Sitting of 19 May 1982

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

    Industrialised Buildings Systems
    Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what approaches he has received from local authorities for financial assistance for remedial treatment or the replacement of houses and flats built by industrial and semi-industrialised systems; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Local authorities, in making bids for their HIP allocation, have included, along with other special local needs, provision for the remedial treatment or replacement of houses and flats built by industrialised and semi-industrialised systems. I have, in addition, received a number of ad hoc requests for special financial assistance.
    The need for capital expenditure on repair or replacement is taken into account in determining HIP allocations. In addition, the new subsidy system introduced last year brings within its scope the cost of capitalised repairs and the cost of improvements to dwellings built within the last 30 years, as well as costs of redevelopment.
    Mr. Dean: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his reply and for the letter that he courteously sent to me on this subject. Are Ministers aware of the dimension of the problem nationally? For instance, does the hon. Gentleman know that the necessary decision by the Leeds city council to demolish the Hunslet Grange flats in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) means that, because of the debt charges remaining, the Leeds housing revenue account will have to bear the cost of £1 million a year for the foreseeable future? It also means that every council house tenant in Leeds will have to pay 22p a week extra in rent for the next 40 years to offset the cost of this one block of flats. Does the Minister think that that is a fair burden to place on council tenants in Leeds? If not, what further proposals do the Government have in mind to deal with this alarming position?
    Sir George Young: I am aware of the issues facing Leeds Members and hon. Members in other parts of the country. The Government are generally not willing to encourage the demolition of public assets. We hope that local authorities will view such a policy as one of last
    332
    resort. If they decide to pursue such a policy, they must assess the financial consequences. I cannot, as a general rule, justify providing Government financial support, which would have to come from other local authorities' new build programmes.
    Mr. Durant: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said, but there is a problem with this special type of building in different parts of the country. The Government should examine this as a unique problem which arose from a policy advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, by architects and by people in the construction industry. This peculiar problem requires special attention.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to point out that previous Governments have encouraged the use of industrialised systems to increase the output of the house building industry, but it does not follow that the Government must be responsible for defects in design or in construction which have now emerged. The need for capital expenditure for dealing with such problems is taken into account in determining HIP allocations.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more Back Bencher from either side of the House on this question before I call a Front Bench Member. Then we shall have to move more quickly.
    Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister realise that his remarks will appear appallingly complacent and heartless to the thousands of tenants who have suffered in these dwellings for many years? Will he reconsider the position of the Leeds city council, which has a housing waiting list of 22,000 and is building only 400 new dwellings a year? Will he at least agree to meet representatives of the Leeds city council and Leeds Members of Parliament to discuss what is a genuinely serious matter for many thousands of tenants?
    Sir George Young: I am always prepared to see Members of Parliament who wish to discuss constituency issues.
    In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, when it comes to giving help for this type of problem the policy being pursued by this Administration is the same as that followed by the Labour Administration.
    Mr. John Page: Is my hon. Friend changing standards and keeping his eye more firmly on the production of industrialised and semi-industrialised systems?
    Sir George Young: Yes. In conjunction with the local authority associations, a defects prevention unit at the Building Research Establishment has been set up to advise on design and site practices and to assist in the prevention of building defects. If resources were switched to tackling the specific problem mentioned, they would have to come from somewhere else in the building programme.
    Mr. Kaufman: As the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, may I ask him to accept that it is not good enough to fob off on to a junior Minister a major problem affecting many thousands of people in most of our large cities? Does he agree that we are talking about a major national issue? Will the Secretary of State take the initiative on what his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) said was the responsibility of

    333
    successive Governments and call a conference of the leaders of the local authorities involved to discuss these grave issues?
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard the request. I am sure that he will respond to it in due course.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest forecast of the level of activity for the construction industry in the financial year 1982–83.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): The Government do not make forecasts of construction industry output, but it is encouraging that the value of total orders for new construction increased by 5 per cent. in real terms last year, that commercial new orders were at their highest level since 1973 and that private sector house building starts, public sector house building starts and home improvement grants have all risen sharply in recent months.
    Mr. Morris: Is that not good news and a reflection of the Budget provisions? In the coming months will my hon. Friend liaise closely with the House-Builders Federation and those involved in restoring sewers in inner city areas to ensure that that programme goes forward at an ever-increasing rate?
    Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that we keep in close touch with the House-Builders Federation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services keeps in touch with the water industry. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. The revival of private sector house building over a substantial period is a further indication of the way in which the Government's economic policies are beginning to pay off.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Contrary to the Minister's rose-tinted view, is he aware that in many areas local authority house building is virtually at a standstill? What remit has he given to the Building Research Establishment to produce good housing design to help local authorities?
    Mr. Stanley: The basic responsibility for housing design should be with the local authorities. They can draw on the specialist housing design skills available in the private sector. It is encouraging that private sector house builders have produced a range of specialist designs for single people. I am glad to say that in the first quarter of 1982 public sector house building starts were 40 per cent. up on the previous quarter and 67 per cent. up on a year ago.

    Waste and Vacant Land
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of publicly owned waste and vacant land shown in the land registers so far published.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The 350 registers now published contain details of 9,300 sites covering 83,500 acres of unused and underused public land. About 1,000 acres have already been removed from the registers because the land has been disposed of.
    Mr. Heddle: Is it not a national scandal that so much land is lying idle, particularly in the conurbations of London, Birmingham and Manchester? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the councils which own the land and have neglected it for years should sell it post-haste and reinvest the proceeds in improving houses and building new houses when local circumstances demand such action?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. The new freedoms for capital expenditure given to local government mean that if local authorities sell such land they can use the money for any capital project. The issue is wider than that, because some of the land to which I have referred is owned by statutory undertakings and nationalised industries.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not time that Conservative Members substantiated some of their erroneous statements about surplus land and ownership? Is the Secretary of State aware that investigations often confirm that such land is privately owned and has nothing to do with local authorities?
    Mr. Heseltine: We have investigated and proved beyond peradventure that large areas of land are owned by the public sector and could be disposed of to create a substantial pay-off.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: How does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that the land is used? Does the existence of the land allow him to revise his estimate of the number of green field sites that he requires for future housing development?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend refers to an important subject. He will be aware that the acreage of green fields now being taken for development is substantially down on what it was a few years ago. I am determined to pursue a whole range of initiatives to speed up the release of land on the land registers. I should be grateful for any help from right hon. and hon. Members in alerting local authorities to the opportunities and the potential.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is not the real national scandal that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to be housed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in places such as Leicester the problem is not that there is no land, but that builders, mainly private builders, cannot sell the houses that they have built because unemployed people cannot afford to buy them?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have been in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced substantial increases in housing starts. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes that as much as I do.

    Ordnance Survey
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to make a statement on the future of the Ordnance Survey.
    Mr. Heseltine: No. I am still considering my proposals and will make a statement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Bennett: I congratulate the Secretary of State on that consistent reply and on his incisive decision making. He has been telling the House the same thing since before the Christmas Recess. Is it not high time that he put

    335
    forward proposals so that those who work for the Ordnance Survey do not have such continuing uncertainty? Does he agree that it is essential for good government to have good maps for planning and defence as well as for leisure and recreation?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for praising my consistency. The fears expressed do most to undermine the confidence of the staff. I do not wish to contribute to that situation. My plans for the Ordnance Survey will enable it to build on its success.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the continuing uncertainty is causing anxiety to employees of the Ordnance Survey, many of whom live in my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that his statement will be not in answer to a written question on a Friday afternoon, but in the House so that we can ask him questions about it?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am not unsympathetic to that request. The Minister responsible has seen the staff side and offered to have further meetings. Depending on the scale of any announcement, I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the precise form in which I should make my views known to Parliament.
    Mr. Ancram: During my right hon. Friend's continuing deliberations will he bear in mind the legitimate fears and interests of the private map-making firms, such as Bartholomews in my constituency? Will he ensure that any decision does not undermine their position by creating competition which is either unfair or subsidised?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already seen the representatives of the private map-makers to see how we can draw together the respective strengths of the private and public sectors.
    Dr. David Clark: If the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to make an announcement, can he at least say whether any of the bodies that he has consulted over the Ordnance Survey's change of status are in favour of the change? Has he any proposals to establish an advisory panel, as suggested by the Serpell report?
    Mr. Heseltine: When I make my statement I shall let the House know the results of the consultation process. I am considering setting up an advisory body. It is important to consider the matter carefully and to get the decision right. There is no need for fear or apprehension about what I am trying to achieve. I am trying to build on the Ordnance Survey's success.

    Planning Procedures
    Mr. Stevensasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with progress in the liberalisation of planning procedures within the major towns and cities.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): There has been welcome progress in speeding up planning decisions but more could still be done. In several towns enterprise zones have been established where there is broad freedom from control, and urban development corporations have been set up to promote development in the London and Merseyside
    336
    Docklands. More generally we are seeking to ensure that permissions for development are not unreasonably withheld, particularly where it will bring jobs and benefit to the local economy.
    Mr. Stevens: I think that we all recognise the work that the Government have done in trying to reduce red tape. They have also reduced the staff of the Department. What can my hon. Friend do to reduce the extent of bureaucracy elsewhere? Is he aware that there are 400 architects in Manchester and 350 planners in Birmingham? Can we do anything to reduce those numbers?
    Mr. Winnick: Sack the lot.
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) will be aware that there are sufficient pressures on local authorities to reduce costs and to cause them to examine all posts. We intend to ensure that many more local authorities come within the eight weeks' advice period that we offer for planning applications as set out in the development control programme.
    Mr. Pitt: Is the Minister aware that the Financial Times last Thursday reported that his right hon. Friend intends to introduce a special Bill to enable normal planning procedures for the European Ferries site at Vauxhall to be circumvented so that work can begin more quickly?
    Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend announced last evening that he intends to lay an order before the House for that purpose.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Manchester city council architects provide a service for the 10 surrounding districts and carry out architectural works for the police, the health authorities and numerous other services that are not within the city?
    Mr. Shaw: I trust that means that there will never be any delays in the processing of planning applications in Manchester.
    Mr. Chapman: As a non-practising architect and planner, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees with the general proposition that it is not the liberalisation of planning procedures or the amending of town and country planning Acts that is necessary, but the application of those Acts and regulations by those in planning offices? Will he keep an eye on the quickening of the determination of such planning applications? Will he also bear in mind that there is great support for using special planning procedures in special cases to encourage development, such as that which is to take place on the Vauxhall site?
    Mr. Shaw: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment in support of the special development order procedure. He will recognise that it is and must remain a rare procedure. I am delighted to report that the latest figures for the October to December quarter show that 70 per cent. of planning applications were decided in eight weeks, as against 64 per cent. in the previous quarter.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is high time that I made another appeal for shorter supplementary questions.

    London Dockland Development Commission
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what permissions he has given in the last month to development undertaken, or grants made by, the London Dockland Development Corporation.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Since the beginning of April my Department has approved four proposals by the London Dockland Development Corporation: first, the phased purchase from the London borough of Southwark of the Downtown estates for private sector redevelopment and rehabilitation; secondly, the letting of an annual contract for site investigations in the urban development area; thirdly, the payment of a rent grant under the Inner Urban Area Act to a roofing firm in Wapping; and, fourthly, a reconstruction of Thames Road, Silvertown.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that he makes other requirements on less spectacular expenditures? Will he examine these and ensure that only those that are likely to produce local disagreement are referred to him, not matters that should be within the remit of the dockland joint committee, as it was, or the LDDC as it now is?
    Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comment to relate to the extent to which my Department has control over capital expenditure and revenue spending within the LDDC. It is our intention to ensure that public money is spent effectively. That is the critical examination that I am sure he wishes to apply.
    Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many Londoners who have applied to purchase housing in the London Dockland Development Corporation area have been turned down because they do not live within the area? Does he agree that that shows that there is a large and untapped demand for housing in London that is not being met by local authorities?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is correct. Our first intention, and that of the corporation, was to provide housing for those who live within the area. It is important to note that by 10 May, 270 homes on the Beckton housing development had been sold, 119 of them to Newham council tenants.

    Development Plans (Appeals)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria an inspector is required to follow when hearing an appeal against a council decision based upon a development plan determined by that council.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: In determining an appeal under section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 an inspector is required by section 29 to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material to the application, and to any other material considerations. When a local plan has been adopted by the planning authority it becomes part of the development plan for that area and an inspector must therefore have regard to the relevant policies and proposals in that plan.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that where a council has adopted a reasoned development plan to restrict certain activities to a particular area—for example, Morecambe's decision to restrict amusement arcades to one area of the town—it is understandably
    338
    frustrated when an inspector grants an appeal that is inconsistent with the reasoned development plan, unless he gives reasons to show that the plan was unreasonable in the first place? Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter to ascertain whether the criteria need strengthening to take that into account?
    Mr. Shaw: I am prepared generally to consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises. He was right to raise it in respect of an individual matter. When a local plan is prepared and published, in most instances it will have priority over, for example, a county structure plan if that is also prepared and published.
    Mr. McNamara: What is the delay within the Department in coming to a decision on the applications that are sent to it? When can the Humberside county council expect replies from the Department on four or five applications that it has been sitting on for varying periods of up to one year?
    Mr. Shaw: It follows that any matter requiring adjudication on appeal is extremely complex and goes outside the normal run of planning appeals. Therefore, it is likely that the time taken by the Department will be that much longer. The average time is about 47 weeks as opposed to 17 weeks for determining appeals through inspectors by the written representation method.
    Mr. Durant: Will my hon. Friend consider what steps he can take to persuade councils to take more decisions on planning applications and not always pass them on to public inquiries so that they may get rid of the responsibility to take decisions?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that local authorities recognise that the changes made from the 1980 Act onwards mean that they have more power to determine their own planning decisions within the eight-week period. I hope that they will continue to operate this system. My hon. Friend knows that we are publishing tables showing the performance of authorities in determining planning applications.

    City Councils (Staffing)
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the percentage changes in staffing of city councils in principal conurbations in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of local authority staff at the latest available date compared with May 1979.
    Mr. Heseltine: Information on the percentage change in staffing in individual local authorities in England during the 12 months to December 1981 is included in the most recent joint manpower watch press release, copies of which are available in the Library. Overall, the metropolitan distric councils reduced their staffing by about 2 per cent. in the year. This remains an inadequate rate of reduction if the Government's expenditure targets are to be met. The total number of local authority staff in England at December 1981 was 1,890,770 full-time equivalents. Taking account of seasonal factors this represents a decrease of 80,145 or 4·1 per cent. since June 1979.
    Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Liverpool city council employs 59·8 staff per thousand head of the population, which is a far greater number than any other district council on Merseyside? Wirral, for example, employs 43·7 per thousand and Sefton only 39·8. Does he agree that until Liverpool city council reduces its staff and cuts commercial and domestic rates, there cannot be an economic upturn for the area?
    Mr. McNamara: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about Toxteth?
    Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's suggestion that high staffing levels and consequently high rate bills seriously affect the commercial viability and attractiveness of an area. Liverpool's staff ratio per thousand head of population is high. Significantly, it is exceeded only by Manchester.
    Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there will be burning resentment from many people in the private sector at his answer, which shows that councils have not reduced staff in line with what has had to happen in business and commerce? Will he take action to reduce councils' overall costs so that they reduce their staff, particularly in my constituency in the West Midlands county area?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have repeatedly asked local authorities to make reductions. There has been a wide spread of performance. By and large, Conservative authorities have made substantial attempts to meet our targets and Labour authorities have not. Local electors have the ability to make judgments on that performance.
    Mr. Newens: What are the advantages of reducing staff numbers if those people merely join the unemployed queues and have to be supported from public funds for doing nothing? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he is to reduce the number of staff, others in the Government must take steps to reflate the economy to give those people jobs elsewhere? Further, does he recognise that many of the people being dismissed are performing a vital public service which will be gravely missed?
    Mr. Heseltine: There is little compulsory redundancy in local government to secure the staff cuts. By and large, it is a question of not replacing those who resign of their own free will. The public would find it difficult to distinguish between the quality of service of councils that have made the cuts and of those that have not.

    Shellfish Waters
    Sir Julian Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the extent to which the European Community directive on the quality required of shellfish waters is being complied with in European Economic Community countries.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The implementation of the directive in other member States is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. In the United Kingdom we have designated 27 shellfish areas under the directive. The directive is concerned only with the quality of waters, both estuarial and coastal, and to that end seeks to ensure that designated waters provide a suitable habitat for shellfish. It is not a public health measure and sets standards that are not relevant to those that would be needed for the protection of consumers.
    Sir Julian Ridsdale: Does my hon. Friend believe that the directive is really necessary? Can he allay the feats of fishermen in non-designated areas that the directive is working against them?
    Mr. Shaw: I can give that assurance. The directive does not bear on the marketing of shellfish. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I are aware of discrimination against the sale of shellfish from non-designated areas. We are satisfied that the shellfish can continue to be marketed, provided that they meet the local health authority requirements.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the directive made any difference to the possibility of designating marine nature reserves? Is that why the Government have failed to designate any, even though 12 months have passed since we fully debated the matter on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill?
    Mr. Shaw: The directive has made no difference to the policy.

