matter in their own areas. There will certainly be no diktat about this and I do not think it is desirable that there should be. I am told that even in England and Wales, where comparisons may be made—not least, by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—only about 80 per cent. of district councils license taxis and not all of them throughout their areas. This is information provided by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, with whom we have been having a good deal of consultation while this Bill has been going through your Lordships' House.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the importance of this is emphasised by the fact that we have 13 clauses, from Clause 10 to Clause 22, dealing with taxis. There is no question of leaving local authorities to decide for themselves. All these clauses are there and they will all become law. Apart from that, within these clauses the Secretary of State takes further powers in relation to the type of vehicle and so on.
I am the last to suggest that it is the same in Glasgow as it is in Wick, Sutherland or anywhere else. But what guarantee is there that we will get the necessary safety regulations and control, in respect of taxis in all the urban areas where they are really needed? There might be a case—it went through my mind as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke—for an opting-out procedure. But we can only even think of that if the Minister of State will tell us those district authorities which presently do not license taxis.
Let us not underestimate the importance of the service that is done in the rural areas, but because that service is done it should be a safe service. It should not be exorbitant. The people who use it are not necessarily local people. They may well be in the area as tourists and, in order to get to a certain point, they have to avail themselves of whatever taxi service there is. I do not know whether such people complain, or who receives their complaints, but I should be very surprised indeed if they did not complain about the condition of the cars and about the charges.
If we did make it mandatory, I do not think that there would necessarily be a tremendous burden on the local authority. After all, if there are few people wanting to run a taxi service, there will not be many applications. So far as I can see, there will be very little difficulty in the rural areas about that. The difficulty in the rural areas is in getting someone to give any kind of service at all. I ask the noble Earl: please do not tell us what they do in England and Wales. We are legislating here in a very different way from England and Wales. There may be some things in respect of which we can learn. But I should be quite happy with 80 per cent. coverage of the country, which the noble Earl said there is in England and Wales.
It was not a very good or a very compelling argument, and it is crystal clear in my mind that the Government are not very sure of what they are doing here. If there is one thing that should be mandatory, it is something which involves public safety. The noble Earl may as well use the same argument in

1235
respect of itinerant metal dealers in the North of Scotland or the Western Isles, but they have to be licensed. And how many scrap metal dealers are there in Sutherland who also have to be licensed—all one of them! So the argument which the noble Earl used was not very convincing.
I shall not pursue this amendment at the present time, but I should like the noble Earl to give us the information that is necessary to proceed further on the basis of opting-out, and to give us a list of those district authorities which presently do not license taxis and hire cars. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, disagrees, I hope he will say so, but I think that this is probably a convenient breaking point for a dinner adjournment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I hoped to get to Amendment No. 61, but at the moment it does not seem likely
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would like to go on for a few more amendments—
Lord Ross of Marnock: No.
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving that consideration on Report be now adjourned, I should like to suggest that the House be adjourned until 10 minutes to eight. My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report now be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.9 to 7.50 p.m.]
Bill further considered on Report.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 6, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, perhaps we could discuss Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58 and 59 together. The House may recall that during Committee discussion of Clause 23, which relates to second-hand dealers' licences, concern was expressed that, by resolving in general terms to license second-hand dealers, licensing authorities might inadvertently catch classes of dealer—for example, second-hand booksellers—whom they would not have opted to license specifically. I therefore undertook to examine ways of limiting the right of licensing authorities to make blanket resolutions in respect of second-hand dealers. This amendment therefore qualifies the rights of licensing authorities resolving to license second-hand dealers by providing that a resolution made in relation to second-hand dealing must specify the particular class or classes of dealer whom it is intended to bring within the scope of licensing.
This is a modest but I think helpful amendment which will compel a licensing authority to think through in detail the intended scope of second-hand dealer licensing before any resolution in respect of that activity is made. For structural consistency, the analogous provision in respect of taxi and hire car licensing, which is currently paragraphed as part of Clause 9(3), is now separately paragraphed as new subsection (4), and the general provisions of Clause 9 are specifically made subject to the provisos in new subsections (4) and (5).
The amendments to Clause 9(3)(i), (ii) and (iii) are also consequential upon the wording of new subsection (5). On reflection, it was decided that reference to "a case" of an activity tended to suggest specification of an individual trader. The intention is not, however, to enable resolutions to be made in respect of an individual trader, or traders, but in respect of any particular type or types of second-hand dealing-in other words, second-hand bookselling, car dealing and so on. Accordingly, the reference in new subsection (5) is to the particular class or classes of that activity to be licensed, since "class" appeared to meet our intention here more accurately than "case". In the interests of consistency, "class" or "classes" have also been substituted for "case" or "cases" wherever these words occur in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (3) of Clause 9. Finally, Amendment No. 58 amends the reference to "resolution" in new subsection (4) to make it clear that it relates to the licensing or regulation of the activities in question. This makes the wording here consistent with the fuller version in new subsection (5). I beg to move.
Lord Ross or Marnock: My Lords, this series of amendments hinges upon what the Government are now prepared to do in respect of Amendment No. 59. It is not only helpful. It is sensible. It means that the Government are handing over to local authorities a responsible duty which they would not take on themselves. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell me whether the Government will give some guidance to the licensing authorities, otherwise they may well exempt some classes in one district authority and do the very opposite somewhere else. It affects amendments I have put down relating to second-hand dealers in which I suggest that booksellers and auctioneers ought to be left out. This is a far better way of dealing with it, but let the Government not underestimate the difficulty which they are now inflicting upon the district licensing authorities. However, this is sensible and helpful, and I am very glad that the Government appreciate exactly the difficulties which their generalisation of this particular activity has got them into. Nevertheless, I congratulate them on at least this step forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 55:
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("cases") and insert ("classes").
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("cases") and insert ("classes").
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("case or cases") and insert ("class or classes").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("but the") and insert ("( ) A").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 4, after ("for") insert ("the licensing and regulation of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) A resolution made under this section by the licensing authority relating to the activity provision for the licensing and regulation of which is made in sections 23 to 29 of this Act (that is to say the carrying on of business as a second-hand dealer) shall specify the particular class or classes of that activity which shall thereby fall to be licensed and regulated.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 35, leave out ("may be submitted to the authority") and insert ("will be considered by the authority after the expiry of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the short delay for which this clause provides between the making of a resolution and the consideration of licence applications by the licensing authority is designed to ensure that licensing authorities first considering applications should have a reasonable idea of how many applications there are likely to be and how many will be distributed geographically over their area. It emerged during the Committee stage discussion on this clause that the difference in the wording between Clause 9(6)(b) (ii) and Clause 9(8) created some uncertainty as to whether the overall effect of the clause was to ban the submission of applications for one month following the resolution or not. To place the matter beyond doubt, we have amended to bring the wording of Clause 9(6)(b) (ii) into line with that in Clause 9(8). It should therefore now be clear that there is no time ban on the submission of applications. As soon as a trader or potential trader reads of the local authority resolution, therefore, he will be free to submit an application for a licence, but the licensing authority will not begin to consider applications received until one month after the making of the resolution has elapsed so that applicants generally will have reasonable time to prepare their case. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I welcome this amendment. I welcome even more the words used by the noble Earl the Minister in putting it forward. He referred to the geographical spread, the numbers in respect of licences and the extent to which local authorities are to make up their mind about that particular point. I do so not because I am all that interested in this amendment but because I am very interested in the next. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Minister for having given me a substantial argument in respect of my next amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Taxi and hire car licences]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 8, line 19, after ("grant") insert ("a taxi licence if they are satisfied that a sufficient number of taxis have already been licensed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now on Clause 10, which deals with the licensing of taxis and hire cars. One of the things I was concerned about at Committee, and I believe that I had some support from behind me if nowhere else, was that it was important that among the powers of the local licensing authority—that is, the district council—was the power that, in considering the number of licences for taxis, it should have the right to limit licences or not grant licences beyond a certain number of taxis. This was disputed by the Government on a matter of principle. On a matter of practicality and what would happen if there was no limit on the number of taxis, you would get people providing a service when it suited them and creaming off trade at a particular time or event, but otherwise providing no real service to the general public. It is desirable that the local authority should have the power of limitation. I have put down Amendment No. 61 so that Clause 10(2) might read:
"A licensing authority shall not grant a taxi licence if they are satisfied that a sufficient number of taxis have already been licensed".
We shall get a dependable taxi service if we have a sufficient number but not if we have a superfluity to the extent that it drives people out of business or makes them work for considerably extended hours, which might lead to a loss of safety in respect of the drivers themselves. That is purely and simply the reason for the amendment: it is the principle of the matter. Glasgow and other local authorities which license taxis at the moment place the greatest importance on this—that they should be able to limit the numbers. From that point of view, I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's amendment, which is in line with the principles of an amendment which I proposed at Committee stage. At Committee stage the Minister said that he would consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Consumer Council in Scotland, and we await with great interest the results of those consultations. It has been said to me that the Minister's attitude is that of an agnostic awaiting conversion, and I hope it may be possible to achieve that conversion tonight.
The Minister said there have been many discussions with the National Federation of Taxicab Operators but that they had advanced arguments but no real facts. I do not want to go over all the points made at Committee stage, but in the time that this Bill has been going through your Lordships' House the Federation has compiled a report on the need to control the operating numbers of the hackney carriages industry, dated February of this year. This report has been compiled during our consideration of the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, and therefore it is right up to date. It may be that the Minister has not seen this because it was only agreed at an executive meeting of the federation last Thursday, and the copy I have has a number of handwritten amendments made to it. I