    London Local Government
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to change the structure and responsibilities of local government in London.
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    Mr. Dubs: I am grateful for the assurance. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's constant criticism of ILEA, London Transport and the GLC smack of a political vendetta? Will he give a further assurance that there will be no change to the structure and functioning of local government in London except as part of a national review of the metropolitan tier of local government?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may have missed an important point. The deluge of criticism of the GLC and ILEA results from their profligate expenditure and rating policies. It is not orchestrated by the Government. We do not need to contribute to something that is happening under its own momentum.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if London Transport is taken away from the GLC—and the sooner the better—the GLC will fulfil no useful function? Does he agree that it is no more than a party political racket at the expense of London ratepayers?
    Mr. Heseltine: The party in control of the GLC is an eloquent testimony to my hon. Friend's wisdom.
    Mr. Graham: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that any defects in the structure or function of London local government pale into insignificance when we consider the problems created by the Government meddling in London finance and rate support? Will he repeat his assurance that he will not respond to politically motivated demands for the abolition of the GLC and consider the future of London local government only as part of a national review?
    Mr. Heseltine: I would not respond to a politically motivated demand, but a rational and well-presented case would be a different matter.
    Mr. Jessel: As Greater London housing has gone to the boroughs, the ambulance service to the NHS and sewerage

    341
    to the Thames water authority, as the intention seems to be to put London Transport under a different authority and as the Home Secretary could easily run the fire brigade, why should the GLC continue? Is it not nonsense to talk of a political vendetta when, since its beginning in 1964, the GLC has spent an equal time under the control of both parties?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am constantly searching for coherent answers to my hon. Friend's questions.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish a White Paper on rate reform.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from the general public on the rating system since the publication of the Green Paper on rating reform.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have received more than 1,100 responses to the Green Paper, including 658 from members of the public. These are now being analysed by my Department. When the analysis has been completed, I shall be making proposals to my colleagues. I can assure my hon. Friends that I am committed to achieving real reform as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Atkinson: Notwithstanding the longer term nature of some of the options in the Green Paper, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will be able to bring forward legislation in the next Session of Parliament to relieve the burden on hard-pressed ratepayers, particularly those on pensions and fixed incomes?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know how important the issue is to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are considering the matter, and I cannot anticipate the Government's findings.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the alarm among ratepayer organisations that the Government may be considering a poll tax on top of rates, so that there will be two taxes instead of one? May we have his assurance that, if he cannot achieve the comprehensive reform that many of us wish for, he will do nothing at all?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot give an assurance that I shall do nothing at all, but that is very different from stating what I shall do. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). While I am making proposals and submitting summaries to my Cabinet colleagues, it would be wrong to anticipate their judgment.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in any rating reform he will not include spending targets, spending penalties and exemptions from penalties, since his present system of unlawful targets, penalties and exemptions has resulted in local authorities spending £1·4 billion more than he wishes to be spent? Will he also give an assurance that there will be no midyear holdback to deal with the £1·4 billion overspend?
    Mr. Heseltine: Under our regime, for the first time for 30 years, local authority current expenditure has been brought under persistent control. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seaks.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rate reform is extremely urgent in areas of high unemployment like Humberside, where the Labour council has in the past year increased county rates by 61 per cent., thus making it extremely difficult to attract industry to the area?
    Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend. There is no automatic association between high levels of unemployment and high levels of rates. The almost automatic relationship is between Labour control and high levels of rates.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread support for changes in the rating system? Will he confirm that he is holding consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in the course of his review of the rating system following the Green Paper?
    Mr. Heseltine: I can confirm that there is widespread support for reform of the rating system. There is an equally widespread difference of view over what the reform should be. I shall keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable support for maintaining the rating system for non-metropolitan district authorities and introducing a local income tax for county councils?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is perfectly correct, as my hon. Friend puts it, that there is a measure of support—
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not here.
    Mr. Heseltine: —but it is obviously not wholly universal.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 3p in the pound of the increase in rates in Humberside is due directly to cuts made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in higher education in Humberside? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of policies followed by his right hon. Friend, more money is being paid in support of students reading sociology than is being paid for students reading such subjects as engineering and applied science? Would it not be a good idea if the right hon. Gentleman, before he starts looking at rates, had a word with his right hon. Friends about the types of cuts that they are making in things that are essential for the prosperity and employment of people in Humberside?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not have detailed knowledge of the educational priorities of the Humberside authority. I am, however, aware that it was not a consequence of the ongoing education provision but a consequence of the change of political control that precipitated the very large rate increase in Humberside.

    Urban Renewal (Private Investment)
    Sir William Elliottasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to increase the levels of private investment in urban renewal by extending some of the advantages offered within the enterprise zones to inner city areas.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: We are watching closely to see how effective the enterprise zone advantages prove to be. The

    343
    results so far are encouraging but it is too soon for a definitive assessment. We shall not consider extending the advantages until that is available. In the meantime, we have taken a number of other initiatives to promote investment in the inner city, including my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of the urban development grant.
    Sir William Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that the success so far of the enterprise zones, especially in North-East England, is very much appreciated? Will he nevertheless realise that existing firms in cities are fearful of the enormous trading advantage of firms coming into the zones? Will he do his best, in the operation of Government policy, to ensure that firms that are established and that have, through their enterprise, provided much employment, do not suffer unduly.
    Mr. Shaw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety that the existence of enterprise zones, because of their advantages, may affect existing enterprises located outside them. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the enterprise zones are essentially catalysts, around which increasing economic activity can be provided, and that they are located in areas where such a catalyst should not be detrimental to generating economic activity. In fact, the reverse is the case.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister enlighten the House about how many existing businesses just outside the Tyneside enterprise zone have applied to move into the enterprise zone? Will he resist the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and instead increase the money available for inner city partnership schemes?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of initiatives announced by my right hon. Friend, including the urban development grant, will result in £70 million being available in 1983–84. I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall write to him on the matter.

    Public Bodies (Land Sales)
    Mr. Raceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to ensure that all publicly owned undertakings and companies are instructed to offer surplus land to local housing authorities before selling such land on the open market.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: No, Sir. This would delay disposals as well as being an unreasonable limitation on the bodies concerned.
    Mr. Race: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that many housing authorities find difficulty building the number of houses that they would wish to build because of a serious shortage of land, especially in inner city areas? Is he aware that they cannot use the capital sums produced by council house sales because of that? Will the Minister allow them to compete on equal terms with other authorities that want to buy land so that they are not caught by the housing cost yardstick operated by his Department, which prevents many local authorities from building the houses that they need?
    Mr. Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to the land register system, the registers for the first 35 districts showed that about 21,000 acres were
    344
    available, of which about one half was regarded as being capable of being developed. A great deal of housing land can be made available within local authority areas for development if the authorities are so minded. That is the objective of my right hon. Friend's initiative.
    Mr. Major: Would it not be absurd for public undertakings to be compelled to sell vacant land to local authorities which themselves have undeveloped vacant land? Is it not more acceptable that the land should be sold to the private sector, where one hopes it would be speedily developed for construction purposes?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The important point about the land register system and the requirement for local authorities to appraise their land holdings is to bring land into more beneficial use. The more that local authorities recognise that they will not only obtain beneficial use from it but increased rateable value, the better.

    World Cup
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 29 April, Official Report, c. 331, if he has since reviewed the question of participation by Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in the World Cup.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I keep the position under constant review.
    Mr. Dalyell: At least in relation to Scotland, where most of us in the industrial belt have a rather different perception of the whole Falklands issue than the Southern English, will the Government make an effort to ascertain the views of the Scots on the task force before pressurising the SFA to withdraw from the World Cup?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give any assurances or guarantees on that topic or that approach. At this stage the Government see no objection to the three British teams taking part as planned in the World Cup finals next month. I have said previously, both inside and outside the House, that many millions of people would find it odd if we as the non-aggressor nation, were not taking part in the World Cup finals.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and I raised this question a month ago in the House? Since then, have any of the home football associations or any of the countries that have supported us in the United Nations raised through FIFA the possibility of the Argentines being thrown out of the World Cup? They are the aggressor, not us. We should be going and they should not.
    Mr. Macfarlane: I understand what my hon. Friend says. A dialogue obviously takes place between representatives of FIFA. I have no specific knowledge of any detailed dialogue involving our senior vice-president, Mr. Harry Cavan, of the Northern Ireland Football Association, or precisely what he has said. The Brazilian president of FIFA has made it clear that Argentina will not be excluded from the World Cup.
    Mr. Denis Howell: As the news from the Falklands grows more ominous by the hour, can the Minister say

    345
    whether his advice will still hold, what discussions he has had with the three football associations and in what circumstances the Government might think it right to change that advice? Will he say what advice he has given the football associations about representations to FIFA along the lines discussed in the House three weeks ago?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I think that all hon. Members will share my view that, at the moment, this is a matter that has to be held under constant review and that ultimately it is a matter very much for the football authorities. I am reviewing the matter day by day. I cannot answer hypothetical questions about what might happen over the next seven to 10 days—I have no means of knowing—except to say that the British Government see no objection at the moment to the British teams going to the World Cup finals next month. I hope that the competition can continue under normal circumstances.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, and many people in the country, will support his view that we should put no pressure on the football associations to withdraw as we are the innocent parties in this dispute? Does he agree that it is right to go to Spain and to take part in the competition, but that if any British team has to face the Argentine team we should withdraw from the competition and put the onus on FIFA to expel Argentina, if it thinks this is absolutely necessary?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend raises many hypothetical points. I wish to make it clear to the House that I have put no pressure on the three British football associations. The matter is under constant review.

    Planning Applications
    Mr. Majorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those local authorities which decide on average less than 50 per cent. of their planning applications within eight weeks.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for the latest information to be circulated in the Official Report.
    Mr. Major: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his positive response. Does he agree that the swift determination of planning applications is of immense importance to industry, commerce and individuals? What plans does he have further to hasten the response to such applications by those authorities that are still extremely slow?
    Mr. Shaw: I share my hon. Friend's view that this is an important aspect of development. There has already been a welcome speeding up of decisions. From October to December 1981, planning authorities decided 70 per cent. of all applications within eight weeks compared with 62 per cent. in a previous quarter. However, I propose to make a direct approach to those authorities whose performance seems seriously inadequate.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In his desire to speed up planning decisions, will the Minister ensure that the rights of individuals who object to planning decisions are not jeopardised?
    Mr. Shaw: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that time is money in the building industry and that the long delays in
    346
    planning inquiries that are now taking place cause unnecessary expense? I refer especially to the inquiry on the western esplanade scheme in Southampton, which is tying up many millions of pounds and is preventing more than 3,000 people from obtaining employment on the site?
    Mr. Shaw: I am aware of my hon. Friend's assiduous inquiries about the future of that scheme. It is a matter that my Department must examine. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the average time for determination of planning appeals through the written representation method is now 17 weeks as opposed to 21 weeks a few quarters ago.
    Following is the information:

    Planning authorities in England deciding less than 50 per cent, of their planning applications within eight weeks in the quarter ending 31 December 1981

    Total Applications Decided

    Per cent. Decided in 8 Weeks

    Southwark

    218

    49·5

    Swale

    236

    49·2

    Doncaster

    377

    48·8

    Havering

    484

    48·6

    Richmond-upon-Thames

    244

    48·4

    City of London

    141

    48·2

    Barnet

    407

    47·9

    Birmingham

    926

    47·1

    Waltham Forest

    248

    46·8

    Wolverhampton

    245

    46·5

    Hinckley and Bosworth

    221

    46·2

    Dudley

    535

    460

    Reading

    284

    45·8

    Chiltern

    339

    44·8

    Hertsmere

    158

    43·7

    Maidstone

    245

    43·7

    Enfield

    377

    43·5

    Brighton

    256

    43·4

    Brent

    373

    43·4

    Guildford

    270

    42·6

    East Hertfordshire

    359

    42·3

    Sutton

    232

    40·9

    Mendip

    342

    40·1

    West Lancashire

    255

    39·6

    Bridgnorth

    111

    37·8

    Hillingdon

    300

    37·0

    Knowsley

    67

    34·3

    Windsor and Maidenhead

    386

    33·7

    Peak District National Park

    138

    33·3

    Kingston-upon-Thames

    260

    21·9

    Bromley

    744

    21·4

    Hackney

    154

    13·6

    Woking

    258

    11·6

    Note: Returns are not yet available for this quarter for 26 authorities.
    These are:

    Calderdale

    Kennet

    Carrick

    Lake District National Park

    Charnwood

    Lancaster

    Chester-le-Street

    Lewes

    Coventry

    Lichfield

    Croydon

    Liverpool

    Ealing

    Merton

    Rylde

    Pendle

    Hereford

    Penwith

    Hounslow

    Stoke-on-Trent

    Hove

    Torridge

    Hyndburn

    Wandsworth

    Isles of Scilly

    Wyre

    The Department is continuing to press these authorities for these returns.

    New Towns (Housing Repairs)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to expedite the publication of the report on repairs to houses in new towns which was begun by the National Building Agency.
    Mr. Stanley: The report to which the hon. Member refers is not due to be received, under the terms of the contract, until the end of this month. My latest information, however, is that this timetable will be adhered to.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister recall the many occasions on which I have raised with him the problems of housing in Peterlee new town, in my constituency? Must I remind him yet again of the desperate position of hundreds of my constituents? Recently, it has even been necessary to demolish houses in a new town. Will he stop prevaricating and make money available immediately instead of waiting for reports, the contents of which he well knows anyway?
    Mr. Stanley: There is no question of prevarication, as I told the hon. Gentleman when he last raised the matter at Question Time. The report is due at the end of May and we have not yet reached that stage. As to the existing position, in making the HIP allocations we have borne in mind the prolems to which he refers. We have made it clear that if authorities use their HIP allocations to make the repairs to which he refers, that is without prejudice to their entitlemment or to any later decision on grant.
    Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has taken the necessary precautions to ensure that National Building Agency records are fully available in case such problems occur in the next few years?
    Mr. Stanley: If there is anything to be learnt from the records of the National Building Agency, I see no difficulty in their being made available, subject to any copyright provisions.
    Mr. Graham: Will the Minister confirm and repeat his previous assurance that once the report has been received and before he comes to any conclusion, he will ask for the views of the associations and the councils, so that they will have the opportunity not only to read the report but to examine its findings? Will he also bear in mind that, when he finally determines the percentage to be given towards the cost for councils to save the vast housing stock that is under threat, the percentage of grant must be substantial?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot anticipate our conclusion on the question of percentages, but we have already made it clear that we shall publish the report in conjunction with the Government's conclusions.

    Ordnance Survey
    Mr. Doverasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to involve the private sector in the activities currently undertaken by the Ordnance Survey.
    Mr. Heseltine: In my statement to the House on 22 July 1981 I encouraged the Ordnance Survey to engage in joint ventures with the private sector for the profitable use of the Ordnance Survey topographical archive. This policy is being actively pursued. Several joint venture publications have appeared and more will follow.
    348
    The Ordnance Survey is also proposing to involve private sector survey firms in some of its basic survey and mapping activities. Invitations to tender for two pilot projects appeared last week. The results will be evaluated and, if successful, further survey and mapping projects will be included in plans for future years.
    Mr. Dover: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that private enterprise firms are very unhappy about the slow progress in this area? They believe sincerely that they can carry out the work more quickly and more cheaply.
    Mr. Heseltine: I take my hon. Friend's views seriously. I have made it clear to private sector firms that I am only too anxious to hold proper discussions with them. I was not aware that their feelings were as strong as my hon. Friend suggested.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people who have great knowledge of such matters consider that the steps that he has taken to involve the private sector will reduce the quality of the work that has been established over many years? In those circumstances, will he review what he is doing and ensure that we can maintain the long-established standards of the Ordnance Survey?
    Mr. Heseltine: There is no question of reducing the standards. I believe that the combination of public and private sector expertise in this area will enhance both opportunities and standards.

    Landscape Protection
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to legislate to protect the landscape in England and Wales more effectively.
    Mr. Macfarlane: No, Sir. The provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and other countryside and planning legislation offer adequate safeguards for landscape conservation.
    Mr. Hardy: As the pace of change is rather more ruinous than the Government appear to be ready to acknowledge, and as the Government seem to be acting on a complacent assumption, as revealed by their disgraceful blocking of the Hedgerows Bill, will the Minister agree at least to convene a meeting of the conservation bodies, especially the informed and responsible bodies, to discuss whether the changes proposed can be considered?
    Mr. Macfarlane: Progress is best achieved through co-operation with the farming community, including the use of management agreements, as provided for in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Countryside Commission is currently engaged in several initiatives to promote hat approach. We must give it a chance to succeed, but knowing the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed to me, I shall discuss the matter with the chairman of the Countryside Commission.
    Mr. Murphy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in all planning applications that are referred to the Department of the Environment the importance of preserving our natural heritage is always given high priority?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I give that assurance. It is always uppermost in my right hon. Friend's mind.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that the cooperation for which he has asked is not occurring between

    349
    the farmers and the Nature Conservancy Council in the case of West Sedgemoor, where 40 to 50 acres of land have been drained, resulting in a large threat to wildlife, especially otters? As the Nature Conservancy Council will not act and there is no sign of a declaration of a site of special scientific interest, will the Minister involve himself in the matter, because it is of great importance to the nation?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I give that undertaking to the House. I and my ministerial colleagues in other Departments are well aware of the problem and we are in touch with the interested parties.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is deep anxiety about this subject and that Government bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council do not always represent the best interests of our natural heritage? I refer to the problems at Alderley Edge and a commercial decision to try to open the old copper mines, which will be a great disadvantage environmentally to all of that beautiful area of Cheshire.
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend has drawn the matter to my attention. Perhaps he will give me further details and I shall examine it.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are proceeding with the sale of council houses at a satisfactory rate.
    Mr. Stanley: Most authorities now appear to be making satisfactory progress, but a number have been told
    350
    in recent weeks that my right hon. Friend expects them to accelerate their rate of completion substantially. All complaints of delay from individual tenants are being pursued with the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Marlow: As this policy has been a tremendous boon to many people who otherwise would not have the opportunity of owning their houses, and as it has improved the environment in which people live in many parts of our cities and elsewhere, will my hon. Friend think of further ideas for accelerating this valuable and worthwhile scheme?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. It is significant, and of great benefit, that until the end of last year about a quarter of a million council dwellings had been moved into owner occupation during the lifetime of the Government. That is a social advance of great significance and we hope to see that advance accelerated.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department monitoring council house sales to the extent of ascertaining how many money borrowers have fallen down on their repayments and cannot keep up mortgage payments? The economic situation has led those people astray.
    Mr. Stanley: Many hundreds of thousands of tenants have successfully purchased their homes over the years and I am not aware of any statistical basis for suggesting that there is a greater number of defaulters among purchasers from local authorities as opposed to the majority of owner occupiers.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for tomorrow will now be a debate on the Falkland Islands, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The business originally set down for that day will be taken on another occasion.
Mr. John Stokes rose—
Mr. Michael Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for arranging a debate. I presume that the debate will open with a statement by the Government giving the fullest possible account, from the Government's point of view, of the stage that has been reached in the peace discussions and the attempts to secure a peaceful settlement. Will the debate start with a description of the present stage of such discussions?
Mr. Biffen: That is the intention.
Mr. Stokes rose—
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call both hon. Members and then move to the second statement.
Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the whole of the battle of El Alamein during the last war the House was not once recalled, nor was there a single statement? Can my right hon. Friend say what good he thinks tomorrow's debate will do and what good the fifth debate did last week?
Mr. Biffen: I do not share my hon. Friend's view about the constructive role that the House is able to play in this matter. There, I fear, the matter must rest.
Mr. Winnick: As the country is fortunately not involved in a world war—as implied by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes)—will the Leader of the House assure us that, before any military invasion of the Falkland Islands, the House will be informed and a debate will take place?
Mr. Biffen: That is precisely the kind of point that should be made in tomorrow's debate.