1239
will not go through all the points in the report, but it makes a very effective case for all the different reasons why the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock should be accepted. I hope that the Minister will obtain a copy of the report in due course and will give it his fullest consideration—I am certain that he will.
In dealing with an earlier amendment the Minister cited the support of the working party for his rejection of the amendment, but in this case we can quote the support of the working party in favour of this particular amendment, because they were heartily in favour of a limitation on numbers to be exercised by the licensing body. The removal of control of numbers, or the failure to control numbers, would in my view remove a very important aspect of the licensing authority's control of this system. Merely having control by the market will mean to a great extent that the position of taxi operators will be dominated by the peak periods, which are in the main the evenings and week-ends, and not by general public demand during the daytime, which is when many members of the public want taxis. The public would be very upset if full-time operators were driven out of business and they were unable to get taxis during the daytime.
I said earlier that we shall be interested to learn about the consultations with COSLA, but I have the report of a working party set up by the Society of Directors of Administration of Scotland, arising from a letter from COSLA which was sent to them on 14th January, not a long time ago. The society has accepted the report of its working party, which said that the application would be refused only if the applicant was not a fit and proper person, et cetera, but, additionally,
"providing as a ground of refusal that the grant would result in an over-provision, with any refusal on that or any other ground".
They say that the arguments put forward here will be the basis of the views which COSLA will present in connection with this Bill. Therefore, the society is heartily in favour of the principles of this Bill.
In conclusion, I would comment again that failure to have this limitation will mean bringing in an excess number of persons who may have been driving all through the day and who come to do part-time work in the evening ands at week-ends. That is not to say that we should not have part-time people to supplement the numbers during peak periods, but failure to control the number will inevitably mean that the full-time man who has to make a living out of a certain number of hours of work (and one cannot work 14 hours a day when one is driving a taxi) could be driven out of business. The result could be either that or a run-down in the standards of vehicles because the overheads are so high. The whole point of this amendment is to preserve not merely the position of the taxi operator and taxi driver but also the interests of the public, and to ensure that standards are upheld and that taxis will be available during off-peak periods as well as peak periods.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, in the light of the arguments which have been presented by the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Underhill, I am sure that the noble Earl, with his usual careful consideration of these matters, will find it very difficult to resist this amendment. I express the hope that he will accept it.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I recognise the importance of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, to places such as Glasgow. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Mansfield has to say in reply, because in rural areas where taxi hiring is becoming increasingly important, this places very great power in the hands of local authorities to limit the availability of taxis to people living in those areas. I am not yet prepared to make up my mind one way or the other on the amendment, but I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say. This is a point to which the House should give serious consideration.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am not quite sure that this amendment is in the right place or to the right clause. What it seeks to limit is the taxi driver and not the vehicle. The argument has been that the taxi driver may have been working long hours before turning out at night to drive a taxi, but this particular clause deals only with vehicles. There is no control in this particular clause over the driver. It is the later clause that deals with the question of the driver. I feel that this amendment may mean the right thing; there may be the wish to make sure that the driver is fit and capable of driving his taxi, but it really should be in a different clause. Here we are dealing with whether the vehicle is fit to be driven.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that we had a very full debate in Committee on this subject on 15th December last. I expressed the view, which I think was generally accepted by the Committee, that geenrally speaking it is not really the duty of licensing authorities to impose quantitative restrictions on licences in restraint of trade unless there arc very good and valid reasons for them so doing, and above all that they should not by the restriction of licences create value where none should be created. That part of the argument really goes to the transferability of licences rather than the actual licensing of the vehicle, and we have not at this stage of the Bill's passage got an amendment down for that. Whether that is for a reason I know not, but I have my suspicions.
At the Committee stage I expressed the Government's reservation and I gave various undertakings, particularly to consult with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to consult with the Scottish Consumer Council. My officials immediately after the debate wrote to the convention seeking its views in the light of the debate in the House, and we also asked the convention for up-to-date information on its practices. The convention has only just replied, in the sense that the letter was received only this morning, and of course has not yet been analysed in full. What it does confirm is that the practice, so far as licensing and limitation of numbers is concerned, varies very much from authority to authority.
As we have heard in a previous debate, some authorities have no licensing at all and therefore limitation does not come into it, some have licensing without limitation, and others, particularly in the cities, have both licensing and limitation. Opinion of the authorities was by no means unanimous and indeed fewer than half of them replied. But the convention view—I am being fair about this—is that quantitative restrictions are desirable

1241
and should be provided for, although the convention recognised that they were not able to give factual evidence that the service to the public had suffered where there was no limitation on taxi numbers. I think that is a very important point. At the last stage of this Bill I invited the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to reflect upon that point and if possible to come forward with evidence.
I also undertook to consult the Scottish Consumer Council and they gave me a quick and positive reply. From their knowledge of the situation in Scotland, and wider studies of the use of taxis and hire cars in England carried out by the National Consumer Council, the director of the Scottish Consumer Council told me quite unequivocally that they regard the present arrangements for quantitative restrictions as operating against the public interest. They strongly pressed for its removal on the ground that it would be more likely to provide a wider range of choice and availability of taxis and hire cars than available for the travelling public at present. I recognise that that is just one point of view, but I am bound to say that this argument strikes a very sympathetic chord so far as the Government are concerned.
Then, as I have mentioned before, the Transport Road Research Laboratory have been studying the general question of use of taxis and hire cars in England and Wales. By way of partial summary of their conclusions, I can say that at the very least they showed that there is no evidence that quantitative restriction operates to the public advantage, although about two-thirds of English authorities practice it. So there we have the situation as it stands.
Moreover, it is by no means conclusive that such restrictions necessarily always protect the taxi trade. As noble Lords may know, in England although local authorities at present have a discretionary power to restrict the number of taxi licences they have no such power in relation to hire car licences. The limited statistical evidence available is that where the number of taxis has been restricted by a local authority there is almost invariably an increase in the number of hire cars operating.
At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that taxis and hire cars are completely separate kinds of vehicles operating in watertight and insulated sectors one from the other. But the evidence of the researchers is that there is a very wide degree of overlap and competition between hire cars and taxis. Indeed, in England outside London the evidence is that taxis operate very much like hire cars; they get a high proportion of their fares not from plying for hire, by being flagged down in the street or standing in a cab rank, but rather by telephone bookings. So where taxi numbers are fixed at a level below what the market demands hire cars have taken up the slack. More tellingly, there is no evidence that the absence of quantitative control in England over hire cars has resulted in the kind of anarchy and confusion for hire cars which has been forecast in some circles if quantitative restrictions are removed on the number of taxis in those areas where such restrictions operate. I need hardly remind noble Lords that no quantitative restrictions exist at present for London taxis.
In Scotland the evidence I have received from the Convention shows that many authorities do not have
1242
quantitative controls on hire cars while they do retain them for taxis. Such major authorities as Glasgow, Inverclyde and Hamilton do not exercise quantitative restriction on hire cars so that the taxi trade in these areas is exposed to competition if not directly from taxis certainly from hire cars. Yet despite this competition applicants are keen to enter the taxi trade.
So the evidence from such statistical sources as are available—and I am not going to pretend that it is comprehensive—does, I suggest, tend to support the Government's view that the abolition of quantitative restrictions would benefit the public and would not bring any dire consequences. As I have said, such abolition would be very much in keeping with the Government's philosophy that on matters such as this the best regulator of the trade is the balance between supply and demand and not externally fixed quotas. We are not talking here about licensing and controlling activities such as the consumption of alcohol which in excess might be regarded as having potentially adverse consequences for public health and safety. Matters of safety can be dealt with not by controlling the number of taxis which operate but rather by ensuring proper standards of driver experience and vehicle construction and maintenance.
I can well understand the fears of the trade, but I do not think they have the right to be frightened by the competition which every other small trader has to face. So I repeat that the onus of proof lies with those seeking to defend the status quo and so far they have not done so. I have not said anything about transferability, although the two subjects really go hand in hand. I do not intend to unless I am invited to. What I can say for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Ross—because I do not know how his mind is running on this particular matter—is that the Government's mind is still open.
My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place, who is responsible for these matters at the Scottish Office, has received a request from the National Federation of Taxi Operators to meet him to discuss the implications of the Bill. I understand that they will produce this document which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has been favoured with the sight of but not I. I have no doubt that my honourable friend will consider whatever is put to him by the federation very carefully indeed. But I should be misleading the House if I did not say that at present, on the evidence which we have, I think it is improbable that the Government will change their mind. However, certainly so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, for all the reasons that I have given—and I am conscious that I have taken a certain amount of time in giving them, but this is an important subject—I am not disposed to accept this amendment tonight.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am not at all surprised by that because, when we discussed this matter on the last occasion, the Government made the point of principle that competition in this field was a good thing, that we should not worry at all about what we were told by the working party, and that it was a long time since the working party actually reported. The working party were conscious of the need, and said so, to limit the number of taxis licensed, because they were conscious of the need to ensure a working wage for those who were in the trade.

1243
I do not know the extent to which the Minister was misled by the noble Viscount. He said that this was not the place to do it. You can have as many drivers as you like, but they can only drive a taxi if that taxi is licensed. In other words, the number of taxis does not necessarily bear any relation at all to the number of drivers.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, with the greatest respect I should like to interrupt at this point. You cannot have as many drivers as you like, because they are limited by Clause 13, where it says that there have to be taxi and hire car driving licences. Therefore, the number of drivers that you have is limited by that clause. It seems to me that that is the clause in which one should limit the drivers.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, many a person owns a driving licence who does not drive a car. You first have to have a car. The number of taxis on the road is determined not by the number of drivers, but by the number of taxis that are licensed. It is the number of taxis that are licensed that we are concerned with at present. So this is the right place to do it.
I am very disappointed indeed in the plea about the principle that the public will benefit. I am not at all surprised at the advice that was received from the consumers' society or whatever it was called. We have had quite a few comments from them and I have noticed a particular slant in them all. The point is that we are talking about long-term benefit. Surely long-term benefit means an adequate number of taxis, good taxis and well-driven taxis. There may be a short-term benefit by having a free-for-all, but I can remember the days when buses started up and were virtually unlicensed and there were about half a dozen running between here and Glasgow. They ran each other off the road until it reached a point when there were only one or two. So there was benefit in the short term for the consumer but not in the long term for the consumer or for those who entered that particular field.
From the point of view of security for the consumer and of getting a reliable service, the working party who went into this matter in the first instance were correct. I do not think that it is right to do as the Government say. The noble Lord keeps on telling us that we want to leave things to the judgment of the local authorities. Surely this is a matter as regards which the local authorities can be trusted and, indeed, the larger local authorities have full experience of this matter. We need not worry about the rural areas about which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was concerned. If the noble Lord had been here earlier he would have discovered that many of the rural areas have no licensing. We must remember that this is not mandatory. The suggestion that I put forward was turned down. This is something that the local authorities may not apply and a considerable number of them do not apply and, so far as I know from the Minister of State and the noble Viscount below the gangway, they do not want it to apply. So let us leave that out. But, as regards the urban areas where there is licensing at present and quantitative restriction, they want it to continue and I think it desirable that it should do so.
1244
Mention has been made of a meeting that is going to take place. I do not know what that meeting will decide, but already the noble Earl has been given some indication of what will be put forward, and he does not like it. He has already made up his mind on that one. Therefore I am sorry, but in this case I do not think that I can withdraw the amendment and we must go to a Division.
8.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?

63.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents,

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Loudoun, C.

Blease, L.

Northfield, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Peart, L.

Chitnis, L.

Phillips, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stedman, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Walston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe B. [Teller]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Kilmany, L.

Abinger, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Limerick, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brookeborough, V.

McNair, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mansfield, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

De La Warr, E.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Just, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller]

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Glanusk, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Gray, L.