Agriculture Council
3.32 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): Together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State I attended a meeting of the Agriculture Council which met in Brussels on 17 and 18 May.
Since January, at eight meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers we have been negotiating this year's price-fixing arrangements. During these meetings member States had by negotiation obtained unanimity on many of the questions involved. Britain had retained specific reserves on a number of agricultural issues and a general reserve on the entire package. The purpose of the general reserve was to ensure that the position adopted at last November's European Council meeting in London by all member States in considering the 30 May mandate, that the budget and agricultural matters should be dealt with in parallel, should be complied with.
We therefore expected that at the meeting this week we would continue to negotiate on those remaining questions where unanimity had not been obtained. If by the time of the completion of our meeting there was no agreement upon the budget measures we would retain our general reserve.
Together with Denmark and Greece we strongly protested when the Presidency, encouraged by the Commission, announced that for the first time since 1966 the principle of obtaining unanimity where a very important national interest had been invoked was to be violated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and that a decision was to be taken in accordance with the treaty arrangements for majority voting.
I made a firm statement to the Council contesting the procedure and declaring that the Council had violated an accepted convention under which all previous price-fixings had been adopted. I stated that the Government considered that, as important national interests were involved, in accordance with the established practice of the Community, discussions should have continued in this Council until a unanimous agreement had been reached. I pointed out that the decisions that were being taken would place a further financial burden on the United Kingdom, that there was clearly a direct and organic link between the price-fixing decision and the budget negotiations and that this link had been recognised by all member States in their agreement that the three chapters of the 30 May mandate should proceed in parallel. I placed it on record that I considered that the conduct of the Presidency of the Commission and the member States which had joined in this procedure had created a very sad and damaging day in the Community's history—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that the Council had quite unjustifiably chosen to depart from the established working practices based on the agreement reached in 1966.
A majority decision was, therefore, taken on all of the regulations in accordance with what had been negotiated and agreed by nine member States in the meetings prior to this week's Council. Under the treaty these regulations become Community law with effect from tomorrow.
Had the normal process of negotiating continued and had not the Presidency, the Commission and seven member States violated the normal traditions, we would

353
have endeavoured to obtain some further improvements in the clawback arrangements on lamb, and even larger reductions in the co-responsibility levy, whilst at the same time reducing the price increase for milk. We would also have sought lower increases in the prices of a number of cereals and in the prices of a range of Mediterranean products.
Many of the regulations were of course in accordance with the package that had emerged from the negotiations that had taken place in previous meetings of the Council. In those previous meetings the United Kingdom had achieved a number of important objectives to the benefit of consumers and producers, and these will now be implemented.
We successfully resisted pressures from the Commission and all other member States to revalue the green pound. We obtained a ½ per cent. reduction in the milk co-responsibility levy which will be worth around £10 million a year to United Kingdom producers. The Commission was made to withdraw its proposal for a progressive co-responsibility levy which would have been damaging to the interests of our industry. Improvements were made in the provision of aid for school milk. The Community subsidy was increased and this should lead to an increased up-take by local authorities.
We succeeded in obtaining an increase of two-thirds in the maximum beef premium payments and an increase in the Community contribution from the 25 per cent. negotiated by our predecessors to 40 per cent. We obtained a firm Commission declaration ensuring that the sale of wine distillates will not threaten the alcohol industry in this country. We resisted the Commission proposals for a large reduction in the United Kingdom butter subsidy, and the subsidy will continue at around 13p per pound.
The result of the total package that has now been agreed on farm support prices in the United Kingdom is an increase of 10·2 per cent. The effect of this on the retail price index over a full year will be ¼ per cent. and on the food price index over a full year 1¼ per cent. The consumer benefit of the beef premium scheme, the sheepmeat regime and the continuation of the butter subsidy will be worth some hundreds of millions of pounds, depending on the market situation.
The Commission estimates that the settlement increases the budgetary cost of the common agricultural policy by around 1,500 million ECUs or over £900 million in a full year. It also calculates that the increase is well within that of the Community's own resources. We estimate that the extra budgetary cost to the United Kingdom is about £120 million in a full year. This emphasises the importance of agreement on the adjustment of our budgetary contribution, which member States had previously agreed should be decided in parallel with the agricultural decisions.
Separately from the price-fixing, the Commission announced that a satisfactory solution had been reached to the problem of Dutch horticultural gas prices, which should be of benefit to United Kingdom horticulturists.
It is wrong that for the first time in 16 years a number of member States should have changed the rules of procedure to suit their immediate requirements and it must be noted that three of the four member States that have joined the Community strongly protested at the violation
354
of the normal procedures that took place yesterday; they had joined the Community in the knowledge that these were the procedures of the Community.
The Government will be urgently considering the implications of what was done yesterday, and what action they will take. I am sure that the House will wish to debate this matter further. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is arranging through the usual channels for a debate.
Mr. Norman Buchan: We face a serious and grave situation and we had a not too serious a statement in response to it. Clearly, there are implications that go well beyond the mere matter of agriculture price-fixing. There are many future implications for Britain's international role and its role in relation to the Common Market. We shall have a look at some of those.
May we have a little clarity? The Minister said that in previous meetings the United Kingdom had
"achieved a number of important objectives to the benefit of consumers and producers"—
I have no doubts about the benefits to the consumers—
"and these will now be implemented."
However, the right hon. Gentleman also said that the regulations agreed yesterday will
"become Community law with effect from tomorrow."
What does that mean? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to implement only those matters that he has already agreed, or will he have to implement the entire burden of the decisions made yesterday? I understand that the Ministry has today issued instructions for the implementation of the regulations in accordance with Community law and I want from the Minister a denial that he has given such instructions or that his Ministry is proceeding to implement the matters on which he did not agree.
Quite apart from the international impact, there will be wide internal implications, not only for farmers but for consumers. We are extremely sceptical about the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. For example, the European Consumer Organisation estimates that the decisions will involve an additional cost of £1·50 a week for the average family with two children. Most estimates in reputable journals, including Agra Europe, suggest increased costs of between £1·20 and £1·50—and that is against the background of a compulsory wage ceiling for large sectors of our people of between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent.
There are major implications for the future. The common fisheries policy falls within the Minister's responsibility. The sands of time are running out and we have only a few more months in which to reach a settlement. Is the veto to be available for use from now on, or will our waters be open—up to the beaches—for every fisherman in Western Europe? What protection do we have for our fishing communities and our waters if the CFP is also to be decided by majority vote? It was clear yesterday and from the philosophy of some of the right hon. Gentleman's response that such an objective is in the minds of not only the Commission but many members of the Council of Ministers.
The total budget on which the right hon. Gentleman says that he has been raising his resistance is one of the problems, as the right hon. Gentleman told the Eurofanatics on the SDP and Liberal Benches who wanted to force a settlement even before we knew the total of the budget. What effect will yesterday's decisions have on the total budget and on the share that we shall have to pay for

355
the privilege of paying high taxes to bring about high prices? This is the first time in recorded history when what we have lost on the swings we are also losing on the roundabouts. Does the right hon. Gentleman still intend to resist on the budget?
What is the right solution? All that we are told is that the Government are considering the position seriously. May I suggest a solution? [Interruption.] One solution would be for the Minister to refuse to pay our share of the budget. Any money thus saved could be used for a proper national policy for the British agriculturist and the British consumer alike. That is the right solution. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will use the opportunity to direct British agriculture away from the distortions that the CAP has produced. If that should require legislation, we would assist.
There are two other matters of importance. [Interruption.] This is a desperately serious situation and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us who speaks for Britain in this situation. A majority of Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted to go along with majority votes in the Council. Sir Henry Plumb, the leader of the Conservative group, was one of the only two MEPs to vote a month ago not for a 10·2 per cent. increase, but for a 14 per cent. increase. The other was Mrs. Ewing of the SNP.
Further, the President of the Commission—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will verify this. Is it correct—
Sir Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make it clear to the House, which appears to be under a misapprehension, that a statement is different from a private notice question, and the Opposition are entitled not only to ask questions but to pass remarks, commensurate with the length of the statement.
Mr. Buchan: Is it the case that Gaston Thorn, the President of the Commission, said that he was not interested in unanimity or unanimous decisions? Did not he play a major part in encouraging the Council of Ministers to come to their decision? I ask again, who rules—the Commission or the Ministers?
I said that there were deeper implications. One is that yesterday's events pose a major question about our continued membership of the Common Market. The Minister may recall that in his own White Paper, produced by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1971, we were assured—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can see that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is about to conclude. He ought to be allowed to continue without interruption.
Mr. Buchan: The White Paper on which we entered the Common Market—the conditions were referred to by the Minister yesterday—made it clear that there would be no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty
"because it is established that decisions should be unanimous."
The White Paper produced by a Labour Government in 1975—[Interruption.]—asserted:
"each member state is in a position to block agreement unless interests to which it attaches importance are met."
In other words—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there has been an announcement that there will be an opportunity to debate this whole matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is coming to a conclusion.
Mr. Buchan: You are percipient, as always, Mr. Speaker. I am, indeed, corning to a conclusion and it is that one of the themes in next week's debate will be the statement made by the Minister yesterday that the conditions and understandings on which we entered the Common Market have been broken. The whole question of our continued relationship in this form will be at issue.
Mr. Walker: I shall look forward to debating the matter with the hon. Gentleman next week. As I made clear in my statement, the proposals were legally passed and become law throughout the Community tonight. I also made clear the aspects on which I would have endeavoured to continue negotiating. Of course, what happened yesterday prevented that process from taking place. All the things that we achieved in previous debates in the Council have been implemented immediately.
With regard to the effect on consumer prices, I want there to be no doubt whatever as to the accuracy of the figures. The method of calculating the figures is the same as that used when the previous Labour Government were in office, and the same people are doing the calculation. The calculation is not made on a political basis.
Recently, a quite inaccurate estimate was made in the Community, which proceeded as if the price increase applied to the 40 per cent. of goods imported from the tropics and elsewhere. A series of quite incorrect calculations were made. Recently, one of the consumer associations quoted those figures. When the association's representatives came to see me at the Ministry, at my invitation, I asked them to sit down and go through our method of calculation and to see whether they had any criticism of it. They had no criticism to make.
In a nutshell, the effect on consumer prices over a year will be rather less than the increase in food prices every month during the period of office of the previous Labour Government.
With regard to fishing, the future role of the veto is obviously a fundamental and basic question. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) rightly referred to the fact that, as shown by the White Papers, Britain joined the Community knowing the process that was involved. Obviously, the matter is now causing a major crisis within the Community. If the power of veto is to continue where national interests are involved—as, in my judgment, it must continue as part of the Community Process—it must in future continue in such a way that no one can at any time break that agreement. This is obviously a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be taking up at the next meeting, early next week, of the Foreign Ministers' Council.
With regard to the role of the Commission, over the whole period of the Luxembourg compromise since 1966 it has been no secret that the Commission has always been opposed to it and has been in favour of majority voting. The Commission did everything it could to encourage those who were using that device yesterday.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is timetabled business to follow. We have heard the

357
announcement of a debate on the matter raised by the statement. However, despite both those factors, I intend exceptionally, to allow half an hour for questions from each side of the House.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government accept that, in considering urgently the implications of what happened yesterday, it is certainly my view that the Luxembourg compromise must apply either to everybody or to nobody? There can be no question, as some other countries have suggested, that the Luxembourg compromise remains intact after what happened yesterday. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that, far from being a crowning achievement of the Community, the Luxembourg compromise—the right of veto—has in many ways been responsible for the loss of momentum and stultification since 1966? [Interruption.] It is by no means clear to me that it has operated in Britain's interest.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the essential difficulty was not the impact—subject to a little further negotiation—of the agricultural price increase itself, but the linkage with the absence of a budget settlement?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us, in advance of the debate which I hope will take place next week, that no long-term isolating decisions will be taken by the Government?
Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Remarks have just been made in this House without a declaration of interest, when one should have been made.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is up to everybody to decide his own interest.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made a declaration of interest, in accordance with the rules of the House, that, subject to tax, I have received certain severence payments—[Interruption.]—certain annual payments. If hon. Members cannot accept that people can have a view—[Interruption.]—and put it forward in the interests of this country in these circumstances—[Interruption.]—this House has become a very much worse place than—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the House that the continuance of noise will reduce the number of hon. Members who can be called during the time allotted.
Mr. Walker: With regard to the observation by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) that, if we are to have the Luxembourg compromise, it must apply to everybody or to nobody, there could be no Luxembourg compromise other than on the basis that the procedure is constantly obeyed by all member countries. Seven member countries destroyed the Luxembourg compromise yesterday. As to whether it should apply to everybody or to nobody, I have no doubt in my own mind that it must apply to everybody.
I reject the second view of the right hon. Gentleman. Where a major interest of a national Government is involved, I believe that it is wrong for a majority vote to impose something against that national interest.
The right hon. Gentleman campaigned vigorously for Britain to be part of the Community. In the course of that advocacy, he must have known that the White Papers on
358
the subject clearly stated that the Luxembourg compromise was part of the procedures of the Community. That is why it is significant that the three countries which strongly objected yesterday had all joined the Community and campaigned for doing so on the basis of the existence of the Luxembourg compromise.
I confirm that of course there was a linkage between the budget and the prices, but I must also confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that when the 10 member States agreed the mandate of 30 May, they agreed that the decisions should be taken in parallel, so it was not just a matter of Britain demanding the linkage; the whole of the Community had agreed that the linkage should take place. It is very wrong that that linkage has not taken place.
Sir Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Prime Minister to early-day motion 467?
[That this House views with the gravest concern the decision of the European Economic Community Council of Ministers to approve the farm price review by majority vote against the expressed wishes of Her Majesty's Government, an act which is in contravention of the established practice and conventions of the Community which were established prior to the entry of the United Kingdom and which enable member states to veto measures taken against their national interest; urges that action be taken to remedy this position; and pledges support to the Prime Minister in taking whatever measures she may consider necessary.]
May the action taken by the Prime Minister be powerful?
Will the Minister give a pledge to the House that the Government do not propose to go down the federal line which has been indicated by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins)?
Mr. Walker: The principle of the Luxembourg compromise is vital. Strangely enough, a document that is to be discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council next week, in the names of the Foreign Secretaries of Germany and Italy, contains their proposals that the Luxembourg compromise should become more enshrined within the Community. It is remarkable that those countries violated that principle yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware of the early-day motion in the name of my right hon. Friend and others and takes note of it.
Mr. Douglas Jay: As the decision is a plain breach of the undertakings given at the time of the Treaty of Accession in 1972 and the referendum in 1975, will the Minister undertake that no more funds will be paid into the EEC budget until the breach of faith is reversed?
Mr. Walker: I will give no such undertaking. I have said clearly that the Government will be considering and reporting to the House what action they intend to take.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Minister confirm that, had the Luxembourg compromise not been breached, the increase in agricultural support prices would have been much the same? Does he regard the budgetary contribution of a full year as more than a marginal increase? Will he consider emphasising not the relatively small practical effect of what has happened on Great Britain's finances and position, but the importance of obtaining some agreement on the future of the

359
Luxembourg compromise, perhaps involving a change of definition of what is essential to national interests rather than what is convenient to the Government of the day?
Mr. Walker: It would be difficult to define in any document words which covered all questions of what a Government considered to be their national interests. Until now a Government's view of national interest has been accepted by the Community. I believe that is possibly correct.
As for the level of agricultural prices, I made it clear in my statement that we agreed with substantial parts of the package that we negotiated. I said that I would have preferred to have a lower co-responsibility levy with an appropriate proportionate reduction in milk prices. I believe that some of the cereal prices should have been somewhat lower. That remains our position.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does the Minister agree that the abrogation of the Luxembourg accord is the most significant and important event that has occurred in the Community since its enlargement? It has the widest and most disquieting implications, whether or not one believes in Great Britain's membership. Will he ensure that we have an early debate during which the House can express its view?
Mr. Walker: I agree completely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the abrogation of the Luxembourg accord is a major departure and of immense significance to the future operation of the Community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) raised a related topic. It is essential that Europe now decides the matter. It could be—this is purely speculation—that whereas the Commission was delighted yesterday at the breach of the Luxembourg convention, the result of that breach will be that in the future Community practice will be more permanently enshrined and legally binding than is the case at present.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that Liberals believe that we shall see no genuine progress in the Community until majority voting is accepted? The Council's decision may end up being the best outcome for the Community for years. Is it not hypocritical for the Minister to condemn the breach when in seeking budgetary restitution he has sought to change the rules? As the Minister of Agriculture, can he tell us the views of the NFU, and, as a Conservative, the views of the Conservative group in the European Parliament?
Mr. Walker: I reject completely the view of the hon. Gentleman, who is presumably speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. Those who have had detailed experience of negotiating in Europe, especially on agricultural matters which after all represent the greatest proportion of the European budget, know that if, over the years, matters had been passed by a majority vote, Great Britain and Italy—as the two importing countries—would have been treated exceedingly badly. I believe that there would be considerable danger and possibly a great deal of disruption in Europe if majority voting prevailed.
As for trying to change the rules on the budget, I should point out that every country in Europe concedes that there needs to be adjustment in the rules. We have negotiated in accordance with Community procedures to obtain those changes. That is different from changing the procedures and rules that have operated for 16 years without debate, discussion or consultation.
Mr. Tom Normanton: Can the Minister say in broad percentage terms what main objective he set when he entered into negotiations for the price review? Will he also say at what point he had to break off further negotiation and how big the gap was?
If I anticipate my right hon. Friend's views correctly, may I suggest that the price of that gap may prove to be small when set alongside the unprecedented historic achievement of European support for sanctions?
Mr. Walker: I believe that it would be very much to the discredit of Europe if procedures were allowed to be broken, or arrangements for farm prices or the budget were affected, by Europe taking a view about the actions of a military dictator in invading the sovereign territory of a member State. In the negotiations with which I have bent involved in the front line over the period, no member State and no Minister has mentioned, referred to or implied that the Falklands issue was part of the negotiations. I do not believe that these two matters are connected. As for the degree to which I still disagree with the price fixing, if my hon. Friend examines my statement he will see that I have listed the areas in which I am still in dispute.
Mr. Thomas Torney: In view of the utter disregard shown by the Common Market for United Kingdom interests, does the Minister agree that what has happened confirms the view of a great number of my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is time that the Government took us out of the Common Market? Will he give some consideration to stopping our payments to the Common Market—if not entirely, those concerned with the disastrous common agricultural policy?
Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has long held views which are hostile to Great Britain's membership of the European Community. The reason why I said yesterday's events were a sad day for Europe is that those who, like the hon. Gentleman, are opposed to our membership of Europe, and those who have doubts about it, will have been gained an adverse opinion because of the decisions and procedures adopted. That is why I think that it is regrettable that a number of our Community partners and the Commission pursued the course that they did. As for payments and costs, there is and always has been a strong duty on the Community to agree quickly to budget changes. They should have been dealt with in parallel and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made relevant proposals to the Community. The sooner that takes place, the better.
Sir Angus Maude: Since it is obvious that no partnership can survive for long if some of the partners are prepared to change the rules in the middle to suit their own interests, ought not the Government urgently to request an early meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers which might then tell us finally what the rules are and will remain?
Mr. Walker: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very urgent matter. I add to my right hon. Friend s view that it is impossible to have a partnership where the rules are changed for the convenience of any one member or group of members. When this negotiation commenced we requested that there should be an urgent meeting of Foreign Ministers to discuss any change in procedure which should be made. But I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be taking up this matter urgently.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the White Paper issued by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1971 and the "Yes" pamphlet issued by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in 1975 implied that the Luxembourg arrangement was part of the treaty arrangements, when it was not? Since the right hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of continuing this arrangement, can he say why, on 13 June 1972, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends voted against an amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) which would have written this veto into the Bill being considered at the time? Would not it have been better if they had voted for it, and would they not be in a stronger position now as a result?
Mr. Walker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1966 this agreement was reached, that by 1972, six years later, on no occasion had it been breached, and that for the subsequent 10 years on no occasion was it breached. Indeed, I could go back even further and say that it is a pity that this was not part of the original treaty. All that I can say is that for 16 years there was no violation of this agreement.
Mr. Jim Spicer: Will not my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the Luxembourg compromise was reached in 1966, at the time of the negotiations in 1971 it was made clear time and time again—amongst others by President Pompidou—that it was accepted that, although it was not written into Community law, it was part and parcel of the Community? It is the violation of that acceptance, which we thought was given in good faith, that we ought to stand up against at present.
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir, and there have been various occasions since when the President of France and other European leaders have confirmed their total allegiance to this principle. That is why in these circumstances, after 16 years of compliance, of benefit and of use by all member States, it is all the more surprising to discover that a number of those member States which violated the principle yesterday have used the principle a great deal over the years.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister met the French President and that the British Foreign Secretary met the French Foreign Minister within days of this decision being initiated by the French Government, why has the action taken by the French Government come as such a surprise? Bearing in mind the impact which majority voting will have on the shopping basket of the British housewife, was not this touched on in the discussions between the Prime Minister and the French President and between the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister?
Mr. Walker: Dealing first with the right hon. Gentleman's side remark, I repeat that the impact on prices over one year will be equivalent to the increase in prices in one month under the last Labour Government.
As for the remarks of the President of France and the meetings with the Prime Minister of France, bearing in mind that for 16 years the French Government have complied totally with this principle and that it is a principle which they demanded at the outset, whether the intention is to change the rules is not a matter for discussion at every meeting with the President or Prime Minister of France.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does not this incident illustrate the difference of attitude between the British and French Governments to Community affairs, with the British over the years imagining that they were playing a game of "Happy Families" and the French knowing very well that they were playing strip poker?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman refers to differing attitudes. I might point out that what occurred yesterday was not the result of the actions of the French Government alone. It was achieved by seven member Governments working with the Commission.
Sir Anthony Meyer: While one accepts the need for a veto where vital national interests are concerned, though no such veto existed when Britain applied originally to join the Community, is it not a fact that a too ready recourse to the veto—in other words abuse of the Luxembourg compromise—has made it impossible to achieve those changes in the Community which are necessary if it is better to suit our purposes?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I do not accept that view. Acceptance of that view is saying that the types of changes which, for example, the United Kingdom seeks to obtain are necessarily the changes that a majority vote would produce. That is not necessarily the truth. The Community has made considerable improvements and progress in a number of areas after tedious and long negotiations because of the need to respect the interest of member States. I do not believe that better progress would be made by moving to majority voting.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not the ending of this right of veto, and therefore of the protection of individual national interests, somewhat more than a breach of faith? It is in fact a breach of the constitutional position which was accepted by this country when we entered the Community. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain whether the Government are prepared to accept this watershed as the basis for withdrawal from the Common Market?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although I accept that it will take time for the Government to decide what are the right steps to take, in the interim can my right hon. Friend at least give a firm assurance that in no circumstances will the Government accept or implement a new common fisheries policy which is approved by a majority vote? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that while there is a vital issue at stake, it will help if that is made clear now?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I confirm that and make it absolutely clear now.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the action of Sir Henry Plumb and his fellow Conservative MEPs who voted for the abolition of the national veto? In whose name were they speaking? Is it not clear that Sir Henry Plumb seems to vote as a farmer first, as an Englishman second, and as a Conservative third?
Mr. Walker: I am not the spokesman for Sir Henry Plumb. I can only confirm that at no time on this issue did Sir Henry seek my advice. If he had done so, I should have advised him to the contrary of what he said.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I declare my interest, well known to the House, as a Member of the European Parliament. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing improved arrangements for beef and sheepmeat, on restoring the butter subsidy, on reducing the co-responsibility levy and on doing a very great deal for our glasshouse producers regarding Dutch gas prices. May I also assure my right hon. Friend that at no stage, contrary to what the press and Opposition hon. Members have said, was a vote taken on the matter of the Luxembourg compromise within the European Democratic Group, of which the Conservatives are members, and that many European Conservatives voted against this amendment?
Mr. Walker: I note what my hon. Friend says about Conservative Members of the European Parliament. As for the other issue, as I said in my original statement, there are a number of areas of considerable importance to British agriculture and to consumers where important improvements have been made.
Mr. John Morris: Do I understand that the Minister intends to implement the package forthwith? Does not implementation mean surrender? How can he confidently tell his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that he will not implement a common fisheries policy? Has not France shown that she intends to reserve her power of veto for anything that is against her interests?
Mr. Walker: We will certainly implement those proposals that must be implemented for the entirety of British agriculture. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing that the changes in farmers' prices, many of which are required and urgently desired, and the changes which would also benefit consumers as I have described, should not be implemented. That would be illegal. They will, therefore, be implemented. It has been suggested that there is a sell-out. After the present price-fixing, the
364
proportion of European funds out of the CAP that will come to Britain is exactly double what it was when the Government took office.
Mr. John Farr: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved for British agriculture, especially with regard to the beef premium scheme and the improvement of the milk co-responsibility levy. In view of the latest serious development, does my right hon. Friend think that it is right and proper for us to continue to negotiate with our Community partners before the unanimity of accord is written into national legislation?
Mr. Walker: It is obviously vital to continue negotiations on issues that are in our national interest. It is understandable that the agricultural implications of recent events have been considered to be far less import ant than the constitutional ones. As my hon. Friend said, the substantial improvements and changes to the beef premium scheme will be of considerable importance to British agriculture.
Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman raised an important question with regard to fisheries. He said that he will implement the proposals because it would be illegal not to. What happens if the proposals for a common fisheries policy are also legally required? Will he then unilaterally extend either the 50-mile or 200-mile limit and protect them? I assure him that as long as he continues to try to resist the siren voices asking for a sell-out of vital British interests with regard to the veto, the Opposition will support him.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I do not believe that there will ever be any question of the imposition of a fishing limit. As a matter of historical interest, on the two previous occasions when we were near to obtaining a fishing agreement that our fishermen could have accepted, one other member State vetoed it. Had there been majority voting, that member State would have been affected.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of two applications under Standing Order No. 9.

European Community (Agricultural Prices)
4.23 pm
Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action of the EEC Council of Ministers in forcing through agricultural price increases by majority vote in defiance of the Luxembourg compromise whereby majority votes would not be taken on important matters of vital national interest for any member State."
I have just heard that there will be discussions between the usual channnels about the debate. For reasons that I shall explain later, the matter is urgent and should be debated today.
The matter is specific because, by taking a decision—which involves swingeing price increases for British consumers and adds £1,000 million to the food bill—by majority vote and ignoring the British veto, the Council has violated all the conventions that have previously governed its business. That the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that it was a sad and damaging day for the Community's history and that the EEC would come to regret its actions demonstrates that the matter is specific and important.
There can be no doubt that the matter is of profound importance, because the very sovereignty of the Crown and Parliament may be at stake. The future development of the EEC into a federal European State has been brought at least one step nearer as a result of the disgraceful action of seven European States overriding Britain's veto, thereby ignoring her vital interests in pursuit of their own.
The matter is of far-reaching importance to Britain's vital national interests. Britain's veto was set aside yesterday on the issue of farm prices. Tomorrow, in spite of what the Minister said, it could be set aside with regard to fishing, energy, North Sea oil and a wide range of other issues.
I remind the House that successive Governments have given assurances to Parliament and the people that within the Common Market vital British national interests would be safeguarded by the veto and that there was
"no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty".
Cmnd. 4715, of July 1971, which was repeated in March 1975, states categorically:
"On a question where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decisions should be unanimous."
The Government of that time sent a notice to every person in the land before the referendum. It posed the question:
"Will Parliament lose its power?"
The answer was "No". It went on to say:
"It is the Council of Ministers, and not the Market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister
366
representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto."
That absolute assurance was given to the British people—that supreme British national interests would be safeguarded. That has now been thrust aside. The assurances have been rendered worthless. The question of sovereignty that arises from the matter is at least as important as that over the Falkland Islands. We should make no mistake about that.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Send the fleet.
Mr. Stoddart: The matter is urgent, because the Government must respond to this latest unfriendly act by the EEC. By next week the Falkland crisis will be such that this matter will be pushed to one side. We may have invaded by then. The matter is of supreme importance. I understand that the Cabinet will meet tomorrow to consider its response to the EEC's unfriendly act.
It is essential that, on a matter of such supreme importance, especially as British people have shown increasing opposition to the EEC for some time, Parliament should be allowed the opportunity to advise, guide and perhaps even encourage the Government in the crisis. The House should express its view of the possible options that are available, including the withholding of financial contributions, other funds and the empty chair option.
The matter is urgent, because the voice of the Foreign Office—the same Foreign Office that brought us to the crisis in the Falkland Islands—is one of sell-out and equivocation. It needs the backbone and stamina of Parliament to put some resolve and backbone into the Government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I hope that you will grant a debate today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action of the EEC Council of Ministers in forcing through agricultural price increases by majority vote in defiance of the Luxembourg compromise whereby majority votes would not be taken on important matters of vital national interest for any member State".
The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that I consciously allowed the hon. Gentleman to make many points that he would have made had the application been granted. I thought that it was in the interests of the House that he should be allowed to do so, and I exercised my discretion accordingly. The House knows of the exchanges that took place earlier, and naturally they also figure in my consideration.
The House has given me instructions to give no reasons for my decisions when I give my ruling. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Private Business (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)
Mr. Speaker: I wish to give a ruling on the point of order raised with me yesterday by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I have considered the point which the hon. Member raised concerning the availability to Members of amendments to Private Bills. In my opinion, the hon. Member raised a valid point of order. I have therefore arranged that copies of promoters' amendments on Consideration, of verbal amendments on Third Reading and of Lords amendments shall in future be obtainable by Members from the Vote Office.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I thank you very much indeed, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling, which I believe will be of great service and convenience to the House.

District Plans (Abolition)
4.32 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the preparation of district plans in advance of detailed consideration of planning applications and public inquiries.
Immediately it becomes public knowledge that an area of land adjacent or close to one's home will or may be used for residential or industrial development, the disease of blight is contracted. It manifests itself in many ways. Those who have always been pleased to live on the edge of a green belt, and purchased their property for that very reason, are sickened by the knowledge that they will soon form part of an urban sprawl. When these residents contemplate moving home, they are advised that the proposed development has lowered the value of their property. As the standard conveyance searches reveal to the solicitors representing potential purchasers that nearby land will be the subject of development, purchasers drop out of the house sale rapidly. The urban market is a very different market from that of the green belt. Victims of blight then have to start their house sales all over again at lower prices.
Another symptom of blight is that published district plans are held up as the Holy Bible of local planning positively to refuse the development of many more suitable sites. History has shown that local government officers are not always right. Indeed, they prove often to be wrong.
I recognise that public participation, consultation and orderly planning is desirable, but there are great dangers. By focusing one's attention on new industrial sites, Iand provision for the expansion of existing companies is often neglected. Compensation for companies affected by this—another kind of blight—will have to be considered.
District plans can lead to massive corruption, because if, by such a prepared plan, "change of use" from green belt to residential or industrial land is influenced, a fortune is made overnight. The North-East of England produced an early structure plan, which was submitted in 1974, approved in 1977, and was doubtless under preparation a year or two in advance of publication in the early 1970s. Is it just coincidence that wide-scale corruption was revealed in the North-East over that period, leading to the downfall of hon. Members of this House, if only by association, and of North-East councillors, architects and civil servants? The Teesside plan was on the drawing board for seven years before it was approved, so there were seven years of blight in advance of approval and many areas in Cleveland are still unnecessarily blighted.
My Bill is restricted to the more local district plan, which follows the structure plan. Why should we allow the plunder of our green belt by local planning officers when they themselves spend most of their working lives refusing planning permission applications on the very ground that they are protecting the green belt policy?
My constituency of Huddersfield West, in West Yorkshire, is now reeling from the shock of the publication of a district plan, and petitions and public meetings are under way. Why are local planners allowed to sport with people's feelings in this way? Hon. Members will agree that probably the most important purchase that the majority of people make in their lifetime is that of the

369
houses in which they live. Huddersfield is now under the umbrella of the Kirklees metropolitan council which, like many local authorities, has miscalculated in the past and will doubtless do so again.
Councils with programmes of redevelopment which outstrip either available finance or political reality may find themselves owners of unoccupied property or land without the resources to develop. Some are continuing, even now, to purchase privately owned property without having the money to rehabilitate or demolish. The result is that properties lie empty, with their windows bricked or boarded up—a situation probably caused by two different departments, each not knowing what the other is up to; one purchasing the property and the other without the funds to repair or develop it.
Every planning application must be judged on its merits so that no home is blighted and every parcel of land is still worth consideration. My Bill provides for this.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Geoffrey Dickens and Mr. Michael Brown.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that that sums it up.