Thurso, V.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hampton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Henley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hives, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

8.36 p.m.
Clause 12 [Fees for taxi and hire car licences]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 9, line 29, after ("shall") insert ("seek to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment takes us to Clause 12 and the fees for taxi and hire car licences. At present in the Bill the Government say that a licensing authority has to fix the fees:
"in respect of applications for and grants of taxi and hire car licences as may be resolved by them from time to time and shall ensure that the total amount of such fees is reasonably sufficient to meet",
expenses and so on. With all due respect, I do not think that they will be able to meet that, so I have tabled a very sensible and reasonable amendment which the Government are dying to accept: that they shall "seek to" ensure this and not just put them to the business of making absolutely certain. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord and the House will be very interested to learn that as regards this particular amendment we are not of the opinion that there is very much between the noble Lord and myself on this particular issue. This is a fairly short clause and, I hope, fairly definitive. Under the clause as drafted, I am satisfied that the local authority has some flexibility in balancing its books. For example, there is no requirement in the clause that proceeds must equal costs in a month, or a quarter, or indeed a calendar year or any year. The local authority thus has some flexibility in ensuring, over whatever period it may choose, that its fees and expenses are ultimately in balance.
But we see no harm in the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, and it perhaps helps to underline the point that some reasonable room for manoeuvre is possible, provided that the general intention is clear—that fees are set at a level which will meet expenses. Therefore, I at least am happy to advise the acceptance of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that in addition to meeting the general expenses, administrative expenses, and so on, they should perhaps have a little profit as well?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the clause as drawn does not preclude a small profit or a small loss either way. But in both paragraphs (a) and (b) the clause points out that the fees shall meet the expenses and the reasonable administrative or other expenses. How the noble Lord, the House or, indeed, those professions which have to define what the noble Lord mentioned loosely as "a profit", might define that, I do not think we should go into tonight. I think that we should leave the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in the Bill. It slightly improves the clause and I hope that my noble neighbour will accept that.
Clause 13 [Taxi and hire car driving licences]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 10, line 2, after ("1972") insert ("or a licence which would at the time of his application entitle him to such a licence without taking a test").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical
1246
amendment. As the House may know, with effect from 1st January 1983, a directive from the EEC providing for the reciprocity of driving licences within the Community will come into effect. The effect of this particular directive would be that the holder of a valid EEC licence would be entitled to a British licence without a further test, and it has been put to us that such an entitlement should be sufficient to avoid disqualification under Clause 13(2) in the Bill from holding a taxi or, indeed, a hire car driver's licence, provided always that the appropriate EEC licence had been held for a continuous period of at least one year. This amendment will also have the advantage of meeting any future arrangements which may be negotiated on driving licence reciprocity with other countries which are outside the EEC.
However, I should emphasise that the amendment in no way requires the licensing authority to grant a taxi or hire car driver's licence to a holder of such an EEC licence; the amendment merely requires that it cannot refuse to consider an application solely on the grounds that the EEC licence-holder had not held the licence issued under the Road Traffic Act 1972 for at least a year. Of course, in practice, we would expect that, before granting a licence, the licensing authority would want to be sure that each individual, irrespective of his origin, had a minimum of driving experience and, of course, regard would be had to such factors as the age of the applicant and where and how his previous experience had been acquired.
The amendment is therefore primarily a technical one designed to take account of the directive on reciprocity. It will not put the holders of other EEC licences in any more, or less, favourable a position than are the holders of licences issued under the Road Traffic Act 1972. Judgment on suitability will be made by the licensing authority in the light of the experience of the applicant. I would commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Clause 15 [Operation of taxis outside licensing areas]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 11, line 12, after ("from") insert ("and to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we could safely take amendments Nos. 64, 65, and 66 together. They deal with exactly the same point. It is the point of fixing the fare to a destination outside the area of the licensing authority and with agreement if there is another licensing authority in that destination. What I say is that the fare should be fixed not only to that destination but from it as well—to and from. The point is made three times in this particular clause. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the provisions of Clause 15 which we are considering in these three amendments are designed primarily to cater for the situation of a taxi which is journeying to what we call a named destination, such as an airport or a station, in another area. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has suggested the scenario that that taxi, having dropped its fare at, let us say, the airport or the station, would not then be entitled under the existing law, or the Bill's present

1247
provisions, to pick up another fare except under the circumstances envisaged in Clause 20(2). This provides for that, if there had been a prior arrangement at the taxi's home base.
I am not entirely sure whether we can accept Amendments Nos. 64, 65, and 66 as they stand, but I accept that if, for example, Clause 15 has been used by, let us say, the East Kilbride district in consultation with the Renfrew district to specify a fare from East Kilbride to Glasgow airport it would be anomalous if, on the passenger's return flight and if he decided to telephone the East Kilbride taxi firm to take him home again, that fare would not be controlled on the same basis as his outward fare.
Therefore, I shall look at the wording of these amendments to see whether they are necessary. 1 do not think that we could in the present climate appear to give any authority to taxis to ply for hire outwith their own district in search of homecoming passengers. It is against that background that I want to look at the proposed amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, might consider that.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, may 1 just make the point that in the report which bears my name we took a certain amount of interest in this. In fact, if I may say so, taxi licensing was a subject that raised more fury, rather to my surpise, than did any other when the regions went back into their corners and the districts into theirs. That is by the way. All that we did feel was of immense importance was that there should be a pretty strong agreement about taxi journeys that crossed district boundaries, and that there should be no chance of a racket being used for returning the one way, unless of course factors such as extraordinary late hours were involved. I would hope that my noble friend could say that there would be consultation between the contiguous districts with regard to the fares one way and the other.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this Bill is getting dangerous if the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, and I are coming to more or less the same conclusions in respect of the importance of certain journeys, but I hope we shall be forgiven for coming together in this respect. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for what he has said. It needs further consideration, and it may well be that what I have proposed here may not be the best way of doing it, but the noble Lord knows what I am after and concerned about. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, for having drawn attention to the importance of this. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 64, and I shall not move Nos. 65 and 66.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Regulations relating to taxis and hire cars and their drivers]:
8.47 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 14, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is where we
1248
come to the Secretary of State's powers. We have been told that so much is being left to the local authorities, and here we have in Clause 19 that,
"the Secretary of State may by rcgulations provide that licensing authorities shall, in relation to taxi, hire car, taxi drivers' or hire car drivers' licences, impose such conditions or classes of conditions as may be prescribed in the regulations …",
and that the local authority,
"shall not impose such other conditions or classes of conditions as may be so prescribed".
In other words, he is going to lay down what they can do and what they cannot do. I think he is just tying them up completely and leaving little or no latitude to the local authorities.
Bearing in mind that we have had the argument already that this is not all that important anyway, that they do not need to license the taxis at all unless they do so by resolution, it is just a bit too much. However, I am prepared to listen to the compelling reasons that are going to be brought forward by the Minister of State as to why this line and a half should remain. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will be very disappointed. There will be no compelling reasons from me but just nagging accuracy, I hope. Of course, it is difficult to predict exactly at this time what kind of conditions we might need to prohibit. Indeed, our hope is that such a prohibition would not be necessary because in the Joint Working Party we envisaged—and envisage still—with local authorities and the trade that a wide measure of agreement can emerge. The conditions which are prescribed under Clause 19 may reflect a view of the consensus with the implication that local authorities will not feel it necessary, or desirable, to add substantially to the core of conditions.
None the less, there are a number of conditions which local authorities in the past have sought to impose and which it might be desirable, after due consultation with the various interests, to make it clear that we would not want to see included in any local condition. May we take one example as regards the vehicles. I have been concerned that some areas have been inclined to make it a condition that no licence should be granted to vehicles unless they were painted black. Other local authorities have specified, without regard to local operating conditions, that vehicles must be of at least two litres in engine capacity, and yet others have sought to provide, even away from the cities, that only the so-called metropolitan cab can be used.
There may well be arguments for such conditions in some circumstances, but I am by no means persuaded that it is in the interests of the public, or indeed in the interests of the trade, to require such uniformity. I hope we can reach agreement on vehicle types, in consultation, but we need some sort of reserve power.
As regards hire cars, a number of local authorities have sought to impose prohibitions on the use of radios in hire cars. Again, I hope we can persuade those authorities that that is a rather Luddite attitude which ignores the benefits of new technology and in the end operates against the public interest. Nonetheless, we may want to make it quite clear that such conditions would not, in our view, be desirable.

1249
As regards the holders of vehicles licences—whether for taxis or hire cars—other licensing authorities have sought to make it a condition that no licence should be granted to an applicant who lived outwith their area; so that if, for example, a taxi driver moves house for only a matter of a few hundred yards, he might cross the boundary and find himself liable to forfeiting his licence. Some local authorities seek to prohibit any part-time drivers, while others impose limits on the number of vehicle licences which may be owned by one operator. Such restrictions, in our view, operate to the disadvantage both of the public and the trade and we would not want them continued. On the other hand, we accept that we must have consultations with the local authorities, the convention and the police before reaching a final view, and that is why we seek here what is, in effect, a reserve power to make it clear on a national basis that certain conditions should be prohibited.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is the most compelling list of arguments I have heard all day, and, in view of that, coupled with the fact that we shall review all these matters again—
this prescription of classes of things which must be done and may not be done will come back to us because they are governed by statutory instrument subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House—in that Parliament will virtually control even the Secretary of State in respect of what he may do or what may not be done in this context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Offences]:
8.53 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 15, line 12, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£25").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are here faced with a list of offences and fines. While in subsections (1) (2) and (3) the fine is £200, at this point in the clause it is £50. Let us examine what this fine is for. We are told:
"If any person, without reasonable excuse, causes or permits any vehicle other than a taxi to wait on any stance for taxis during any period for which that stance has been appointed by the licensing authority "—
then, if found guilty, on summary conviction, there shall be a fine of £50. Many of us have driven to a spot where the only place to stop is a taxi stance. Surely we will not be subject to a fine of £50? It refers to "without reasonable excuse", and I should like to know what that means. The fact that a Scottish Office car was dropping the Minister of State somewhere and parked on a taxi stance is no excuse at all, and it will not be the Minister of State who pays the fine but the poor lassie driving him. I think £50 is rather too much; I suggest £25 would be sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I do not know how much things have changed, if at all, since the noble Lord, Lord Ross, occupied cars used by the Scottish Office.
1250
From such experience as I have of riding in the department's cars I can say that never do any of those cars break the law under any traffic rules. The House will be aware that the offence mentioned in this provision comes under the umbrella of a major traffic offence. The amendment would mean that for the offence of standing without authority on a taxi stance, there would be a maximum fine not of £50 but of £25. I find this a difficult issue about which to be dogmatic. There seems little doubt that persistent attempts to use a taxi stance as a parking area are likely to be disruptive and extremely annoying not only to other taxis but to the public and other road users generally, and I should not have thought that a £50 fine in such circumstances was unreasonable. We must remember that £50 is the maximum, and of course magistrates have discretion. As I say, this is not something about which to be dogmatic, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will wish to reconsider the point.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I would remind the Minister that we are not talking about a persistent offence but only one occasion. He must not exaggerate matters if he wants me to continue my goodwill towards the arguments he is adducing, compelling or otherwise. Of course, £50 may be all right for him, even for me, and even for the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; a man from Aberdeen knows the difference between £50 and £25. I will not take the matter to a Division, tempted though I am to do so, because I am sure every Scotsman here would rally to my cause and say that £25 is enough.
I was glad to hear about the virtues of the drivers of Scottish Office cars, particularly in Scotland. I would only mention in passing that it was not always so. I recall one Secretary of State whose car was flagged down by the police, and it so happened that he was on his way to see the chief constable of the county. He said, "The next time I pass through, I want a police escort". I was there the following week and on every corner there was a policeman waving me on.
Seriously, it may be that somebody has to stop at a particular taxi stance, and then the question of "without reasonable excuse" will arise. Personally, I think £25 is quite enough. I too hope the Government will not be dogmatic and will think about it again in the discussions that will take place, and which no doubt will last many hours, and that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be there putting in a word for common sense. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 15, line 19, leave out ("public service").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment about which I feel strongly, and I am glad to see that somebody else feels the same, although it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has fled the field. Here we have an offence for which there will be an exception:
"In any proceedings under subsection (6) above against the driver of a public service vehicle it shall be a defence to show that he caused his vehicle to wait on a stance … by reason of obstruction to traffic".