District Plans (Abolition)
  DISTRICT PLANS (ABOLITION)
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens accordingly presented a Bill to prevent the preparation of district plans in advance of detailed consideration of planning applications and public inquiries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 131.]
Orders of the Day

  Employment Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  4.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The House has now completed its detailed scrutiny of the Employment Bill. It is appropriate that in moving Third Reading I should remind the House of the aims of the Bill and its main features.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his statement to the House on 23 November last, said that further legislation was needed, first, to safeguard the liberty of the individual from the abuse of industrial power and, secondly, to improve the operation of the labour market by providing a balanced framework of industrial relations law. That is what the Bill does.
  More that half the clauses in the Bill deal with the closed shop. We make no apology for that. The Government's view of the closed shop is perfectly clear. It is contrary to the traditions of personal liberty in this country for someone to be required to join a trade union in order to obtain or hold a job. Of course it is entirely legitimate for a trade union to seek 100 per cent. membership by voluntary means, but what is not acceptable in a free society is for a trade union to enforce membership as a condition of employment by means of the closed shop.
  I hope that hon. Members in every part of the House accept that it is entirely fitting that our first priority in considering questions about the closed shop should be in terms of personal freedom and the rights of the individual. After all, it is to champion such rights against powerful corporate interests elsewhere in the realm that Parliament exists. We should not lose sight of the fact that a collective such as a trade union or a closed shop exists in essence and in origin for the sake of the individual, not the individual for the sake of the collective. So when the closed shop becomes not a protector, but a persecutor, of the individual, then it becomes a perversion, and it is right and reasonable for Parliament to step in. There is evidence not only that the danger of persecution lurks potentially in the very notion of a closed shop, but that it has broken out in recent years in many actual individual cases and acts of persecution.
  As to the potential danger of closed shops, I remind the House of the Donovan commission report, which, in paragraph 598, states:
  "The Closed Shop as it operates at present is not always in the best interests either of workers or of the community as a whole. It is liable from time to time to cause substantial injustice to individuals from which they have no effective means of redress. It also contributes to a system of training which is out of date and inadequate to the country's needs".
  Or, again, let us consider the words of Lord McCarthy in his book, "The Closed Shop in Britain". He said that the closed shop
  "undoubtedly sometimes results in a restriction of individual liberty, and probably it sometimes has disadvantageous economic effects. Non-unionists and employers are often

  371
  coerced and existing members are forced to obey union rules and orders by means of the threat of expulsion from the job. In its pre-entry form it is sometimes used to deny whole classes of workers the right to compete for particular jobs".
  These potential dangers, latent in the very concept of a closed shop, have found scandalous expression in a number of ugly cases in recent years. Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, was the sacking by British Rail of the three railway workers Mr. Young, Mr. James and Mr. Webster in 1976 for non-union membership in a closed shop. The European Court of Human Rights, to which they took their case, found that their sacking was a specific violation of article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In reaching their verdict, the court's judges, referring to article 11, stated:
  "It strikes at the very substance of this Article to exert pressure, of the kind applied to the applicants, in order to compel someone to join an association contrary to his convictions".
  Mr. Harold Walker: I do not want to correct all the Minister's selective misinterpretations and misquotations, but one is repeatedly used by the Government. In all fairness to the author, that quotation should be completed. It is from Lord McCarthy's book on the closed shop. After the passage quoted by the Minister, Lord McCarthy says:
  "The inevitable restrictions on personal liberty that they involve"—
  that is, closed shops—
  "and even the possible maldistribution of economic resources which result, seem to me to be the price which must be paid if the unions are to be allowed the freedom they require in order to pursue such objectives in the most effective way."
  In all fairness to Lord McCarthy, when the Minister is quoting that part of his book, he should read that passage too.
  Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman accused me of misinterpretation and misquotation. I did not interpret what Lord McCarthy or the Donovan commission said; I made accurate quotations.
  I shall demonstrate the validity of the facts set out in those quotations. It was not only the Strasbourg three who suffered in that period. We know that about 40 British Rail employees were sacked in similar circumstances to the three who took their case to Strasbourg. We believe, and have some evidence for our belief, that several hundred other individuals lost their jobs in that period under not dissimilar circumstances. Such was the rigour of the law—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976—in this period that many of those dismissed would have been in danger of a charge of vexatious litigation if they had even tried to complain of unfair dismissal before a tribunal.
  The worst excesses of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 were put right by our last Employment Act in 1980. But even since then the tiger of persecution, which is ever potentially on the prowl in the framework of the closed shop, has shown its claws again. This time it was in the Sandwell case. In July 1980 NALGO balloted its members at Sandwell council over the possible introduction of a closed shop agreement. Only about half of its members voted and there was a small majority in favour of a closed shop—810 to 671 votes. An agreement was introduced and subsequently, in a well publicised case, Joanna Harris was dismissed for refusing to join a union, despite the fact that she was an existing non-union employee when the agreement was introduced,
  372
  and that was clearly in defiance of her rights under the 1980 Act. The resulting furore led NALGO members to ask for another ballot on the closed shop. That further ballot in April 1981 produced a 2:1 majority against the closed shop, following which NALGO gave six months' notice of withdrawal from the closed shop agreement. The council has so far refused to accept this notice, resting on the supposed justification that the other three unions party to the agreement, which in total represent 255 employees only as opposed to NALGO's 3,500, do not wish to withdraw. The whole episode shows clearly that the results of such ballots cannot be ignored.
  That episode throws into comic relief the bitter hostility of the Trades Union Congress to the idea introduced in the Bill of validating ballots on closed shops, when such ballots are common practice in one of the biggest TUC affiliates, NALGO. It also shows that when one is dealing with a ruthless, idealogically motivated Socialist local authority, one must ensure that compensation for unfair dismissal is on a perceptible scale. For example, no district auditor will pay much attention to the goings on at Walsall council, when one of the four sacked dinner ladies qualified for a basic award of only £98.
  Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I should like to ask one question as my right hon. Friend is referring to secret ballots in NALGO. Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that, despite the conference decision of NALGO last year to affiliate to the Labour Party, when that decision was put to a secret ballot of the NALGO membership, the majority decided by eight to one not to have a political fund and not to affiliate to the Labour Party? Does not that underline the importance of having secret ballots?
  Mr. Alison: I join my hon. Friend in noting with perception and enthusiasm the record of NALGO in holding ballots on the closed shop and matters connected with affiliation to the Labour Party. We rejoice in that and hope that it will be widely emulated by other affiliated members pf the TUC.
  I need not spell out further details of the Walsall sackings. That was a classic case of coercion. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is a little sick of that, but he has often quoted other examples, such as Taff Vale.
  However, I will say this to some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who argue defensively that the fate of the Walsall four is no worse than, or different from, other dinner ladies elsewhere who may have been made redundant on economic rather than ideological grounds and who receive relatively modest compensation. Such a defensive argument—and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East regularly advanced it—is wholly specious and fallacious. There is all the difference in the world between a situation where, on the one hand, everybody—unions, employers and the Government—is trying concertedly to save an individual's job and, if they do not succeed, trying unitedly to find him another and helping and supporting him meanwhile; and, on the other hand, a situation where, either in collusion or singly, the union and employer, on ideological grounds, drive out an individual for whom there is a job, which he is qualified to do and is doing well, in circumstances which may make it impossible for him to get another.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister acknowledge that many Tory councils, especially in recent times, have sacked many direct labour workers on ideological grounds or others as a result of the policy of reducing the staff? A classic case has occurred in Southend where the Tory council, despite a vote by the dustmen to carry on the services of the direct-labour 'organisation, accepted not the lowest tender but the second lowest tender submitted by one of its buddies, who is a Tory councillor in St. Albans. His firm, Exclusive Cleaning Ltd., was given the right to take on staff. All the refuse workers who were members of a trade union are now out on the stones. Not one employee of Exclusive Cleaning Ltd. in Southend is now a member of a trade union. What does the Minister think about that?
  Mr. Alison: The Bill is not red, blue, pink or green. It is even-handed. If there are unfair dismissals on ideological grounds, compensation will be available whether the council concerned is SDP, Labour, Conservative or whatever.
  These realities and factors are the background to the Bill's provisions on the closed shop.
  I am glad that by a massive majority of 107 votes on Second Reading and by massive majorities in votes in the House yesterday culminating in a majority of 235 to 12 in a Division late last night when only the SDP voted against, Parliament has given its whole-hearted endorsement to the Bill. Parliament faithfully reflected the views of our constituents.
  The MORI poll of November 1981 showed that four out of five, or 79 per cent., and 77 per cent. of union members agreed there should be regular secret ballots on whether closed shops should continue or not. Three out of five, 60 per cent., and 54 per cent. of union members agreed that unions should have to pay substantial compensation—which could be over £20,000—to workers sacked for refusing to join a closed shop which has not been balloted on.
  I have no hesitation in repeating the words that my right hon. Friend used on Second Reading in relation to the closed shop:
  "when the Bill reaches the statute book it will provide the most comprehensive and the most effective statutory protection for non-union employees that we have ever had in this country".
  We will be reflecting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people.
  Mr. David Winnick: What the Minister is now saying was said during proceedings on the Industrial Relations Act. Then it was said that that measure was widely popular in the country, that it was necessary, and so on. No doubt at that time the Minister voted accordingly in the House of Commons. Does the Minister agree that the Act was quickly discredited and that, by the 1974 Parliament, there was no enthusiasm in the Conservative Party to try to preserve it?
  Mr. Alison: The appropriate comment is to reflect on what will happen at the next general election. My bet is that there will be no majority in the House of Commons in the next decade for the repeal of the Act, as it will be, or any of the steps that we propose in it.
  I turn now to the later clauses in the Bill. Again our objectives are specific, limited and reasonable and, in the words of my right hon. Friend "essentially modest", like himself. The exaggerated scaremongering of the
  374
  Opposition shows that they recognise that as clearly as everyone else. But there has been a lot of misleading talk by the TUC and others about Taff Vale and other episodes in trade union demonology.
  Because of that misleading talk I must take a few minutes to remind the House what the Bill does not do. It does not take trade unions back to the position that they were in following the Taff Vale judgment when trade unions and their officials had no immunity at all and their funds were at risk for any and every strike or other form of industrial action. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading:
  "There is nothing in the Bill that prevents trade unions from organising, gaining recognition, bargaining collectively or from organising industrial action by their members in pursuit of improvements in their pay and conditions or in defence of their jobs."—[Official Report, 8 February 1982, Vol. 17, c. 742, 744.]
  The Bill does two things in these later clauses. First, it corrects the extraordinary anomaly whereby since 1906 trade unions themselves have enjoyed a virtually total immunity from actions in tort—an immunity wider than that enjoyed by any other person or organisation in this country, including, as the Donovan commission pointed out, the Crown. In practical terms, that immunity has meant that if a trade union orders one of its officials to do something unlawful, the official can be sued for an injunction and damages, but the union itself is virtually never liable and its funds always protected, save in a few narrowly defined circumstances. No other trade union movement anywhere in the world has ever had that degree of legislative protection. The truth of the matter is that it is unnecessary and indefensible, as the Donovan commission recognised when it recommended that the immunity of trade unions should be limited to action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The Royal Commission of 1906, whose report led to the 1906 Act, recommended against a blanket immunity for trade unions. I make no apology for quoting again from its report:
  "That vast and powerful institutions should be permanently licensed to apply the funds they possess to do wrong to others and by that wrong inflict on them damage … and yet not be liable to make redress out of those funds would be a state of things opposed to the very idea of law and order and justice".
  Mr. Giles Radice: The Minister is repeating a number of misstatements which we heard in Committee. We have tried to correct him. I hope this will be the last time. The Green Paper pointed out that we have a system of immunities instead of positive rights which other countries have. They are not privileges. They are alternatives to rights. Therefore, they are not wicked or sinister. They make up the system that we have to enable trade unions to operate. I wish the Minister would learn that simple fact which every O-level student knows.
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House. I am not concerned with the way in which the present position has arisen. Whether it has arisen through our common law provisions and the derogations made from it, or by whatever other means, the fact remains that no other trade union movement in the world has had the degree of legislative protection that is enjoyed by ours. I repeat that because it is valid.
  The Bill restricts the immunity for trade unions as the 1906 Royal Commission and the Donovan commission recommended. Why is it so necessary for a trade union to

  375
  have immunity even outside a trade dispute when its own officials have never had such an immunity? These are the questions the Opposition must answer if anyone is going to take their opposition to this part of the Bill at all seriously.
  When considering these matters, we should remind ourselves what the concept of immunity means. It means that people who would otherwise have been able to bring civil proceedings to secure redress against unlawful behaviour are prevented from doing so. In that sense an immunity is a privilege—a privilege which must be used responsibly, with proper regard for the interests of others and of the community as a whole.
  Immunity should not be used as a cloak for indiscriminate industrial action, for strikes or blacking directed at those who have no interest in a trade dispute and no means of affecting its outcome, but whose jobs and businesses may be severely damaged as a result. That is why the Bill amends the definition of a trade dispute to exclude disputes which are not predominantly about terms and conditions of employment or other matters listed in the statutory definition, to exclude disputes which are purely between workers and workers, to exclude disputes which are exclusively about matters overseas, and to exclude disputes which are not between an employer and his employees. These changes were urged on us by many people in the course of the consultations on the Green Paper.
  I have seen reports that the TUC intends to urge employers not to take advantage of the protection that this and other parts of the Bill will give them. It is, of course, for employers to decide whether to make use of the common law rights which are restored to them by the Bill and by the Employment Act 1980. No one—despite the wild claims of the Opposition—expects a rush of court cases. That is not how the effectiveness of any legislation is measured. But when the TUC goes on to threaten industrial action against any employer who seeks redress at law against unlawful action, it is presuming that it knows the minds of its members. Every opinion poll on this issue shows that it does not. All the proposals that we put before Parliament in the 1980 Act and in the Bill have been shown—and I have quoted some of the evidence—to command the overwhelming support of the British people and the approval of a majority of trade unionists and a huge majority in the House. That may not be a palatable fact to Opposition Members, any more than it is to the leaders of the TUC, but it is a fact none the less. They will have to come to terms with it sooner or later. I move the Third Reading of the Bill so that it may be sooner.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: We have come to the last two hours' consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons. We spent 130 hours over four months considering it in Committee. No substantial changes have been made to the Bill and we remain implacably opposed to it. We shall vote against it to a man. I expect that every Tory will vote for it. The Liberals will be consistent and vote for it. Their alliance partners, the members of the Social Democratic Party, after splitting three ways on Second Reading, are now unanimous in their decision to abstain. That is a sorry state of affairs, not only for them but for the House of Commons. I do not know how their other partners will regard their behaviour.
  376
  During our proceedings, some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), said that the Bill was a modest measure. It is nothing of the kind. Taken with the 1980 Act it represents the biggest threat to trade unionism in Britain since 1971. Its impact has to be seen alongside the Government's economic measures. The Government's economic and investment decisions have been detrimental to job prospects. They have contributed to the inexorable rise in the number of men and women out of jobs and the bleak outlook for job prospects for the young in particular. The Bill must also be seen alongside the Government's determination to privatise some major nationalised industries and cut expenditure on public services.
  I have no doubt that the ideological belief—perhaps sincere—of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister is that the market works better without trade unionism, or at least with weakened trade unionism. As the Minister of State has just said, the Secretary of State believes that the Bill will improve the operation of the labour market. He really means that it will improve the operation of the market generally.
  Industrial relations in Britain are not all that bad. Mercifully, neither the Secretary of State nor any of his colleagues have been able to point to a deterioration in industrial relations in Britain in the past few years. They have not been able to say that to justify the measure.
  Days lost as a result of industrial disputes in the last year were at their lowest level since 1941. That has been brought about to some degree by the Government's unique achievement in turning the whole of the country into a depressed area afflicted by mass unemployment. I am prepared to admit that had we maintained a reasonably high level of employment there may have been more industrial disputes. During the passage of the Bill no Minister has been able to claim that there has been a great deterioration in industrial relations. The Bill and the 1980 Act are more to do with restricting trade union activity, when and if the economy starts to pick up again. It will be there to block collective bargaining.
  For all his bluster, I believe that the Secretary of State is hesitant about the powers that he is taking. The only part of the Bill that needs to come into operation immediately is clause 1 and schedule 1. That gives retrospective power to pay out £2 million in taxpayers' money, at the Secretary of State's sole discretion, to an alleged 400 people who refused to become trade unionists between 1974 and 1980. The Secretary of State can decide when any other part of the Bill comes into operation. Clause 1 and schedule 1 give the Secretary of State powers to set aside any of the industrial tribunal judicial findings involving any such cases in those six years.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I must put the right hon. Gentleman right. It does not give me power to set aside industrial tribunal findings. I cannot make fair a dismissal that was found to be unfair. I cannot change the findings at all. I am given power only to compensate people who would have been adjudged to be unfairly dismissed had the law been what it became in 1980.
  Mr. Varley: I do not disagree with that. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State can pay fairly large levels of compensation to people who, under the law as it was, were judged not to have been unfairly dismissed. I

  377
  accept what the Secretary of State says. By any rational interpretation it seems that the provision is retroactive. Perhaps retrospective is the wrong word. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was right to use the words that he used.
  The Secretary of State is hesitant about bringing the other parts of the Bill into operation. Why is he hesitant? Could he be becoming nervous about some of the powers that he is taking? If he is not, some who will have to try and operate the legislation are extremely nervous about it.
  The Financial Times of Friday 30 April contains a report on an industrial relations conference organised by that newspaper, at which Dr. James McFarlane, the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation, had something to say. That federation is the country's largest employer group and the largest constituent of the Confederation of British Industry. In the engineering industry about 40 per cent. of manual workers and 10 per cent. of the rest of its staff are covered by a closed shop. Dr. McFarlane said:
  "In general, we have no enthusiasm for the 1982 Bill's proposals for the review of existing closed shops. We can be quite confident that unions are not going to co-operate in holding ballots of existing closed shops: and it is certain that this factor combined with the relatively large compensation available will excite a good number of unfair dismissal cases and industrial relations trouble in the factories."
  Dr. McFarlane accepted that little can be done about the present position, given the Government's political will, and said that employers will have to live with the consequences of the legislation as best they can. He added:
  "But we do believe that the Government would do well to defer bringing in the provision for the review of existing closed shops until after the next general election".
  There are many who say that that is precisely what the Secretary of State will do. It is said that, having taken these powers, and appreciating the difficulty that could arise, he will delay implementation until after the next election. When he replies to the debate I hope that he will reveal his views and explain them in clear terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) tried to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to do so yesterday and he received a dusty answer.
  The balloting and reballoting provisions on union membership agreements will be a source of anxiety to all serious employers. We know that the Institute of Personnel Management, the Industrial Society and the General Council of British Shipping all have reservations. Some organisations are extremely hostile to the Bill's provisions.
  There are other areas of the Bill that will be much more dangerous than the attack that will be made on union membership agreements—for example, the provisions that will make unlawful all commercial contracts that require union labour-only contracts. Again, these provisions will create difficulties for employers. The liabilities cover a wide area and could be so uncertain in their application that any person could sue for damages if the law were broken. The words in the Bill are "adversely affected".
  Employers who want to maintain good relations with their trade union work force will find that their contracts are undercut by firms that employ non-union labour. Their businesses will be put in jeopardy. This is entirely in line with the Government's thinking. They believe that non-unionism is better than unionism. The Bill tries to squeeze
  378
  the concept of a trade dispute out of our understanding of industrial relations. It tries to do so in a way that in my view will be shown to be impractical.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that by using non-union organised labour on building sites, for example, the green light will be given to lowering safety standards that have been built up over the years? Industrial injuries are responsible for the loss of more working days per year every year than strike action. If the Government were really concerned about raising health and safety standards and providing better working conditions, they would not be providing "lump" labour with an "open sesame".
  Mr. Varley: Some employers regard union labour-only contracts as a safeguard to ensure that proper skills are used, that safety arrangements are properly observed and that accidents are held to a minimum. I am sure that some employers have made that view known to the Secretary of State.
  There are other considerations. Disputes between worker and worker are to be unlawful. We know that few if any disputes between worker and worker do not involve management. Demarcation disputes may involve which skill should be used in a certain process, the application of new technology, differentials or grading, but managements are not innocent bystanders. Some strikes will be declared unlawful because they are political. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not rush to intervene to tell me that all political strikes are unlawful, and always have been under labour legislation, and that "political" does not appear in the Bill. I know that.
  Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is making progress.
  Mr. Varley: I have always known that. I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman what people really mean when they talk about political strikes. By narrowing the range of disputes to those that relate mainly to industrial matters, instead of being connected with them, there is a redefinition that excludes from legality, or restricts, great areas of industrial action that have been normal and lawful for decades.
  A strike against the Government's privatisation schemes in public industries may be declared unlawful. For example, if gas workers want to take action to ensure that gas showrooms are not privatised, their action could be adjudged unlawful. Industrial action may be taken against public expenditure cuts and it may be banned. The courts will have to decide, and it is to that that we object.
  Lord Justice Scarman once said that it is not a good thing to put judges in the driving seat of industrial relations. Judges are not notoriously good at dealing with industrial relations problems. Furthermore, the Government are removing the immunity of trade unions and their funds from liability in tort, and cases will come before the courts. If the Bill's provisions are implemented, cases will come before the courts as sure as night follows day. Injunctions will be granted. The instructions that will go from national presidents to general secretaries, executive committees and on to local or junior lay officers will in some instances become opaque because of the nature of the organisation and government of trade unions. The instructions will not be clear, issues will find their way to the courts and damages will be awarded. At that stage

  379
  the balloon will go up. When that happens there will not be only 20, 30, 45 or 50 Members in the Chamber. The Secretary of State will have to tell the House that something comparable to the Con-Mech case has arisen.
  Mr. Renton rose—
  Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Bill will not take us back to Taff Vale. There are doubts about that. However, it will take us back to the Con-Mech type case. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that case arose when the Industrial Relations Court ordered the sequestration of some of the AUEW's assets. Damages of £122,000 were awarded. A national engineering strike was called and, to the huge relief of the Government of the day and the engineering industry, a rich business man decided to pay the damages. The same thing could happen under the legislation that is now proposed.
  Mr. Renton: Apart from saying that the balloon will go up in a grandiose way, what precise argument can the right hon. Gentleman advance that the trade unions, which have assets of £250 million and an annual income of £200 million, should retain total immunity from civil damages when neither their officials nor individual members have such immunity?
  Mr. Varley: We are aware of the difficulty that this causes. No amount of injunctions and no amount of fines, or threatened fines, will necessarily divert men and women who believe that they have a genuine grievance. Injunctions and fines will not solve the problem. To bankrupt trade unions by imposing fines of up to £250,000 in any one case—damages could take the penalty up to £750,000—will not improve industrial relations. At least the House of Commons and the country generally are interested in good labour relations.
  The balloon will go up and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman thinking otherwise. It is no good saying that sensible employers will not take action because matters might be taken out of their hands. Any person who believes that his interests or business has been affected will be able to take legal action. The Government may feel euphoric at seven o'clock this evening when the Division takes place. They will probably get some cheap cheers from the Tory faithful at Brighton in October, but I believe that even the Government will rue the day they enacted the Bill. When all the sections of the then Act are activated the Government are likely to blunder into one of the most bitter periods of industrial relations that we have ever seen, especially if the economy ever starts to recover.
  I have never wanted to keep the law out of industrial relations. Some of the major benefits to workers have been spearheaded through trade unions arguing and succeeding in getting Parliament to enact legislation. Health and safety, legislation on equal pay, sex discrimination and employment protection have all helped tremendously.
  There will be more legislation along those lines, but what distinguishes that legislation from the Bill is that on the whole it has benefited workers and their organisations and has been welcomed. This proposed law will never be accepted by the trade unions because it shackles them, promotes non-trade unionism and restricts collective bargaining. It is no good the Secretary of State and the Minister of State abusing trade union leaders and telling them that they are all bureaucrats and out of touch with their members, and that they have seen a public opinion
  380
  poll that supports that view and supports the introduction of this measure. That is precisely what the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said when he was Prime Minister and when he took part in the Second Reading debate on the Industrial Relations Bill in 1971. We all know what happened to that Bill and that Prime Minister.
  This Bill has little to do with individual freedom. In any case, even at this late stage, we are not taking lessons from the right hon. Members on the Government Benches about individual rights. Any Government who, after a debate lasting one and a half hours, can take away individual protection from over 1 million workers, as they did in 1979, have no right to lecture us about the individual worker. The position of the individual workers is still extremely weak compared with that of the employer and the huge financial strength of the transnational company, which is a mighty power in comparison. The only real protection that the worker has is through his trade union.
  This Bill will damage industrial relations; it will do nothing to overcome the formidable economic problems that face this country. We shall continue to proclaim responsible free trade unionism as one of the absolute safeguards of our liberty. This Bill is dangerous, and that is why we shall oppose it. I repeat that we shall take it off the statute book at the first opportunity.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Reg Prentice: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has told us that the Opposition will continue to fight for responsible free trade unionism in Britain. That is exactly what we on the Government Benches will fight for and why we shall support the Bill.
  It is a great temptation to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on many of the points that he made. Indeed, I could easily double or treble the length of the brief speech that I shall make by doing so, but I refer to two points only. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of industrial relations legislation provided that it was in the interests of working people. He does not really mean that. He means provided that the legislation is demanded by the TUC bureaucracy. That is not the same thing.
  The Bill increases the rights of the individual worker in relation to the closed shop where, over many generations, those rights have been damaged by the operation of trade union bureaucrats and militants. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State quoted a MORI poll. The Government's proposals are supported by working people and by the majority of trade unionists.
  On this issue, as on so many others, we are speaking for working people. We are not speaking for the vested interests of the TUC. What the right hon. Gentleman confirmed is that the Labour Party will never—literally never—come to the House and oppose the views of the TUC bureaucracy. I challenge the Opposition to quote any occasion over the past two or three years on which they have taken a stand at the Dispatch Box against the views of the TUC.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman hark back to 1969, when the Labour Government introduced, or proposed to introduce, legislation that was opposed by the TUC? He will remember that he took the view of the TUC at the time.
  Mr. Prentice: Yes, I took the view of the TUC at that time. I have suffered from interventions on this matter in recent debates and I do not want to go back over history. The Labour Party in Opposition over the past three years, to the best of my knowledge—I hope that I can be contradicted—has not taken a view on any matter, large or small, that is different from that of its trade union paymasters.
  The right hon. Gentleman concentrated on the Con-Mech case. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) answered his points fully and the right hon. Gentleman did not respond. The AUEW was in contempt of court. Does the right hon. Gentleman support a situation in which a large trade union, a responsible national body, defies the court, will not attend and will not respond to court decisions? The sequestration of funds was for contempt of court and for nothing else. The political fund was involved. Clause 15(2)(b) precludes that happening. It would be wrong for political or the other special funds mentioned to be touched by sequestration. The Con-Mech situation could not arise in the way suggested.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the balloon would go up. It will do so only if people deliberately intend it to go up, if trade union leaders, through a mixture of masochism and a desire to be martyred, deliberately act in contempt of the law.
  I support the Bill as one of a series of measures which were described by the previous Secretary of State for Employment as a step-by-step process. The Government, rightly, have not gone down the same road as the Conservative Government of the 1970s, by having one large Bill on labour relations. They have, bit by bit, identified abuses and introduced modest measures to put them right. The 1980 Act was a useful first step, and this is a useful second one. I hope that we shall have yet more steps, not too far apart, and of reasonably substantial dimension.
  The next step should be a Bill to provide for compulsory secret ballots for the election of senior union officers and in major industrial disputes. New clauses 1 and 2 were on the Order Paper last night. The Labour Party was so afraid to face a debate on the need to extend democracy in the unions that we had a series of artificial votes to keep the House occupied until the guillotine fell at midnight.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I have worked with the secret ballot in the NUM for ages, without problems. The membership asked its leadership for secret ballots. If the members of other unions want secret ballots, surely they would say so and the rules would be changed.
  Mr. Prentice: It would be much better for the unions to carry out the necessary reform themselves. The democratic system within the NUM has been of benefit to the country. Last winter, and the winter before, rank and file miners rejected executive advice for industrial action. I wish that ASLEF had had a similar system. It might have avoided the hardship that has been caused during the past few months to other workers who rely on the services of British Rail. We have waited for reform for many years. In the absence of progress, there comes a time when Parliament must act. I hope that it will do so before long.
  I hope that we shall hear the SDP view. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) has suggested that it is wrong to play legislative ping-pong with industrial relations, with Labour and Conservative Government
  382
  srepealing each other's measures. I should much prefer the two parties to reach a consensus on what is right for industrial relations law and for that situation to prevail over many years, thus enabling British industry and society to benefit from the continuity that would result. How can that consensus be established so long as the Labour Party is locked so closely with the trade union bureaucracy and so long as the trade union attitude to these matters is so reactionary that it will never look at any constructive reform of the law? If there were changes in that situation, we could work for consensus. We cannot have consensus when an attitude that is so utterly wrong is taken by the so-called Labour movement.
  It is our duty to legislate to improve these matters step by step. It is for the electorate to avoid the disaster of another Labour Government who would get us back into such a mess again. I say that in the knowledge that recently the TUC and the Labour Party leadership, through their liaison committee, have once more been discussing how another Labour Government—if there ever were another Labour Government—would repeal these measures and put something in their place. I speak, sadly, with experience of membership of the liaison committee many years ago. I can explain the procedure. It is for the Labour Party leadership to ask the TUC what it wants and for the Labour leadership to do exactly what the TUC wants, not simply in general terms, but detail by detail, without any original thinking of its own.
  The question has been asked whether the Bill positively helps industrial relations. I agree with those hon. Members who say that no piece of legislation can solve the problems of industrial relations. It is a matter of human relations, depending upon thousands of people in thousands of different situations on the management side and on the union side. I believe, however, that the Bill helps in two ways. The practical effect of the closed shop provisions will be to reduce the number of workers who are imprisoned in a closed shop situation. The main reason for that reform, as argued by the Minister today and by many hon. Members in the past, is to be found in terms of human freedom.
  I also submit, as I attempted to do yesterday when skating on thin ice in terms of the rules of order on an amendment, that voluntary trade unionism is better trade unionism and that it can lead to better industrial relations at the workplace. If a trade union can say that it has voluntarily recruited the majority of people in a workplace, and can say to management that it is still enrolling new recruits who are joining of their own free will because they believe in what the union is doing, that carries more authority and represents a much more constructive situation than if people simply sign on with the union because they have to and are then taken for granted by shop stewards or trade union officials.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Union membership in the teaching profession has been voluntary, although there has recently been more pressure upon people to join. Those teachers who have voluntarily joined unions of their choice are often more inclined to take part in union discussions and affairs than is the case when union membership is compulsory. That seems a positive aspect of what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree?
  Mr. Prentice: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend's comment. I had some experience, as a Minister in the

  383
  Department of Education and Science, of dealing with teachers' unions. It was sometimes a frustrating experience. Sometimes one got angry with them. However, they are lively and vigorous bodies, because they are voluntary. The fact that they compete with one another for membership means that they are all the more responsive to the views and needs of their members than would ever be the case in a closed shop situation. Management is also put on its toes when it has to deal with trade unionism of that character.
  I have had working experience as a trade unionist in a closed shop and in a voluntary membership organisation. I know which I preferred as a worker, and I believe that that is generally the case. It is wrong for a closed shop to be forced on people by union labour only contracts. The pressure comes from outside the workplace. Within the workplace the employers and the workers, whether or not they are members of unions, may have worked out their own arrangements to their mutual satisfaction. It is wrong that that should be changed at the dictate of an outside body.
  I believe that the Bill will improve industrial relations because of clauses 13 to 16, which provide for unions to be made liable for action in tort. I disagree with the assessment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The practical effect will surely be that fewer industrial disputes will spread outwards to affect firms and workplaces that are not party to the original dispute. In other words, there will be fewer occasions on which production is stopped and fewer occasions on which workers who are not in dispute are laid off as a result of a dispute. That will mean improved industrial relations.
  The Opposition have constantly argued that people will want to become martyrs and that they will deliberately invite a situation in which they are subject to actions for damages, refuse to pay the damages, are found guilty of contempt of court and go to gaol. I do not believe that Parliament would be worth its salt if we always legislated in terms of being afraid of what would happen if people were to exploit the law in such an unnatural way. If there are those who want to emulate the blessed martyrs of Pentonville, they will find ways of getting to gaol without any need to change the law. I do not believe, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield seemed to suggest, that senior union officials or senior union lay members of executives will get themselves into this sort of trouble. In the Pentonville incident it was Bernie Steer and his four friends who went to gaol; it was not Jack Jones and members of the general executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.
  This is a modest and useful Bill. If the unions are sensible, they will stop all the extreme rhetoric and drop the proposals for protest strikes. They will accept the fact that they are just as much subject to the sovereignty of Parliament and the law of the land as anyone else. This Bill presents a challenge to the unions, which at present have a credibility problem. It is credibility that is affected by the callous strike today of Health Service workers at the expense of the sick, credibility that is affected by the fact that ASLEF continues to rat on its obligations to improve productivity on British Rail, and credibility that is affected by the decision of the biggest union in the Civil Service to elect a Trotskyist as its president and a Communist as its vice-president. It is they who have the problem. The future of trade unionism in Britain is not threatened by the
  384
  Bill or by the Government. It is threatened by the continuing failure of the unions to put right their internal problems.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Cyril Smith: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said that hon. Members are reaching the end of a long and weary process—a process that has clearly demonstrated the stupidity of not properly timetabling Bills. That is, however, an issue that the House can debate on another occasion.
  There are certainly those who have huffed and puffed to try to work up some great euphoria of opposition to the Bill. The trouble is that much of that opposition is a little synthetic. I pay tribute to the efforts of Labour Members on the Standing Committee, but the sittings were hardly as bloodcurdling as we had been led to believe would be the case.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman was not there all the time.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman says I was not there all the time. That may be true, but I do not think that I missed much on the occasions when I was not present. What is certain is that there were occasions when Labour Members could have been present, but were not, even after the guillotine motion had been passed. It was they who approached the Government to finish at 7.30 pm instead of 11 pm on two successive evenings. That is how bloodcurdling was the opposition of Labour Members to the Bill. Last night they could have kept the House voting on Government amendments until 2 am or 3 am to show their opposition to the Bill, which I understand happened on the Employment Bill 1971. This Labour Opposition have done none of that, which is why I describe them as a little synthetic. I do not object to the fact that the Opposition are synthetic. I simple draw attention to it.
  We now have veiled threats from outside the House about what will happen to the Bill if and when it becomes law. In the past 24 hours the leadership of ASLEF, not being satisfied with the great damage that it has already done to the future of British Rail, has said that it wishes to disrupt it further. That is because of the gross misunderstanding that has been worked up about the Bill.
  I said in an intervention on Report that I had heard no objections to the Bill at meetings that I had addressed or at the doors on which I had knocked during the past few weeks. As a Member of Parliament who receives about 300 to 400 letters every week, I have received about six to eight letters about the Bill from people who are worked up about it or who seem to object to the fact that I voted in favour of it. The great euphoria about opposition to the Bill is not justified and it does not represent the views of the people.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the hon. Member tell us whether one of those letters was from the national council of the Liberal Party, which takes a rather different view from him?
  Mr. Smith: I did not receive a letter from the national council, but the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it takes a different view from me. That shows that some of us are not puppets of our party, but can make up our minds and act accordingly.
  There is not as much in the Bill to which one can object as some hon. Members would have us believe. I suspect