1251
Why should it be only a public service vehicle that is held up in such circumstances,
"only for so long as was reasonably necessary for the taking up or setting down of passengers"?
I do not think that defence should be limited to public service vehicles. It should be available for any vehicle, and hence the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, seems to query why we have provided this special defence for a public service vehicle waiting on a taxi stance. We find two main arguments. First of all, we think it would make a nonsense of the general prohibition of unauthorised use of a taxi stance if any vehicle was able to use a taxi stance for the purpose of picking up or setting down passengers. To give one example, I would say that chaos could ensue in public places, such as railway stations or airports, if the driver of any vehicle was able to wait in a taxi stance to pick up or set down passengers. It would soon become quite clear to the drivers of all private vehicles that this was much the most convenient way of avoiding parking issues, not least because by their function taxi stances tend to be most conveniently located to any points of access. On the other hand, there are far fewer public service vehicles. Of course many of them operate from bus stops, and their likely use, or abuse, of this provision is very limited in the extreme, but we consider that it makes some sense to have emergency provisions for them.
Secondly, it has been suggested that the driver of any vehicle would be enabled to wait on a stance, without any restriction of time, provided he could show that he had to park there,
"by reason of obstruction to traffic or for other compelling reason".
That, too, seems to me to be a charter for unauthorised use. For example, in Princes Street, in Edinburgh or Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow, the driver of a family car, or any other vehicle, could well argue that in the absence of any available parking space he had to park in a taxi stance to avoid what he might call "obstruction to traffic". To us that seems a nonsense.
Finally, it may reassure some of your Lordships, or perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to know that this provision in Clause 20 is modelled very closely, if not quite word for word, on Section 64 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. I am not aware of any difficulties having arisen under those provisions, though I have to emphasise that that Act applies to England only. Thus the provision is amply precedented. It was introduced by an earlier Administration, and has apparently stood the, albeit brief, test of time. However, if your Lordships have specific examples of difficulties having arisen under the English provisions, I should of course be pleased to look at them.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Saving for certain vehicles etc.]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 15, line 30, after ("20") insert ("(with the exception of subsections (6) and (8) of section 20)").
The noble Lord said My Lords, I move this amendment because there are further exceptions to subsections (6) and (8) of Clause 20. It may well be right not to apply Clauses 10 to 20 to vehicles being used for bringing passengers or goods from outside the area where the vehicle,
"is not licensed as a taxi or a hire car".
This is one of the difficulties we get into with non-mandatory provisions, in regard to which pleas were made concerning the rural areas. But what if the provisions are applied to funeral cars and wedding cars?—there could be an argument as to whether they were being used as such at the material time—or any vehicle,
"being used for carrying passengers for hire and reward under a contract".
I believe that, if subsections (6) and (8) are to be applied at all, they should be applied in those instances as well, in order to be fair.
There might be justification for saying that the other aspects of Clauses 10 to 20 should not apply, but there is less justification regarding exceptions involving subsections (6) and (8), relating to a vehicle which is not a public service vehicle taking up a place at a taxi stance. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we have consulted the draftsmen on this amendment and we are happy to say that we are glad to accept it. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has pointed out, the amendment makes clear that not even vehicles which are exempted from the general taxi provisions in Clause 21 are exempt from the offence provisions (which we discussed earlier) in Clause 20(6) and (8). Therefore we are happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this is very good indeed. The sooner the Minister of State goes away and leaves the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in charge of the matter, the quicker and the better we shall get on. I express my thanks.
Clause 23 (Second-hand dealers' licences):
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 73:
Page 16, line 23, at end insert (", bookseller or auctioneer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of what happened earlier and the change that the Government made in respect of second-hand dealers, I do not think it necessary for me to add bookseller, auctioneer, et cetera. So I have no desire to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 16, line 31, leave out ("or").
Page 16, line 34, at end insert—
"; or

1253
(e) a person engaged in the business either of financing the acquisition of goods by means of hire-purchase agreements, conditional sale agreements or credit sale agreements (as defined in section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) or of financing the use of goods by means of hiring agreements").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 together. These amendments arc designed to meet the undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, during an earlier stage that the Government would look at the provisions as they relate to hire purchase and finance houses, and introduce a suitable amendment if the present Bill did not exclude those interests. We are satisfied that an amendment is required and the amendments specifically exclude the acquisition or use of goods by hire purchase, et cetera. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as part of our reconsideration of the requirements placed on secondhand dealers (which we shall be moving later in relation to Clause 24) we consider that the fixing of days and times of opening of the premises of a dealer is a matter that can be included in Clause 24, rather than in this clause—if the local authority feel that such conditions are indeed necessary. This is a paving amendment which seeks to delete the "opening hours" requirement from this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 77 to 79:
Page 17, line 7, leave out ("subsection (2)(a)") and insert ("subsections (2)(a) and (4)").
Page 17, line 8, leave out from ("person") to ("who") in line 10.
Page 17, line 12, leave out from ("pawn") to end of line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 77, which stands in the name of my noble friend, I would also wish to move Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, which are consequential upon it. When the Bill was being drafted Section 37 of the Pawnbrokers Act 1872 was still in force, but the section has in fact now been repealed by a commencement order made bringing in certain repeal provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This amendment and Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 arc therefore tabled to remove the references to Section 37 of the 1872 Act. The definition of "pawn ticket" in relation to the 1872 Act still applies, however, as that particular definition is unlikely to be repealed for some time. I hope that with the leave of the House I may move en bloc Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79.
Clause 24 [Keeping of records of stock-in-trade]:
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, I should say that if the next amendment, No. 80, is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 81.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 80 and 81:
Page 17, line 20, leave out from ("below") to end of line 33. line 32, after ("subsection") insert ("if and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I will be helpful here. The Government are being very helpful. They listened to what was said during Committee stage, and they are going to move, I hope, very quickly, very shortly and very briefly a splendid new clause which covers most of the points. In view of that, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 80 or No. 81.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 82:
Leave out Clause 24 and insert—
("Conditions in second-hand dealers' licences.
24. Without prejudice to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to this Act, a licensing authority may attach conditions to a secondhand dealers' licence—

(a) fixing the days and times when the dealer may carry on business; and

(b) after consultation with the chief constable, requiring the keeping of records in relation to the dealer's stock-intrade,

which conditions may, without prejudice to the generality of the authority's powers under this section, include provision as to—

(i) the information to be included in those records;

(ii) their form;

(iii) the place or places where they are to be kept; and

(iv) the period of time for which they are to be kept.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has already said, these matters came up during the Committee stage and this amendment seeks to achieve the flexibility which I undertook to try to achieve when the noble Lord was good enough to withdraw his amendment. In effect, the amendment enables the licensing authority, after consultation with the police, to apply to the licence certain conditions relating to the keeping of records. This I think places the responsibility firmly where it should lie. In other words, it is up to the police to persuade the licensing authority what records they require to ensure that their crime prevention duties can be satisfactorily carried out. At the same time it enables the licensing authority to judge whether or not detailed records or some lesser forms of record might suit the particular second-hand activity to be licensed.
I think this is, on reflection, the most satisfactory way to achieve the balance that the Government want between, on the one hand, the right of the individual to pursue his legitimate business with the minimum of statutory book-keeping and, on the other, the duty of the police to carry out their duties. I beg to move.
Clause 25 [Disposal of stock-in-trade]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:
Page 18, line 1, leave out ("subsection (2) below") and insert
("subsections (1A) and (2) below and section 29 of this Act").
Page 18, line 3, leave out ("72") and insert ("48").
Page 18, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any article acquired by the dealer in a public roup and disposed of by him without being brought to his place of business.").
Page 18, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

1255
("(2) A licensing authority may, on granting a second-hand dealer's licence or at any time thereafter, on application by the dealer and after consultation with the chief constable, order that subsection (1) above shall not apply to the disposal by the dealer of any item, or any specified item or class of items of his stock-in-trade or any specified part of it.
( ) An order under subsection (2) above may—

(a) be made subject to such conditions as the authority think fit;

(b) relate to stock-in-trade or items thereof still to be acquired by the dealer to whom the order relates; or

(c) be varied or revoked at any time by the licensing authority.

( ) In subsection (2) above, "specified" means specified in an order under that subsection.
( ) A holder of a second-hand dealer's licence may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of the licensing authority under this section and paragraphs 17(6) to (12) and (14) and (15) of Schedule 1 to this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to an appeal under this subsection.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 83 I will move also Nos. 84, 85 and 86. In Committee there was criticism about the provisions in this clause, and that for many of the secondhand activities (and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who mentioned secondhand book dealers) it was ridiculous to expect these people to retain goods for 72 hours. In the light of the obvious strength of feeling that there was in the Committee and the criticism from certain secondhand dealers about the difficulties that they will face if required to retain secondhand articles for 72 hours, we accept that Clause 25 is too restrictive.
What we propose, therefore, is that there should be a retention period of 48 hours (reduced from 72 hours) but that the licensing authority be given power following consultation with the police to provide that any item or class of items in the dealer's stock-in-trade shall not be subject to the retention provision. As part of the package we propose that there should be provisions for appeal to the sheriff against an authority's decision on retention requirements. Provision is also made to exclude from the retention requirements articles acquired at a public roup.
That is the package of the amendments. In Amendment No. 84, where the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and mine are coupled, it must make history, I fancy, and I feel there will be unanimous rejoicings over that. As to Amendment No. 85, I have already mentioned that it was proposed that certain articles should be excluded at public roup or auction. I do not need to say any more about No. 86, which imposes the retention period of 48 hours if no condition is attached to a licence. I beg to move.
Clause 27 [Stolen goods:]
9.14 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89:
Page 19, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("he") in line 3 and insert ("personally served upon a second-hand dealer at his ordinary residence or place of business or delivered to him there by recorded delivery letter.");
Page 19, line 5, leave out ("stated in subsection (3) below") and insert ("of such service or, as the case may be, delivery");
Page 19, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89 en bloc. Criticism
1256
was made of the provision in Clause 27(3) that a dealer was expected to know that goods were stolen from the time he received details from the police by "normal first-class post". Critics of this provision argued that reliance on the post was not good enough and it was suggested that the minimum requirement should be for recorded delivery post. The Government have accepted that the postal requirements are insufficient and the amendment makes the necessary adjustment. It was also concluded that some redrafting will eliminate verbiage; and the other amendments achieve this.
Clause 28 [Sellers of second-hand goods: offences etc]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 19, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a fairly important civil rights issue because what subsection (4) does is to give complete indemnity to any person who detains a person offering secondhand goods and allows a constable to arrest that person and to take possession of the goods without any fear of civil liability. I do not think that that is quite justified. For that reason it makes people rather careless of accusations they may make. I do not think it is a customary or traditional provision. People must be aware of what they are doing. I should be annoyed if I were stopped when selling a book and the suggestion was made that it had been stolen, if I was detained, if a constable was brought and arrested me, and then it was found it was all a mistake; but that, despite all that, I had no recourse to any civil action simply because of the provisions of subsection (4):
"No civil liability shall arise as a result only of the detention in good faith of a person under subsection (2) above".
Good faith, yes, but the harm has been done. People must be careful in regard to such actions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, withdrew an identical amendment at Committee stage and I had hoped that my arguments on that occasion had been completely persuasive. I was wrong.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, they were not even compelling.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the Working Party recommended that second-hand dealers should have the right to detain anyone offering articles thought to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. In addition to accepting this recommendation, we thought it prudent to protect the second-hand dealer, who had acted in good faith, against the possibility of civil action arising from the detention of a suspect. We felt, and still feel, that without this provision in the Bill the dealer would feel unable to act even when he had good reason because he would not be protected against a civil action for what may have been a genuine mistake.
Clearly this would greatly assist the police when trying to find stolen property. The provision was included in the consultation paper and did not create any adverse criticism. Moreover, it contains two safeguards for

1257
the seller. First, there is the requirement that the dealer must "have reason to believe" that the object has been unlawfully obtained and, secondly, he may not detain the individual longer than is "reasonably necessary" to obtain the constable. The existence of these two tests does not therefore exclude civil liability, where the tests can be shown not to have been met. This is a balance between the rights of the individual as opposed to the detection of crime. I hope the House will agree on reflection that we have got it right.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not think the Government have got it right, but in the absence of all my usual, strong legal advice on this particular Bench I am not going to pursue the matter at this stage. I can assure the Government that it will be raised later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Metal dealers' licences]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:
Page 20, line 12, leave out from ("dealer") to end of line 13.
Page 20, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 en bloc. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I say that at the Committee stage there was criticism and possibly confusion about the extent to which the metal dealing provisions applied to the itinerant metal dealer. I promised that I would look again at the particular provisions to ensure that those that applied to both dealers would be re-examined and amendments tabled as appropriate.
Your Lordships will see, glancing down the Marshalled List, that there are a number of amendments which are designed to achieve the desired clarity. Amendments Nos. 95 to 99, for instance, are designed to overcome the concern that the record keeping and retention period for metal is oppressive and bureaucratic and seek to place these matters at the discretion of licensing authorities after consultation with the police to decide what is appropriate in the local situation. I hope therefore that the "package", if I may so call it, is more acceptable to your Lordships. I only mention the matter now because it will mean that as I come to each amendment I can move it even more shortly. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 are moved en bloc. I should say at this stage that if Amendment No. 92 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 93.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that this is a useful series of amendments and helps to clarify the Bill. We became really confused and then the ultimate confusion came when the Minister of State told us that "metal dealer" included an itinerant metal dealer. Well, it did not always do so. I shall give the civil servants something of a puzzle: I think that they have left one little bit out. I am not going to tell them what it is so that between now and the
1258
next stage they can have a look at it. I am very happy indeed to be a victim of these amendments—because one of my amendments will obviously fall. However, there is another day and indeed there are some compelling arguments for that amendment to be made—that is to say, the removal of the phrase "anywhere in Scotland". What is being done here is very sensible. I am very glad to be on the Government's side on this occasion.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Keeping of records]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 20, line 22, leave out ("(other than an itinerant metal dealer)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 31 deals with the keeping of records by the static metal dealer. As the itinerant metal dealer references have been deleted from Clause 30 there is no need to refer to the itinerant in Clause 31. This amendment therefore removes the reference to itinerant metal dealers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 21, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) A book kept under subsection (3) above shall be retained by the dealer for a period of two years from the day on which the last entry was made in it.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the Bill as drafted no provision is made relating to the period for which books must be kept by dealers. Clearly they must know when it is safe to destroy their books and this amendment places a requirement on them to keep their books for two years from the date of the last entry. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Government will have had some advice from the police in respect of this amendment. I am not opposing this, but I want to comment that the advice that the police gave in respect of the number of years, the length of time that other people have to keep books and receipts, is strangely different from what they commend in respect of themselves regarding lost property, which we shall come to in due course.
Clause 32 [Retention of metal]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 22, line 4, after ("to") insert ("subsection (1A) below and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 96 and to speak to Nos. 98 and 99. I have said that the Government have no wish to create unnecessary problems for the scrap metal industry. We have been receiving representations about the retention requirements in the Bill. While the Bill, as presently drafted, is unlikely to cause problems for the small scrap metal dealer, we accept that the dealer with a large firm who is processing thousands of tons of scrap metal annually will have storage problems if the retention period is made too long.
Against this is the very real problem which the police in their crime prevention capacity will face if no retention period is provided. The solution to the problem, as the Government see it, is to provide a 48-hour retention period but to give the licensing authority, in consultation with the police, the discretion to reduce that period, as a licensing condition, for all or any specific categories of scrap metal processed by a dealer. An example of this would be the dealer who has a contract to dispose of scrap from, say, British Steel or to dispose of abandoned vehicles for the police or the local authority. In cases like this we would expect the police to accept that these categories of scrap could be processed immediately and the licensing authority would give such an exemption in the licence they issue. The advantages of the new provisions are that it becomes a local matter involving the licensing authority, the police and the dealer to decide whether or not the 48-hour retention period should apply and to what categories of scrap metal. The Government feel that these new proposals will be readily accepted by all concerned, and the right to appeal to the sheriff against a licensing authority decision will ensure fairness.
I have spoken at some length on these amendments, but I think it is right that the House should appreciate why the Government have moved from their original position. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for having moved from their original position. I do not think that they properly appreciated the importance of this in respect of an industry in Scotland. Indeed the size of this industry took me rather by surprise when I started talking to people about it. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Darling, who was in touch with the scrap metal dealers in England: he expressed surprise that this was actually being visited upon Scottish scrap metal dealers. It is alien to everything that is done south of the Border. In fact I have received information from iron and steel metal merchants in Glasgow, from John R. Adams and Sons. Mr. Adams is the president of the Scottish Scrap Association, and he says this:
"We deeply resent this discrimination against Scottish merchants but we are worried much more by the effect of this clause on our business. If we had been consulted by those who drafted the Bill we could have demonstrated that the modern scrapyard is like any other manufacturing establishment, equipped with expensive machinery whose efficient operation depends on the rapid throughput and maximum utilisation, and Clause 32 will prevent us achieving this".
They give these facts:
"We have managed to build up this trade in Scotland and in 1980 we exported nearly 18 million pounds-worth of ferrous scrap from Scottish ports and in 1981 the figure is bound to rise".
You can imagine the hold-up that is in here by this arbitrary Clause 32, applicable only to Scottish merchants. The hold-up originally, I think, was 72 hours and is now reduced to 48. Quite frankly, I do not think this goes far enough to meet the particular points that have been raised with me. For example, I have another letter from Henderson Kerr Limited of Bellshill in Lanarkshire. They say that they will have to keep 1,200 tonnes of scrap in excess of their needs, which is totally impracticable.
I suggest that although the Government have advanced as they have, they should go back again and
1260
properly consult the Scottish authorities and see how unfair they are being. I shall not oppose this amendment—it is an improvement—but I still think it does not go far enough.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 22, line 5, after ("any") insert ("non-ferrous").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been put to me by the scrap merchants that if this new classification did not apply to ferrous metal it would be very helpful. This is a further advance. I do not necessarily ask for it tonight, but I ask that this be one of the things which the Government take into account when they are reconsidering. I must tell the noble Earl that the Government must reconsider this, and that I will pursue it at the next stage. It will also be pursued violently in another place, unless the Government see reason. I hope that they will look at this again, because we are not here to say that this crowded House will visit upon Scotland some oppressive legislation which the Government do not see fit to visit upon similar merchants in the rest of the country. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, gets too indignant about the plight of the poor scrap metal merchants, I hope that he will cast his eyes downwards to my Amendment No. 99, to which I have already spoken, where he will see that, in fact, there is considerable flexibility of approach which will be at the discretion of the licensing authority. In other words, if Amendment No. 99 is agreed to, this amendment will be totally unnecessary.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I was not unaware of what the Government are doing. I said that it was an advance. But I ask the noble Earl to remember that this is not something that can be taken for granted. First, the dealer has to apply, and it is then up to the local authority. This is really a national business and different authorities in various parts of the country could take a different point of view. Therefore, from the point of view of competition, there is a recognised and patent unfairness. It is something which should be dealt with within the Bill, and not left in this roundabout way for the Government to make amends about something which was an oversight in the first place. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 22, line 6. leave out ("72") and insert ("48").
Page 22, line 7. at end insert—
("(1A) A licensing authority may, on granting a metal dealer's licence or at any time thereafter, on application by the dealer and after consultation with the chief constable, order that subsection (1) above shall not apply to processing by the dealer of such metal or classes of metal as may be specified in the order.
(1B) An order under subsection (1A) above may—

(a) be made subject to such conditions as the licensing authority think fit;

1261

(b) relate to metal still to be acquired by the metal dealer to whom the order relates;

(c) be varied or revoked by the licensing authority.