  385
  that the shouting about the Bill by trade union leaders has more to do with party politics than with trade unionism and industrial relations. It is significant that the shouting is done by union leaders rather than by trade unionists.
  What does the Bill do? First, it gives individuals who are sacked for refusing to belong to a trade union the right to claim damages for unfair dismissal. It does not make the closed shop illegal. I wish that it did. It does not force a trade union to have a ballot about a closed shop, but says that if an individual is sacked when there has not been a ballot, a claim for unfair dismissal is established. It does not say that if there is a ballot and the necessary percentages are not obtained the closed shop is illegal and cannot continue. The object of the ballot is merely to establish the right to a claim for unfair dismissal. I cannot understand why people become so worked up about that.
  The Bill also provides that one cannot stop a company from obtaining work solely—I repeat the word "solely"—on the ground that not all of its employees belong to a trade union. There is nothing to become worked up about in that. The Bill also provides that trade unions, like everyone else, must be answerable in law for their actions.
  Those are the three principal points of the Bill, and I cannot understand the opposition to the measure. It does not make trade union membership illegal or take away from trade unionists the right to strike against their employer. I do not understand why it is supposed to be a trade-union-bashing Bill. I interpret it as a Bill that offers protection to the individual against a large movement in Britain—the trade union movement—which, if it is not controlled, can injure seriously the right of an individual to work and to continue to work.
  I said on Second Reading that the Bill does not deal with industrial relations. Matters such as industrial democracy and worker participation are much more relevant to industrial relations than the Bill. However, the measure is before us and we must judge it on its merits.
  It follows from what I have said that I do not find the Bill objectionable in principle. I should have supported some changes, especially on the size of penalties, but in principle it is acceptable. That is why I shall vote for its Third Reading.
  There is an alternative to the way in which I act on Third Reading. I could have considered abstention and, clearly, in the present political circumstances I gave a little thought to that. However, I am not an abstainer by nature, certainly not in political matters. This issue is much too important for one not to express a definite view either for or against it. The only interest that I am here to protect is that of the individual, and I cannot protect that interest by abstaining tonight. I believe that I shall help that interest by voting for the Bill.
  That is what I intend to do and it is what I have advised my right hon. and hon. Friends to do. Whether they take that advice is a matter for them. I see colleagues as individuals rather than as Lobby fodder, but if, as I believe, they are interested in the liberty of the individual, his right to run his life as he wishes and to belong to that which he chooses and nothing more, my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby this evening to support the Third Reading of the Bill. I have no reason to believe that they will not do so.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I listened carefully to what he said because throughout the passage of the Bill he has been extremely persuasive in supporting the cause of the individual. I wish only that his colleagues in the SDP had been as united and determined to do the same. Their speeches and their attitude to time—I include the Opposition Front Bench—reminded me of the words of Henry V before the battle of Agincourt. When he said:
  "That he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart; his passport shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse".
  That is precisely what has happened to the SDP. Its members will abstain—the privilege of the eunuch through the ages. The official Opposition, on two evenings when we should have been debating until late at night, had crowns for convoy put into their purse, their passport was made and they departed early, rather than fight the Bill through. That will stand on their record.
  The Opposition has been largely synthetic and the same goes for the TUC. It issued the great campaign pack against the Bill—"Fight Tebbit's Law". The best thing that it can do with the campaign pack is to hire an aeroplane and drop it on Buenos Aires. It would frighten the Argentines if this red and white document, several pounds in weight, came hurtling through the air, but it will not frighten or impress any British trade unionists. No working trade unionist in Britain, who is not an active trade union official, opposes the Bill. He does not care about it.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman can make his speech later. I wish to continue with mine.
  There is no serious shop floor opposition to the Bill—quite the opposite. The TUC is trying to stir up a synthetic campaign, full of sound and fury, that is signifying nothing. It will quickly disappear.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the cleverness of the Bill. However, there is one significant omission that my right hon. Friend touched on earlier. There is no requirement in the Bill for trade unions to extend secret ballots. I can understand why the Government are hesitant, even reluctant, to require trade unions to change their rule books. Clearly that requires a great deal of thought and it is most important that we should get the formula right. Therefore, it is disgraceful that the two new clauses that were on the Order Paper for debate between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock last night could not be considered. Although the official Opposition agreed through the Business Committee that there should be an hour for the debate, they were so frightened of having any discussion about more democracy in the trade union movement that they abused the procedures of the House and forced a series of votes on technical matters so that a debate could not take place.
  There is no doubt that that was an abuse of the procedures of the House. Why are the official Opposition so worried about a discussion on more democracy in the trade union movement? Is pressure put on some members of the Opposition by some of their friends among the union leaders? I refer to such lifers as Clive Jenkins, who was appointed for life in ASTMS, Moss Evans, who was elected for life, Alan Fisher of NUPE, who was appointed for life, and Geoffrey Drain of NALGO. Are the

  387
  Opposition so swayed by these influential men that they want to protect them from having to stand for election? If that is not the reason—
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Mr. Renton: I shall not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an active member of APEX, which is my union too, and I hope he will have an opportunity later to make his speech.
  If the Opposition are not frightened, why do they constantly resist a debate on more democracy and more secret ballots in the union movement? Surely it is abundantly plain that the spread of balloting in the movement is in the public interest. It must equally be true that it is in the interests of the trade union movement that union leaders should be representative of those they claim to speak for.
  The events of the past week in the Civil and Public Servants Association should make the Labour Party welcome the spread of ballots for the regular election of national union officials. Kevin Roddy, a member of Militant Tendency, was elected as president of the CPSA. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) grins at the mention of his name, but as a moderate member of the Labour Party and opposed to Militant Tendency he should be very worried about Kevin Roddy's election.
  Kevin Roddy was elected president of that important union despite the fact that there were only 100 members of the Militant Tendency in the CPSA. He was elected with only 23,000 votes out of 208,000. He achieved that because of the mechanism of the branch block vote. If only 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the membership turn up—a normal figure—none the less the total membership of the branch is deemed to have voted for the candidate decided on at the meeting. Clearly that is an undemocratic procedure. It leads to results, as in the election of Kevin Roddy, that do not reflect the wishes of the membership.
  Recently, Frank Chapple, under the Daily Express headline "Chapple spills the Beans", pointed out that delegates from his union were regularly elected at meetings where only 1½ per cent. of those entitled to attend bothered to do so. Surely it is in the interests of Labour Members who oppose the Militant Tendency to encourage more secret ballots within the trade union movement. That was the purpose of new clause 1 that should have been debated last night.
  I do not suggest that the Government should force unions to hold secret ballots, but if after a period unions have not changed their rules to allow regular secret ballots, a group of trade unionists within that union—large enough to put off the frivolous and small enough to be achievable—should be able to ask the Government of the day to change the union rule book for them. That would be a major, and by far and away the most important, step in changing the trade union movement.
  As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said earlier, what the trade union movement has to worry about now is not this legislation but the spread of extremism within the movement that is not representative of the majority of trade unionists.
  Many hon. Members know that this call for a mandatory right for groups of trade unionists to be able to ask for secret ballots was made by Conservative Trade Unionists. I am proud to be president of that organisation. It is a change for which it has campaigned, supported by
  388
  all its branches, for many years. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that shortly, either before the next general election or when the Conservative Party has been re-elected, the Government will commit themselves to bringing forward legislation to enable changes to be made in the rule books of those unions that have not yet made the change, but only when union members ask for it.
  Nothing would change the unions more than if officials who are at present elected or appointed for life had to stand for regular election at least every five years. We have to in this House, so why should not leaders of the trade unions do so? Regular secret ballots for the election of national officials will be more fundamental in reforming the trade union movement than anything in the Bill. They will drag the trade unions, screaming in some cases, pleased in others, into the last decade of this century.
  6 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who is president of the Conservative Trade Unionists, did not do a bad job of trade union bashing in most of his speech. I could not follow his logic in the remainder of it. Trade unions have their own rules. If they want to alter them or the method by which they adopt their officers, they can do so by passing a resolution at the annual conference. The hon. Gentleman's argument is irrelevant, because the opportunity already exists for trade union members who wish to use it.
  I shall be brief, because we do not have much time and other hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I shall curtail many of my remarks. I shall also generalise, because many of the specific points that I wished to make have already been referred to. It is not my habit to make cheap political points. They serve no useful purpose, but the debates of the past two days have shown that many hon. Members feel that the more that they can deceive the public and kid them, the more successful they will be.
  The Government are making a big mistake by introducing the Bill. I think that I know why they have been pushed into doing so. After the 1978 winter of strife—I did not condone union actions that resulted in people having to bury their own dead—the Prime Minister went on television, held her fist in the air and said "By God, I will take them on." That attitude has resulted in the presentation of the Bill.
  The Bill is designed to stop the excesses of those engaged in purely political activities and to prevent them from using their power base to achieve political objectives, but it is a punitive legal framework to impose on the trade union movement and it includes extreme financial penalties for unions, officers and individual members. If Conservative Members do not agree, let them tell me why the Government have not taken similar punitive measures against employers and their federations.
  Clauses 13 to 16 are the heart of the Bill and raise fundamental issues relating to industrial relations. I shall not go into detail, but I regret that the Gennard report has not been available. The House should have had the opportunity to see that report before passing the Bill.
  Clause 2 on the closed shop can have only a disruptive effect on the trade union movement. It will create nothing but chaos in the mining industry, in which I spent all my working life before being elected to the House. A closed shop could not work in the mining industry. The activities

  389
  and policies of the NUM are a model to other trade unions, and the closed shop could not work without creating tremendous friction among the workers in that industry.
  I can speak with some knowledge, because half of my career in the industry was spent at the coal face and the other half as a personnel manager. Before being elected to the House I was personnel manager at a large pit, and I know that the closed shop could not work in the mining industry without creating chaos.
  Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend says that the closed shop would not work in the mining industry. I think that he meant to put it the other way round and say that the industry could not work without the closed shop.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I apologise if I was not communicating my views clearly.
  Mr. Tebbitt: We understood the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I was always taught that the art of good English is to communicate. As long as hon. Members understood me, I made my point.
  The Secretary of State said yesterday that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) did not understand clause 13. If that is true of my hon. Friend—and I do not say that it is—it may be true of me. The clause deals with trade disputes that are authorised or endorsed by a responsible person.
  I do not understand how the clause can be operated without many court hearings. Which officers of a union will be responsible for trade disputes? Nowhere can I see how a local official, who is not employed by the union can be deemed to be responsible for calling a strike. Who will fine him? Without long court hearings, how will anyone be able to decide who is responsible? It will be extremely difficult.
  Clause 17 was deleted yesterday, without debate, and I understand that new clause 25, which was approved without a debate, replaces it.
  I oppose the Bill, not because of political dogma, but because I believe that it is not needed. We should not pass legislation that will create problems. The Bill is already doing that, as was made clear by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex when he held up the poster referring to "Tebbit's Law". The Bill is creating such problems throughout our society. It will provoke unnecessary bitterness.
  With regard to the matters that would have been covered by clause 17, where continuance of service is taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing redundancy payments, I hope that the Minister will consider introducing a clause to protect those unfortunate people who have been caught by the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. I am sure that when that measure went through the House it was not intended that it should catch them.
  In the mining industry there are men who, unfortunately, have suffered severe injuries. By agreement between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, for administrative purposes such men are taken off the colliery books after 18 months. Eventually, some of them return to work with arms and legs missing; some of them lose both legs. If at some later time they are made redundant, the time that they have spent off work as
  390
  a result of their severe injuries is taken into consideration and the years of qualification are calculated only from the day on which they re-started work.
  When a man has worked for about 40 years in the mining industry and loses a leg, he should not be jeopardised because, through no fault of his own, by agreement between his trade union and his employers, he is taken off the books. His redundancy payment should not be jeopardised as a result of that action.
  If the Secretary of State wishes to change his image as a hard-hearted hatchet man, let him start with the miners and show that he is concerned with cases of the nature that I have mentioned. Let him introduce the appropriate legislation, through the Bill, in another place.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) down many of the paths that he took, but I particularly challenge him when he says that the Bill is not needed. I shall try to show why I think that it is very much needed and why I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it.
  I enjoyed the Minister's opening speech, but I was sorry to have missed some of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a compassionate man, and I cannot understand how he is able to hold the views that he does on trade union matters.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) made a telling point when he said that voluntary union membership is the best. It certainly is the best. I have had long experience of it. Voluntary union membership induces, encourages and sustains participation of a high order on the part of the members. There is a large attendance of members at meetings. Members who belong to unions voluntarily are much more inclined to speak up and put their points of view than are members of closed shops. A much greater percentage of such members take part in union elections.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) quoted example after example of unions in which only 1½ per cent. of the membership took part in important national elections. That needs to be put right, as do many other matters, particularly those concerning the closed shop.
  I speak as the president of the Conservative teachers trade union organisation, and I am very proud of that fine body of admirable men and women. They, like me, feel that the two values that best sum up the British approach to life are tolerance and freedom. A belief in individual freedom of action under the law, and the tolerance of individual differences, have pervaded our nation's history. We have fought against tyranny in two world wars. We call for human rights to be allowed in countries where they are denied—currently in countries such as Poland and Argentina, to mention but two. Yet in Britain we have endured the tyranny—it is no less—of the closed shop.
  The closed shop denies human rights. It denies freedom of action to individuals. It denies the mutual respect of employees in a workplace, because it imposes a trade union tyranny that is immune to the law. The closed shop takes power from the individual and diminishes him. Power must move from the State to the individual, to

  391
  enlarge the individual, if he is to have that important feeling of self-dignity that is fundamental to happiness and a sense of general satisfaction.
  The Bill provides the opportunity to curtail the tyranny of the closed shop. I am delighted that the House has grasped the opportunity with both hands and in doing so has upheld the principle of the freedom of the individual employee.
  The Trades Union Congress held a day of action on 14 May 1980. It was not a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute. Under the Bill, political disputes of that kind will not have the protection of the law. How can anyone honourably oppose that provision?
  The Bill will give some hope to people who are victims of the abuse of trade union power, as was one of my constituents, Mr. Graham Hunter-Gray, recently. Graham did not object in principle to the closed shop as a matter of interest. He had applied to join the Transport and General Workers Union, but he objected to the TUC's day of action on 14 May 1980. He arrived for work on that day expecting to do a day's work, which his employer had led him to believe would be possible, and which the union had said would be acceptable to it. However, as a result of his arriving for work on that day his application for union membership was turned down at a special union branch meeting at which Graham—a man of only 21—had to face 26 hostile union members.
  In a sense, it was like retrospective legislation. Graham was refused union membership because he had not complied with union intructions before they could even apply to him, since he was not a member of the union at the time. He was not allowed to join the union because he had not complied with union instructions. He was also censured because he happened to say that he was a Conservative voter. What sort of freedom is that? He lost his job because he was not a union member, and because the plant operated a closed shop the employer had no choice.
  Graham gave notice of appeal on 5 June 1980, and on 23 July the Transport and General Workers Union regional committee wrote to him saying that it stood by the branch decision not to accept him into membership. In the same letter he was advised of his right to appeal to the independent review committee. That hearing did not take place until six months later, on 13 January 1981. Not only did Graham have to wait all that time for a final decision, but he was denied a job on the false premise that he was against the closed shop in principle.
  As Graham's local Member of Parliament, I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on several occasions. We took legal advice and did everything that could be done in a democratic society, but the union was above the law. Graham had no rights and lost his job. There was no redress, even in Parliament. He was also victimised. Three other members of the TGWU who worked on 14 May 1980—the so-called day of action—were fined. The important fact is that they were members of the union. Graham says that if he had been a union member who had not followed the decision of the branch he would have expected to be disciplined—though the thought of it baffles me.
  I welcome the Bill, for the sake of Graham and other victims of the closed shop. It provides a remedy for an employee who is unfairly dismissed. He or she can complain to an industrial tribunal, which may award compensation, and, if it thinks it practical, reinstatement.
  392
  The Bill goes some way towards minimising the tyranny of the closed shop and upholding the liberty of the individual.
  Graham never regained his employment. He was not given membership of the TGWU. Graham finally appealed, but was entirely on his own. He had to face four professionals from the union putting its case. I was not allowed to be with him, nor was anybody else. I cannot see that that is justice. How can the House possibly stand by while that position pertains? How can right hon. and hon. Gentlemen pretend in a weak and pious way that that is justice for the individual? It is not, and the House must be the bastion of individual freedom.
  Graham's case is symptomatic of the freedom that is being restored to individuals who have suffered grievously, unfairly and miserably at the hands, of tyrannical union leaders and when large numbers of union members join in an aggressive, unfair and inconsiderate way to deny a man his right to employment and freedom. We have always fought for those principles and I shall continue to do so.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I understand that the Front Bench speeches will start at 6.30 pm.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Most legislation is, like the curate's egg, bad in parts. Having looked through this Bill, I cannot find any good parts. It is a thoroughly bad Bill. I should like to remind the Minister that the trade union movement was born in this country and has many millions of members. It is a reputable and patriotic body of people. It is not an alien institution to be attacked. I should have thought that any Government would seek the co-operation of the trade union movement and not its hostility.
  We were told that industrial relations were improving. The last year for which we have the figures shows 4 million days lost in strikes, 371 million days lost through sickness and 780 million days lost through unemployment. The Government seem determined to enter into conflict with the trade union movement. My impression is that the Minister regards trade unions as does General Galtieri. He does not approve of them. I understand that there is more legislation to come and that the step-by-step approach is to continue to squeeze trade unionism gradually out of our society, and to leave everything to the workings of crude market forces. The Government want a union-free society.
  The Minister's ire has been aroused by 100 per cent. union shops. He wants to neuter them. In Committee the Minister of State referred to what he called the Strathclyde research. We pricked our ears up because that interested us. We discovered that it was Professor Gennard's research, which was instituted in 1978. It is thorough and reputable research on the closed shop. The right hon. Gentleman said that the fieldwork had been done but that he had not seen the results. I find it almost impossible to believe—of course I believe what he says—that he has not had a peep at it. It is almost a dereliction of duty for him not to have looked at the research. There was a leak in The Observer which said that only 12 per cent. of managers thought that the closed shop encouraged inefficiencies while 53 per cent. believed that they received benefits from the system.