(1C) The holder of a metal dealer's licence may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of the licensing authority under this section and paragraphs 17(6) to (12) and (14) and (15) of Schedule I to this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to an appeal under this subsection.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 100:
Leave out Clause 32.
The noble Lord said: If we had come to this point four or five hours ago, I should have taken this matter to a Division. The Minister of State saw fit to caution me not to become indignant. He has never yet seen me really indignant. If he waits, and if he goes on with this kind of obstructive line so far as a section of Scottish industry is concerned, then he will have that doubtful pleasure. Meantime, I do not propose to move to leave out Clause 32. But, better as it is, it is still not good enough.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Itinerant metal dealers
.—(1) A licence, to be known as an "itinerant metal dealer's licence" shall be required for carrying on business as an itinerant metal dealer.
(2) An itinerant metal dealer's licence shall have effect so as to permit the licence holder to carry on business as an itinerant metal dealer anywhere in Scotland.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 91 and 93. I beg to move.
Clause 33 [Itinerant metal dealers]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos, 102 and 103:
Page22, line 16, leave out ("2 years") and insert ("6 months").
Page22, line 22, leave out ("2 years") and insert ("6 months").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked whether we had got the retention period for invoices and receipts correct, and suggested that it was asking too much of itinerant dealers to keep them for two years. I agree, and the amendments therefore seek to reduce the period from two years to six months. I hope that the noble Lord finds this acceptable. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the line that he has. I am sure that six months will be much more acceptable to some of the scrap metal dealers, itinerant and otherwise, whom I have come across. However, I should think that the enforcement of this will also have its difficulties.
Clause 34 [Certain offences]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 108:
Page 22, line 26, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").
Page 22, line 36, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").
Page 22, line 37, after ("or") insert (",as the case may be").
Page 22, line 39, after ("by") insert ("section 33 of").
page 23, line 1, at end insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 en bloc. These amendments make it quite clear that the offences relating to metal dealing apply also to itinerant metal dealing. I trust that by this means I have removed the concern expressed by several of your Lordships during the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Clause 35 [Metal believed to be stolen]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 23, line 5, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a similar amendment to Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
Clause 36 [Stolen metal]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 23, line 20, after ("dealer's") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer's").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is again similar and is moved for the sake of clarity. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113:
Page 23, line 35, leave out from beinning to ("he") in line 36 and insert—
("(a) personally served upon a metal dealer at his ordinary residence or place of business or delivered to him there by recorded delivery letter; or
(b) personally served upon an itinerant metal dealer anywhere or delivered to him at his ordinary residence or place of business by recorded delivery letter.").
Page 23, line 37, leave out ("stated in subsection (3) below") and insert ("of such service or, as the case may be, delivery").
Page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113 en bloc. These amendments are similar to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89 which related to Clause 27. They provide for notice by recorded delivery, eliminate unnecessary verbiage and also permit notice of stolen metal to be served personally on an itinerant metal dealer while on his rounds if he has no residence locally. I beg to move.
Clause 37 [Functions of the court in relation to metal dealers convicted of offences]:
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 24, line 1, after ("dealer") insert ("or itinerant metal dealer").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 114 and to speak to Amendment No. 116. These amendments make the conviction of an itinerant metal dealer subject to the same notification by the clerk of the court convicting him as applies to the ordinary metal dealer. In other words, an itinerant dealer convicted of a dealing offence would be reported to the licensing authority which issued his licence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 24, line 2, leave out ("metal dealing") and insert ("his business as such").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the inclusion of the itinerant dealer in this subsection means that the reference to a metal dealing offence is not wide enough to cover the itinerant. My amendment widens the position and ensures that both types of dealer are covered. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 24, line 9, leave out ("metal dealing") and insert ("his business as such").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 24, line 24, at end insert—
("(5) A licensing authority receiving, by virtue of subsection (1) above, a certified extract of a conviction of an itinerant metal dealer shall notify all other licensing authorities of the particulars of the conviction.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to ensure that in respect of the itinerent dealer who offends, the licensing authority, on receiving details of the conviction from the court, will advise all other licensing authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this is a considerable duty being placed on the licensing authority and it arises from the fact that the originally issued licence allowed the itinerant metal dealer to deal anywhere in Scotland. This was the point I was rather sorry about; that that phrase is still there, and it may well be that we shall return to consider it. One of the consequences is that one authority licenses the dealer for the whole of Scotland and not just for the authority's own area. The result is that if the dealer is convicted, the authority has to inform the rest of Scotland, whereas had the dealer been limited in respect of his activities to the authority's own area, this would not arise. This is just a consequence of something that should not have been there in the first place. But I support the amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is as broad as it is long. Either the unfortunate itinerant metal dealer goes to all the licensing authorities where he wants to ply his trade, which means that the authorities have to deal with every application as it comes along, or else one has it as we have made it in the Bill; as long as the itinerant metal dealer behaves himself, that is the end of the matter, but if he is convicted the court which convicts him has to inform the licensing authority, and that has to inform all the others. There is not much in it.
Clause 38 [Appropriate licence required]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 118 and 119:
Page 24, line 25, leave out ("both").
Page 24, line 26, after second ("dealer") insert ("and as an itinerant metal dealer or as any two of these kinds of dealer").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments provide that if the person carries on any two or more of the activities of secondhand dealing, itinerant metal dealing and metal dealing, he will require a licence in respect of each activity. I beg to move.
(Amendment No. 120 not moved.)
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 121, I should say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 122.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No.121:
Page 24, line 29, leave out from ("a") to end of line 33 and insert ("person who carries on a business which consists wholly or partly of buying and selling for scrap waste materials and old, broken, worn out, defaced or partly manufactured articles made wholly or partly of metal which he collects by means of visits from house to house and which he disposes of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment aims to make it clear that the itinerant metal dealer is not a category of metal dealer per se but carries out his activities of buying and selling for scrap waste materials, including those made wholly or partly of metal, by means of door to door collection. I beg to move.
(Amendment No. 122 not moved.)
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 24, line 38, leave out from first ("metal") to end of line 39 and insert ("means any metal (including any precious metal) and any alloy of any metals, whether old or new and includes").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to make it clear that in the definition of "metal" we are including all types of metal, including precious metals. The scrap metal industry suggested that "ferrous and non-ferrous" be added to the definition. The amendment which I am suggesting encompasses all metals and meets the industry's point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 25, line 2, at end insert ("but does not include an itinerant metal dealer within the meaning of this subsection").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that an itinerant metal dealer is not a metal dealer for the purposes of the metal dealing licensing requirements. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 25, leave out lines 3 and 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment removes the interpretation of "metal dealing" which, by virtue of earlier amendments, is now unnecessary. I beg to move.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Licensing of sex establishments.
. Subject to the provisions of this section a licence under this Act to be known as a "sex establishment licence" shall be required for the use of premises for a business which consists mainly of selling, hiring, exchanging, lending, displaying or demonstrating

(a) sex articles; or

(b) other things intended for use in connection with or for the purpose of stimulating or encouraging

(i) sexual activity, or

(i) acts of force, restraint, violence or cruelty which are associated with sexual activity; or

(c) any article containing or embodying matter to be read or looked at and any recording of vision or sound which primarily deals with or relates to or is intended to stimulate sexual activity or acts of force, restraint, violence or cruelty which are associated with sexual activity.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is promoted by the concern of Scottish local authorities about their inability, through lack of powers, to control the establishment, the setting up, of what are called sex shops, and indeed the fact that more and more of them are appearing in different parts of the country. We have the position in relation to Glasgow, in relation to Paisley, in relation to Kilmarnock, Aberdeen, Dundee, and it has come as a surprise to many people to find that the Government have not already taken power to enable local authorities to deal with what many people consider undesirable.
I know all the libertarian arguments about it, but there is no doubt at all that the people in the particular areas have shown that they are concerned. When you place it into the position of licensing generally, as it is in this Bill and other Bills, you now get this position. I take these facts from the Sunday Standard of November of last year. On one side of Gordon Street in Paisley, just beside the bus station there is a licensed grocers. They cannot open and close and do business without a licence. There is a betting shop; it requires a licence. There is a pub which requires a licence. On the other side of the street a shop opened in October-November which is called a private shop; it is a sex shop, selling—I quote—self-styled hard porn magazines, sex aids, Swedish video tapes, plus a lounge where you can have a £2 trial view, and other sexual paraphernalia. And it does not need a licence. Despite growing local and national concern, these private sex shops will not need a licence until the Government act along the lines in this new clause.
Some people have suggested that we should deal with this under the planning Acts. In fact, you can do nothing about it under the planning Acts, because they take over a shop; it is not a change of use. So from that point of view they can do what they like, and this is what is happening. Despite an active campaign by Scottish police to close down these shops, when one was opened by Centre Wall in Glasgow's Dumbarton Road last year, and a second in Aberdeen—and let it he noted it is not Scots who are financing these innovations, it is people from this part of the world—there was an almost farcical series of scenes, with police removing all the stock one day and Centre Wall simply restocking the next day, and this happened at least half a dozen times.
1268
Of course they won a legal appeal, so they are in the right and will remain in the right until this House and the other House act. The company is free to carry on a business that the police consider undesirable, and that many people, in groups, churches, community concerns. equally are worried about. I think it w as in Paisley that 150 Paisley people staged Scotland's first anti-sex shop march outside this shop I mentioned in Gordon Street. It may well just have given them a little publicity that they would approve of, but nobody else would. But about 1,200 people have signed a petition. There is no doubt at all that, from the point of view of neighbouring businesses or adjacent businesses—if the Minister of State prefers that phrase—it is undesirable; it brings down the whole aspect of the particular area. As regards the whole traditions of Scotland, it is not something that is desirable. I know that there may well be quick money to be made by some London financier or by probably the same person who finances the Soho establishments. But we do not want them in Scotland.
The Government have seen fit to take action in respect of England, and in the equivalent Bill, which is now before your Lordships' House, at the Report stage in another place they put in a provision giving full power of control in respect of sex establishments to the local licensing authorities. That is what I seek to do here. It may well be that some of my definitions and the penalty provision and so on may not be complete. I deliberately did not spend too much time on this. What I wanted to do was to have accepted by the Government the principle that they would act and that they would provide, either at a later stage in this House or at an early stage in the other place, adequate provision to give control to Scottish local authorities or, if they liked, to give it to them perhaps in the optional provision of licensing; but within that power to license there should be a power not to license at all and to license with conditions, but to leave it to the local authority as to whether they want them at all and, if they do want them, to provide whatever conditions are necessary. If the Government feel that they must give guidance to the local authorities, let them do so. However, I think it is time that we did take action to stop this type of thing spreading because it is one of the cancers that we cannot allow to grow from the point of view of the morals and the morale of Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has moved an amendment which is extremely relevant to the present situation. I do not know whether the amendment itself is the right one to deal with the situation. But I do know that certainly there does need to be some form of local expression for the tremendous distaste which is felt by very many people in many districts for this particular form of activity. I would very much like to hear the Government's view of the noble Lord's amenmdent.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has spoken very forcefully on a matter which certainly has aroused widespread public concern over recent months. There are a relatively small number of so-called sex shops which have opened in Scotland in recent months, compared with those down

1269
south. Nevertheless, they have aroused much indignation and, indeed, abhorrence among a wide cross section of the Scottish public. In particular, it has been repeatedly stressed to us that, as the law stands, local authorities are powerless to prevent the opening of sex shops in their area often in particularly unsuitable locations—for example, next to a school.
However, I should point out that the activities of such sex shops are subject to the criminal law on obscenity and there have been a number of successful prosecutions of late. Further, I should also point out that once Clause 51 of this Bill becomes law with its greatly increased penalties for the sale and so on of obscene material, such prosecutions will become much more effective in stamping out this evil.
Nevertheless, the Government fully share the general concern at the lack of local authority control over the opening of sex shops. We have been giving very full and detailed consideration to this problem, and I can announce and give the undertaking that we propose to introduce amendments to the Bill at Committee stage in another place to provide for a scheme which will require any person who seeks to operate premises as a sex shop to obtain a licence from the relevant local authority before it can open for business.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, quite rightly pointed out, a scheme for the licensing of sex shops for England and Wales was recently added to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We shall want to consider further the details of a licensing scheme for Scotland to ensure that it provides local authorities with effective controls and that it is consistent with the more general licensing provisions in this Bill.
However, I can assure noble Lords that we shall bring forward our proposals as quickly as possible, and that noble Lords will have a full opportunity to debate the provisions when the Bill returns to this House. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was good enough to say that his amendment was designed to test the reactions of the Government, and I hope that the Government's reaction is one that he will welcome. For the moment, I hope that he will he good enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I must say that I find it highly unsatisfactory that the matter should be raised in your Lordships' House at this late stage and that it will be introduced by way of amendment in another place. The noble Earl has said that this House will have a full opportunity to discuss the matter when the Bill returns from the other place. I hope that that is indeed so. I am in a little difficulty about this, because, at this hour of the night and on the noble Lord's amendment, it is of course quite impossible to discuss this matter, which is one of considerable concern to people in the country and one which this House certainly should discuss very fully if an opportunity is presented.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I think that there is a matter of principle here which, as has been suggested, at this hour of the night and in respect of this particular amendment perhaps we had best dispense with now. It is a very real one and I think it is something that this House ought to return to in due course.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I am thankful to say that I do not think there is very much demand for establishments of this kind in Scotland. but, even if the demand for them was greater than it is, I do not think that they should be permitted at all, let alone licensed. There is a demand—a sma le—for hard drugs, but no one has suggested th ops purveying them should be permitted, let al censed.
Since the libera tion of pornography some 10 years ago or more, ra has increased dramatically, and I believe that there is a direct connection between the two. I am not concerned with the dignity and status of women according to women's libbers; what I am concerned with, and what I think most women in Scotland are concerned with, is their safety and that they should be able to go about the streets, whether by night or by day, upon their lawful occasions in reasonable safety.
I very much hope that the Government will think very carefully before licensing these establishments in Scotland and take advice from the interested parties—the Churches and so forth—and consider, if not banning them altogether, at least including something in any licensing or permitting clause to enable local authorities to ban them.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that we should all be grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his reaction and his fairly honest expression of concern about the problem. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said that this was not the time. I do not consider that this time is late at night—I may have been badly brought up in a parliamentary sense—or late in the Bill, for that matter. I blame myself. I put down a new clause on glue sniffing at the Committee stage. I do not remember any great interest being taken by noble Lords about it, but the Government took it seriously. I blame myself because I had another new clause which I did not put forward, and that was on this particular subject. It was simply because of the inadequacy of my drafting. I felt it was not even good enough to put on the Marshalled List under the names of anyone on this side of the House. But when I saw the drafting of the one put forward by the Minister in another place for the English Bill, then I thought I could bring forward a few reasonable words about it.
We have the Government accepting the principle that there should be legislation. I think that is all-important, and nobody here has spoken against it. It has been on the Marshalled List since last week, so all the English and the Welsh Lords, and even all the Scotsmen who are not here, saw it. If they had been appalled by it they would have been here opposing it, so I take their absence as consent to what we are doing here tonight.
I think that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is quite right. It is the acceptance of standards of behaviour, and what may virtually be an encouragement to violence in sex, that cannot be any good at all for future behaviour in this country. We have possibilities for setting tones in the nation. If Parliament cannot do it, then nobody can do it. It is no good deploring

1271
what is happening, or what is done, if we do not take action when we feel it is necessary to take action.
People have said that by licensing these establishments we are virtually condoning them. That is not true. If we do not take this power, they can be set up, they can spread, they can be established. May I say to the noble Earl—he probably knows—that so far as what is being done in England is concerned, the powers in respect of indecent publications, et cetera, are exactly the same as they are in Scotland without the clause that we are going to come to later on. Therefore, that should not be used as an excuse for not taking this first step. Let me again thank noble Lords who have supported me, and above all thank the Minister for the promise that he has given that action will be taken in another place, and eventually we shall have an opportunity of saying what we feel about it. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw this particular amendment, and will not move the next one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Street traders' licences]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 128, I should say that, if No. 128 is agreed, I shall have to call Amendment No. 129 in a different way.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 27, line 41, after ("place") insert ("designated in the licence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thought we had more or less stopped for the night. If we want to go on, then let us go on. It means that we are coming to street traders now. What I seek is that, in granting the licence, the local authority should designate the place in the licence where that street trading should be carried on. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is already possible for a local authority to restrict the scope of the street trading licence to an area designated by them, and the proposed amendment is unnecessary. The Bill makes it clear in Clause 9(3)(b) that a resolution to adopt the street trading provisions may apply to,
"the whole or any part of the area of the licensing authority",
and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule I is quite specific that conditions may be imposed on any licence which restricts its validity to an area or areas specified in the licence. I hope, therefore, that this reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I should have been more reassured if this specific power had been included when it could have been exercised. I will not argue with the Minister about it; if he is satisfied and I am not, who am Ito argue? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 27, line 41, leave out from ("place") to end of line 42.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment does not arise from an undertaking during the earlier stage. It arises out of a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Stodart in Committee on 26th January, when he observed (his remarks appear at col. 893 of the Official Report) that the definition of what we called a "public place" might be held to include a farm road, his implication being that because of the definition of "public place" in the clause being extended to include,
"any part of any premises being a part thereof abutting on a public place".
it might mean that the sale of goods from farm buildings would be caught by the Bill. On reconsideration, we believe my noble friend is right and that there is a danger, albeit a remote one, of that happening and, as this would clearly create a nonsense, it seems to us that the best course is to remove the words proposed to be removed by the amendment. Thus, the street trading provision would apply only if the actual sale of goods took place in a public place as defined in the interpretation clause, Clause 128, and I hope we are now removing the danger to which my noble friend alerted us. In theory this may create a possible loophole, not in the farm sales circumstance but in situation where, for example, a mobile shop could park on private property temporarily and sell products to the public in an adjacent street. However, on balance we think the lesser of the two evils is to make the amendment, and therefore I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I must say how surprised, if not stunned, I was to see that a suggestion of a simple person like myself had commended itself to my sophisticated noble friends on the Front Bench, and I am most grateful to them.
Clause 42 [Market operators' licences]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 133:
Page 28, line 33, after ("A") insert ("market operator's");
Page 28, line 33, leave out ("any") and insert ("either");
Page 28, line 40, leave out paragraph (c);
Page 29, line 11, at end insert ("at which goods are offered by more than one seller for sale by retail to the public").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that on the Marshalled List there are two amendments marked No. 132. When I come to refer to the second of the amendments so marked I shall explain that there is a misprint.
Lord Ross of Marnock: As there is no Amendment No. 133, my Lords, I think we can take it that the second amendment marked No. 132 should in fact be No. 133.
Lord Lyell: I shall deal with that when I have dealt with the first amendment marked No. 132, my Lords. These amendments are designed to give a more precise definition of what we call "private markets" than the present clause provides for. We now propose that for the purposes of the clause, a licence is required for a private market which is to be defined as a market

1273
which satisfies three tests. The first test is that there must be more than one seller; in other words, there can be no question that premises advertising themselves as a "supermarket" would be caught by the provisions unless they housed a number of separate organisations, each selling, in its own right, to the public, often in competition with one another.
The second test is that the goods must be offered for retail sale—that is, for direct use by the consumer. There is no evidence that there is any need to control what we might call "wholesale" markets. The third test that we would apply is that the goods must be for sale to the public. We want to make quite sure that there is no question of catching trades fairs where goods may be sold, for example, for their direct consumption to manufacturers or special users who simply would not be classed as being members of the public.
I should like to make it clear that the dropping of paragraph (c) in Clause 42(2), which refers to wholesale markets, is not in any sense a change in policy. It is merely because we believe that the exemption which we then sought to provide will now be automatically attracted by the new and tighter definition of "private market" provided for in the amendment. Therefore, all four amendments are essentially drafting ones, and as such I would commend them to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the amendments proposed en bloc are Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 132, and the amendment that follows it in the Marshalled List (in which there is a misprint), which is Amendment No. 133.
Clause 43 [Public entertainment licences]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 29, line 17, leave out ("permitted to") and insert ("may").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment designed to place beyond doubt the application of the clause to "coin-in-the-slot" machines for amusement or entertainment. The concept of permission to use facilities suggests a prior approach to an owner or management for authority to act and is inappropriate to such machines where payment of money for use and use are one and the same action. Accordingly, the amendment substitutes for the phrase:
"are … permitted to use any facilities",
the phrase "may use any facilities", which has no such personal overtones. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 29, line 18, leave out ("therein").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 29, line 18, leave out from ("recreation") to end of line 30.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a rather more important amendment. It deletes the illustrative list of types of premises which require a licence under the clause. Noble Lords will recall that there was some discussion, in particular on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, on the usefulness of the list when we considered the clause in Committee, and we were in effect asked to consider the need for its inclusion. As I think 1 said at the time, the sole purpose of the list was to give some guidance to local authorities as to the types of premises requiring licences, and it is purely illustrative and adds nothing to the definition of a "place of public entertainment" as set out in Clause 43(2). We have now come to the conclusion that, rather than help the licensing authorities, the list may distract their attention from the essential criteria in the main subsection. In the circumstances we have decided to delete the illustrative list—though I have to say that it was well precedented in the Edinburgh Act—and we shall therefore rest on the combination of the general criteria and the specific exclusions. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this is one of the more important provisions, since it relates to one of the areas of compulsory licensing. I always thought it a weakness to give a catalogue of places that have to be licensed, because a catalogue can possibly appear exhaustive, yet it gives an indication to a local authority, and who is to blame them if they start making their own exclusions?
Of course, the Government will probably realise that if they are going to rest upon the generality of the definition now—and I do not want to go on about this, but I could at very considerable length—then it could be very difficult for local authorities, with local authorities taking different points of view. Is it in the Government's mind to give guidance to the local authorities? The noble Earl will know that there are many local authorities which will want to embrace everything, to take in every kind of hall which may be used very occasionally for entertainment purposes. There is also the question of the exclusion becoming even more important now that we do not know quite everything that is going to be covered—not that we did before, but we had some fair idea.
There is one other point that I want to raise here. It says, "any place of entertainment". That means in the open air as well as somewhere which is indoors, or a covered marina, bearing in mind that we have a circus and a fairground or pleasure park, which may be outside as well as inside. Does this mean just an open field if it is going to be used for, say, a pop concert and people have to pay to get in there—that that will be under the control of the local authority and will be defined as a place where,
"on payment of money or money's worth, members of the public are admitted"?
All these questions now arise because we have not got a list. It may well be argued that they could arise if we had a list because the list could not be effective. I think that probably the Government are right now to leave out these paragraphs (a) to (j). I am very glad indeed that they have seen the light so far as that is concerned, because it is rather odious to have an incomplete catalogue and yet have quite a long catalogue.

1275
I am glad, too, that they have taken out the misprint (if misprint it was, or mistake it was) in respect of the next amendment, where it seemed that they were going to leave out the words, "but does not include", as well. That was in the amendment as first printed, and just made a nonsense of the whole thing. But it meant another quarter of an hour of my time to try to work out what they were at, until I got the Marshalled List today and then discovered, of course, that they had made a mistake, or that somebody had made a mistake—not necessarily the Scottish Office, and certainly not Lord Lyell, hut most likely somebody else who, again, had not listened in respect of these things.
I do not necessarily disagree with the amendment. I think that it is probably quite a good amendment. But it raises difficulties, and the main one is whether the Government will now give guidance to local authorities. Because, remember, we can see this list, but when the Bill is reprinted that list will not be there, and it may be that some local authorities will be a bit in the wilderness, especially those rural local authorities which are not used to licensing anything and which will now discover that every local community hall and every institution with a small hall will require to be licensed if it is going to be used for an entertainment of some kind. But I do not think that anybody could quarrel very much with what the Government are now doing.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, if I may just respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I am glad he welcomed the amendment, albeit not over-enthusiastically. I have to point out that subsection (2) was an illustrative list; it was never intended to be exhaustive. But what has become absolutely apparent is that the list confuses the casual reader, who does think that it is an exhaustive list rather than an illustrative list. Even the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was prone to fall into that trap. Therefore, we shall do away with the list and there will be no list and therefore the various licensing authorities will have to rely on Clause 43 in concluding the criteria and the exclusions, to which I have an amendment in a few moments. Of course, an open air place of public entertainment can fall into the definition just as much as somewhere with a roof. I am considering the question of guidance which has been suggested by the noble Lord but, once you get to guidance, you look as if you are getting into lists and once you get into lists then we have all the trouble that we have been discussing in Committee and tonight. I can give the noble Lord this undertaking that, if we can make things easier for the licensing authorities, then I am sure we shall attempt to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 137, I must point out that if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 138.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 29, leave out lines 32 to 42 and insert—
("(a) an athletic or sports ground while being used as such;

(b) an educational establishment while being used as such;

(c) premises belonging to or held by any religious body while being used wholly or mainly for purposes connected with that body;

(d) premises licensed under the Theatres Act 1968, the Cinematograph Act 1909 or Part 11 of the Gaming Act 1968;

1276

(e) premises in respect of which there is a permit under section 16 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 while being used in pursuance of the permit;

(f) licensed premises within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in which public entertainment is being provided during the permitted hours within the meaning of that Act; or

(g) premises in which machines for entertainment or amusement are being provided incidentally to the main purpose or use of the premises where that main purpose or use is not as a place of public entertainment.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, This is an important amendment in the context of what we discussed earlier. This revised version of the exclusions list implements two undertakings I gave earlier, and also makes one or two further amendments in the interests of consistency and clarity. Perhaps I could briefly explain what we hope to achieve by this redraft. In the first place, noble Lords will note that the exemption for educational establishments has been narrowed to include such establishments only "while being used as such". At an earlier stage of discussion on this clause, concern was expressed about the safety aspects of indiscriminate letting out of educational premises (particularly in country areas) for purposes wholly unconnected With their main remit. In response to this concern, I undertook to consider an amendment making it clear that educational establishments are exempt from the licensing requirements only when they are being used by appropriate bodies for educational purposes and not when they are leased out for commercial or unrelated purposes. This amendment is designed to achieve the effect sought: it has to be considered, of course, together with the narrowing of the definition of "educational establishment" which I have also tabled and which we shall shortly be discussing.
As noble Lords will also see from the new sub-paragraph (c) in this revised list, I have also tabled an amendment fulfilling my undertaking to provide for the exemption of Church use by associated Church organisations of Church premises from the licensing requirement. Fund-raising activities undertaken by a Church or Church organisation will therefore be exempt from licensing, but a licence will be required where Church premises are leased out for commercial use to other unrelated bodies (for example, where a fringe theatre group leases a hall for use during the Edinburgh Festival). The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will note that the amendment as drafted refers to "premises belonging to or held by any religious body" rather than "Churches": this wording is designed to cover his fear about the inadvertent exclusion of the Salvation Army from the benefit of any amendment drafted in terms of "Churches".
We have also narrowed certain of the other exclusions in this list in the interests of consistency. An athletic or sports ground will now be exempt from licensing only while being used as such and not when leased out for an open-air pop concert. Similarly, premises in respect of which there is a permit under Section 16 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 will only be exempt while being used in pursuance of the permit. Exemptions in respect of premises licensed under the Theatres Act 1968, the Cinematograph Act 1909 and Part II of the Gamine Act 1968 have been retained in their previous wide form. It is felt that in the light of the stringent safety requirements built into the licensing procedures under these Acts, no further

1277
licence should be required under Clause 43 for the use of premises so licensed, irrespective of the form of entertainment is to be held in them.
Finally, we have for the first time provided an exemption for premises in which machines for amusement or entertainment are incidental to their main purpose or use, since it seems unnecessary to license juke-boxes in cafés, and so on. Premises whose main purpose is the provision of such machines (that is, amusement arcades) will still be caught by the essential criteria for licensing set out in Clause 43(2). I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the amendments which cover the points. The first one I made last time was about the use of schools for concerts and country areas and other things which may need licensing. I must say that head (c) covers the point I made about Salvation Army citadels which might have been excluded under the previous definition. I thank the noble Earl on behalf of these bodies.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl in respect of my concern about church buildings. I accept right away that the wording he has,
"premises belonging to or held by any religious body while being used wholly or mainly for purposes connected with that body",
meets the point. It meets the point about the church: it meets the point about the Salvation Army, those patient people who I am sure would like to have been able to hear this discussion, had they been privileged to hear us.
However, the other point I am not sure about— that congratulations were in order from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in respect of educational establishments while being used as such. What does that mean? He wanted these establishments to be used for fund raising. Maybe for concerts, maybe for village concerts. Nothing to do with education; nothing necessarily to do with the school but important from the point of view of the community. So far as I read this, if they want to do that with the educational establishment, they will need to go and get a licence. They will need to be licensed by the local authority. They are only excluded when the provision, "while being used as such"applies. It runs counter to what the noble Lord wanted, yet he thanks the Government for it!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, with respect, I should explain that what concerned me was that I have seen schools in rural areas being used for dances, and so on, where people were packed to the doors—and that is the expression that I used—so that nobody could go in or out. It was most unsafe, and I thought that some expression of concern was needed as to the suitability of some of the educational establishments being used for these purposes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that he can rest assured that in future he has brought upon himself considerable unpopularity if the young farmers are not going to he allowed to use an establishment. He knows the young farmers better than I do. There
1278
may well be no other place in the village for these activities. I have heard so often in respect of the pleas for keeping open rural schools that these were the essential centre of the community where everything took place. They are now going to be subject to licensing by a tyrannical district licensing authority. When it is discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, insisted that this should be so, I am afraid that that genial countenance is going to be fraught with a few worries about some of the things that they will say about him.
For my own part, I want to thank him for what he has done about the church as a religious body; I think that it was an elder of the kirk somewhere in Lanark who wrote to me about it. He thought his safeguard lay in the definition of the educational establishment. Is it still defined? I do not think it is. It is widened in relation to theological colleges and so on. I am grateful to the Government for the change that they have made in the Bill. I hoped that we might have been able to get this particular clause completely finished; hut it looks as though we still have another important amendment to consider, unless the Government are going to accept the amendment that comes next from me.
The Deputy Speaker The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 138 cannot be moved.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 30, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert (" but includes a university and a theological college ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon my earlier amendment limiting educational establishments' exemption from licensing to educational establishments used as such. Its effect is to narrow the definition of "educational establishment" to cover only establishments whose prime purpose is the provision of formal education. By virtue of the reference to paragraph (iii) of definition of "educational establishment" in Section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, Clause 43(4) as drafted includes a wide variety of voluntary clubs providing social and recreative activities. Since the fund-raising uses of a voluntary social club as such might be argued to be wider than the equivalent uses of (for example) a school, it was felt that in the interests of simplicity and consistency of interpretation the definition of "educational establishment" in this clause should be narrowed to exclude establishments whose prime purpose is social, cultural or recreative, covering only establishments for formal school, further or higher education. I beg to move.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Travel Concessions (London) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
The Queen's consent signified and the Bill was reported from the unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
SAINT THOMAS' BURIAL GROUND (SOUTHWARK) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
  POLAND: APPEAL FUNDS
  POLAND: APPEAL FUNDS
  DISARMAMENT PLANS: GENEVA COMMITTEE
  DISARMAMENT PLANS: GENEVA COMMITTEE
  WALES: NUCLEAR WEAPON INVOLVEMENT
  WALES: NUCLEAR WEAPON INVOLVEMENT
  M.1 MAINTENANCE WORK NEAR ROBERTSTHORPE
  M.1 MAINTENANCE WORK NEAR ROBERTSTHORPE
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: MOTHERS OF YOUNG CHILDREN
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: MOTHERS OF YOUNG CHILDREN
  BBC WORLD SERVICE: RECEPTION
  BBC WORLD SERVICE: RECEPTION