  393
  Why is there such a hurry to introduce legislation? The Under-Secretary of State for Employment told us yesterday, quite wrongly, that since 1980 there had been an increase in the number of victims of the closed shop. In fact one can count the number on one hand. Why legislate and then get the facts from Professor Gennard? Why not obtain the facts first and legislate on the basis of that examination? It seems that the Minister and the Government are prejudiced and do not want to be confused by the facts.
  The question of the privileges of trade unions is absurd. We know that there is no written constitution and there are no rights under it. Under common law interfering with contracts by a trade union would be a breach of the law and therefore Parliament has seen fit to give them immunities. Translated into plain English, that means rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms apply only in the contemplation or the furtherance of a trade dispute. What constitutes a trade dispute? The definition is being narrowed and is now imprecise. What does "wholly or mainly" mean? Nobody knows. The judges will have to interpret the law and there will be many grey areas. Quite often we shall not know what is or is not lawful.
  In Committee we were told that trade union presidents and general secretaries should keep their mouths shut. Unless they repudiate actions, union funds could become liable. After the Industrial Relations Act 1971 every piece of paper that went out from my union had on it: "This document is not legally binding." In future trade unions will have to have letters printed saying: "I repudiate this action." Whenever there is action, the union will have to send out that letter. If trade union officers want to organise action, they should see the chaps and tell them what to do. They should then say, "Here is a letter repudiating your action." The Bill puts a premium on unofficial action. Unless the union officers repudiate the action, the union funds could be plundered.
  Surely this is leading us in the direction of anarchy. Under the 1980 Act, the employer was given his remedy, but it was up to him to decide whether to use it. Now third parties can trigger this mechanism, and in that way employers will lose control of their own industrial relations.
  Then we have these enormous fines of £250,000. The unions will not pay these huge fines. They will not consider them just.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): Rubbish.
  Mr. Leighton: I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman to wait and see. We shall soon see who has been talking the rubbish.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Harold Walker.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the safeguard of the interests of Back Benchers. I sat through a great deal of yesterday's Report stage. I have sat through a great deal of today's proceedings hoping to make my contribution as the Bill passed through the House of Commons.
  May I ask why all those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and who made major contributions to yesterday's Report stage appear to
  394
  be given precedence over those hon. Members who wish to contribute once only to the passage of a vital Bill? I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to safeguard the interests of hon. Members who believe that they have important contributions to make to this Third Reading debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is making a serious reflection upon my predecessors in the Chair, because he knows that I took the Chair only about three minutes ago.
  Many hon. Members wished to take part in this short debate. The hon. Gentleman has been unlucky today. He may be lucky on another occasion. Mr. Harold Walker.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Harold Walker: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out that I had not sought to catch your eye when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) rose on his point of order? My view was that since the debate was being curtailed for obvious and very proper reasons, it would have been sensible for the two Front Bench spokesmen to act with some restraint and give Back Benchers a greater opportunity to participate. In the circumstances I felt that it would not have been unreasonable if I had taken 10 minutes of the time available on behalf of the official Opposition and if the Secretary of State had taken an equal amount of time so that we could still have the Division at 7 o'clock. However, I understand that the Secretary of State insisted to the Chair that I should be called at half-past six and that he expected to have 20 minutes in which to reply on behalf of the Government.
  The Secretary of State may ride roughshod over the trade union movement, but it is intolerable if he thinks that he can do the same to the House of Commons. I shudder to think what tactics that man would adopt if he had the opportunity. The trade union movement can see now what kind of Secretary of State is responsible for the legislation that will govern the conduct of our industrial relations until the next general election.
  Mr. Waddington: Cool it,
  Mr. Walker: The Under-Secretary of State advises me to cool it. He is the hon. Member who ought to learn a little about cooling matters, bearing in mind the abusive venom that he heaped on the trade union movement in the Standing Committee and elsewhere, denouncing trade unions for their villainy, and so on. The House of Commons must watch itself carefully when it allows itself to be pushed round by Ministers of any Government—
  Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a fact that the House was pushed around by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends last night when we were unable to debate new clauses, which the Opposition had agreed should be debated for an hour, because the right hon. Gentleman insisted on voting on a great many purely technical amendments? It was the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends who pushed the House around.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member that that is in no sense a point of order.
  Mr. Harold Walker rose—
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) that we are debating this Third Reading under a guillotine.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I understand that, but I am sure that the Chair will appreciate that my point of order is relative to time. The time allocated for the Bill in Committee was not used fully. Therefore I suggest that it is irresponsible of any Opposition Member to suggest that we have not used the time available properly.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I shall take note of the interruptions and assume that I am entitled to injury time. What is more, if the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) had contained himself for a minute he would have found that I wanted to refer to the events of last night—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I am subjected to sedentary interruptions, especially from hon. Members who have taken no part in our proceedings, matters become rather difficult.
  I wanted to deal with the serious point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex about the new clauses which both sides of the House had tabled. I ask him to remember that the official Opposition had tabled a string of new clauses which were neither called nor likely to be called. We had equal reason to be resentful because important new clauses much cherished by us had no opportunity for debate and decision. I make no complaint about the Chair. I say simply that the reason was that Government supporters voted in favour of guillotining the Bill. In the circumstances, it is a bit much for them to vote for curtailment of debate and then to complain that they have been unable to pre-empt some of the limited time available.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) failed to persuade his own Government to include in the Bill the matters of which he is now complaining. He can hardly blame the Opposition for the fact that they were not in the original Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not attempt to discuss new clauses which were or might have been considered yesterday. This is the Third Reading debate.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I make no complaint that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex took the opportunity today to make the speech that probably he would have made yesterday if he had been given the chance. But I put this serious point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a difficulty about determining the priority in which new clauses are considered on Report. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it is the pure chance timing of submission or the random chance selection of the printer which determines the order in which new clauses shall be considered.
  I am not sure that that is good enough, and it may be that if we could devise a more sensible system which took account of the merits of new clauses, we would avoid the position that we reached last evening.
  Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time, and he knows the procedure of the House much better than I do, but the order in which new clauses are selected for debate is not a haphazard process
  396
  at all. It is decided by Mr. Speaker's Committee. It is that Committee which decides the order in which new clauses shall be considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say again to the House that we are now on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I may be quite wrong in my assumptions about the way in which new clauses are selected, and I accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I turn immediately to the very serious point made by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), and I speak in this matter only for myself. The right hon. Gentleman repeated his challenge to the Opposition about whether we believed that people should observe the law passed by Parliament. In my view every hon. Member ought to be here because he believes in the rule of law and in parliamentary democracy. We ought to expect that if the law bears heavily on certain groups or individuals, their way to seek redress is to have a change of Parliament which will enable the election of a Government more sympathetic to their point of view. That is the was that we all hope and assume that our system of parliamentary democracy works.
  That is all very well as a theory, and I endorse it. But is the right hon. Member for Daventry really saying that there are not people in his own party, for example, who do not seek to frustrate or evade the laws that we pass? We hear of people with funds in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss numbered accounts. There is a range of tax evasions and avoidance that is carried on. All that is held to be perfectly legitimate. Some right hon. and hon. Members who support the present Government argue that if Parliament imposes certain laws, they have a legitimate right to employ professional expert advisers to tell them how to evade or cheat those laws.
  Mr. Greenway: Name them.
  Mr. Leighton: Vestey.
  Mr. Greenway: He is not an hon. Member.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that no one should ever try to resist what is manifestly and patently an unjust law? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if the majority discriminate against a minority, there should be no resistance? Does he suggest that if the two-eyed people passed a law that bore heavily on one-eyed people, we should complain when the one-eyed people said, "We are not having it"? Throughout our history and that of other countries are there not examples of people who have defied the law and who are now regarded as heroes because of their actions? Those who have deliberately chosen the consequences having been given the choice of observing the law or of accepting he consequences of their defiance. In Britain, when we pass a law, we do not say that a person must not break it or else he may face the death penalty, for example. We say that he must be prepared to accept the consequences. Even the Prime Minister is among those who have endorsed and applauded the trade unionists who have defied their lawfully elected Government in Poland. I may be wrong. If so, I must apologise.
  Mr. Prentice: When the Bill is on the statute book, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn any official or unofficial trade union action in defiance of it?
  Mr. Walker: Perhaps I may complete my point about Poland.
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: Answer.
  Mr. Walker: I shall make my speech in my own way. The less time I have as a result of interruptions the less time will be available to the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State's speech that is being eaten into and interrupted. The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who, to the best of my knowledge, has not been here throughout the proceedings, might bear that in mind.
  Mr. Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate and I should like him to withdraw his allegation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Walker: I said "to the best of my recollection". It remains the same. I share others' abhorrence of the political system that elects the Polish Government. I understand that the Prime Minister has endorsed the actions of Solidarity, which is opposed to its own Government. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) cannot have it both ways. I speak only for myself. The right hon. Member for Daventry asked whether I will condemn union action. I must wait and see. Neither he nor any other right hon. or hon. Member can say categorically what their view will be, as it is based upon a hypothetical circumstance.
  The Secretary of State repeated the extraordinary assertion that the Bill is an employment Bill. The title is inappropriate. I do not know what it has to do with employment.
  Mr. Dickens: It deals with workers' rights.
  Mr. Walker: I can see only one additional job—that of the assessor who will disburse the bribes to non-unionists as provided by clause 1. Moreover, it creates much extra work for lawyers. To assert that one of the purposes of the Bill is to help to produce a balanced labour market is extraordinary in the light of the Government's record on unemployment. They have created well over 3 million unemployed. They have dismantled the industrial training boards and damaged the existing trading system. There have been reports of a threat to close jobcentres or for them to be relocated in back streets. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any hon. Member believes that the Bill is seriously intended to help the labour market, you will believe anything.
  It is undeniable that the closed shop often entails some loss of individual liberty. Conservative Members nod at that. It is understandable. They are right to do so. It must be borne in mind, however, that every time we pass an Act, we curtail someone's liberty. This Bill curtails many people's liberty. The Secretary of State is proud of that. He is proud to curtail the rights of trade unions and trade unionists. There are both collective and individual rights. We must be prepared to balance the interests of the one against the other. In the light of the difficulties that have arisen from the attempts to impose a statutory framework on the closed shop, I prefer the much more practical approach of leaving it to the parties in industry mutually to agree the best way of conducting the matter.
  Despite what I said about injury time, I do not want to eat into the time available for the Secretary of State. I shall deal with what may seem a small point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr.
  398
  Cryer)—that of safety. The Secretary of State has shown himself to be anxious lest people suggest that his measure will affect safety. He has referred to safety on ships, but it applies elsewhere.
  One of the most important recent developments in industrial occupational health and safety has been the provision of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act which provides for the appointment of work people safety representatives and statutory safety committees. They are both linked to the trade unions involved and recognised by the employer. They were accepted by the House and fully explained in 1974. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley was absolutely right to raise the issue.
  I have spoken rather longer than I intended mainly because of interruptions. I have been dismayed by the way in which the Secretary of State and his team have handled the matter. They have completely disregarded the basis upon which, until the appearance of this Bill it was assumed that industrial relations were established. They have disregarded collective bargaining between strong trade unions and employers or employers' associations. I have also been dismayed by the style with which they have conducted themselves. They have made absolutely clear at every twist and turn their dislike, amounting to hatred, for the trade union movement, trade unions and trade unionists.
  The Minister of State shakes his head. I recall what he said today. He called trade unions tigers of persecution and examples of ruthless ideological motivation. If there is any ruthless ideological motivation, it is seated on those Benches now. That is the kind of language that is employed. In Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the villainy of the trade unions. Such comments demonstrate the Government's attitude to the trade union movement. It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his watch or knocking it. He will not push me around even though he may try to push the House about.
  I look forward to the day when the Labour Party sits on the Government Benches. We will cleanse the statute book of the Bill, its predecessor, any successor that may arrive and of all the attacks on workers' rights that the Tories have perpetrated since they took office. We will replace them with more constructive and beneficial legislation that recognises the rights and role of workers in our modern society.
  6.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): One of the reasons why the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) will never sit on this side again is that the public, as much as his colleagues, have no time for a man who breaks an undertaking.
  Mr. Harold Walker rose—
  Mr. Tebbit: I would be trespassing beyond the limits of veracity if I said that any remarkable, or unremarkable, new points—
  Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that if a right hon. or hon. Gentleman makes a serious allegation against another hon. Member he must substantiate or withdraw it? As I made clear, there was no undertaking.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Serious allegations are frequently made in this place.
  Mr. Tebbit: So are bargains and they are usually kept. Whatever efforts have been made to generate passion, no one has been able to generate even synthetic passion until the right hon. Member for Doncaster had his tantrum which led him to express sympathy for those who break the law. Poland is no comparison. There are no free elections there.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) got it right when he said that he and trade union leaders favour legislation that takes away the common law rights of ordinary working people and gives the power and the privilege to the TUC and the leadership of the unions. He said that he and the TUC would always oppose legislation that trimmed that power and privilege and returned common law rights to ordinary people. The right hon. Gentleman may have used slightly different terms, but that was the meaning of the early part of his speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the attitude of the Engineering Employers Federation. I think that he may have been misled by selective quotation in the press. Dr. McFarlane, the director of the EEF, was so concerned about this that it may help if I quote what he said on "The World at One" about it. The interview included the following:
  "Mr. Jones: How far would you say that you are going then in supporting Mr. Tebbit in view of your concern over the closed shop?
  Dr. McFarlane: I would say that everything in Mr. Tebbit's Bill are things that we as a Federation have asked for to be implemented at some stage. Where we perhaps have a difference with the Secretary of State is that his order of priority is not the same as ours."
  That is the extent of the difference between myself and the EEF. I have overwhelming support from the EEF, the CBI and all the other employers' organisations.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman also misled himself about the effect of changes in the law affecting the definition of lawful industrial disputes. A worker in dispute with his employer about whether he or another worker did a particular job would not on that ground be outside the protection of the law. A worker in dispute with his employer about redundancy would not be outside the protection of the law on the ground that his redundancy might arise out of a Government decision on, for example, public expenditure. I have made that plain before, as have my hon. and right hon. Friends, but the right hon. Gentleman insists on not understanding.
  The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) reflected his lifelong experience in these matters and I would scarcely differ from a word of it.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined the provisions of the Bill once again, so in view of the short time that the right hon. Member for Doncaster has left me I shall not go over the provisions again.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) made the same speech as he made yesterday, even introducing the same addled curate's egg. His only new point was that General Galtieri does not like trade unions. I hope that he will tell that to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), as it might change the right hon. Gentleman's attitude of support for that regime.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to the case of a miner's loss of the right to redundancy pay. I know that he has written to the Department about that case. It raises serious issues and I
  400
  shall examine it to see whether we can help. As he knows, however, there are more complications than he could explain in an understandably short speech.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield asked about the coming into force of the Bill. I repeat that clause 1 and schedule 1 will come into effect immediately upon enactment. As I have made perfectly plain, the closed shop balloting provisions will come into force one or two years after enactment, when I have considered how much notice might be required to ensure that all unions and employers have had time to make suitable arrangements. The remainder of the provisions will come into effect without abnormal delay. That is what I said in Committee and again yesterday. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked about future legislation, and in particular about legislation on ballots. Unions are powerful bodies both in relation to the community at large and in relation to individuals. In many cases, their balloting procedures for senior offices are highly unsatisfactory. Time and again, there are challenges in the courts alleging ballot-rigging and similar malpractice. Sometimes people are elected for life on tiny and perhaps unrepresentative minorities in ballots which are disputed. Public concern about these matters is growing and I am conscious of that pressure.
  I still hope that unions will reform their own procedures. That is the best way to allay the well-founded public concern about this. I am ready to help the unions to do that. Money is available to finance secret postal ballots, and if more help is needed I will see whether I can give it. I hope, however, that trade unions will not try the patience of the public too far or they will build up an irresistible pressure for legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), in his account of the persecution of a man who was deprived of his job merely because he did not go along with an unlawful act by a trade union, made the case for the Bill in his speech alone. If there were no other case for the Bill, that case would be ample and sufficient. Indeed, depending on the date and circumstances, a case might even have been brought under the 1980 Act, although I rather doubt it. Certainly further reform is needed to put that beyond doubt.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made a very fair speech about the Bill. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it was the speech of a true Liberal—not only with a capital "L", but also with a small "l". I disagree with very little of what he said, except his order of priority of legislation and his view of employee involvement where my view may be slightly different on some issues.
  In the Bill, we have dealt with the abuse of industrial power, but I hope that no one will make the mistake of thinking that legislation alone can improve industrial relations. The prime responsibility falls on management and work forces, and it has been willingly accepted of late. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield fairly said that after the winter of discontent which was caused by the Labour Government's policies and did so much to bring that Government down, industrial relations have greatly improved. Last year was the best year in relation to strikes since 1941, and this year has started very well. Of course, these things are always open to change and we must keep working to improve industrial relations as they have been improved in the past three years.

  401
  We heard again about the closed shop today. The Opposition say that it is wrong to allow workers to ballot on the closed shop. We are told that the closed shop is flexible, tolerant and popular but not popular enough to risk a vote. It is flexible and tolerant and can deal with the mavericks, but if those mavericks were allowed to have their way, there would be an avalanche of dismissals by trade unions to enforce discipline against those who do not pay dues to the unions.
  There has been talk of free riders, but no conclusive evidence that the unions have always brought benefits to their members. Indeed, there is often evidence to the contrary. What benefit was brought to the workers of British Leyland by the union protection that for years was given to the destructive activities of Red Robbo? Anybody who paid union dues that were used to protect that man should promptly ask for his money back.
  There was talk in Committee, but not on the Floor of the House, about the case of the British Rail workers—not, I hasten to add, from the Opposition, who still have not said whether they accept the judgment of the European Court in this case or whether they want to put the law back to the position in 1976 which was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even at this late hour, I should be happy to give the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) the opportunity to say whether or not he accepts that judgment, but he clearly does not wish to take it.
  We come to the end of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. The House has endorsed not only its principles but its detailed construction. Amendments and improvements have been made in the light of our discussions, but no credible arguments have been put forward to undermine the Bill. We were told that it would be fought line by line, but the Opposition did not always seem to have their hearts in the job. I know that they were discouraged by the majority of 106 on Second Reading. That may have been increased by the Hillhead effect, just as the Beaconsfield and Mitcham effects may erode that majority a little today. I understand that, rather than risk another three-way split, the SDP will take a positive, courageous decision to abstain en masse. The party that began by trying to get the don't-knows to join it has itself joined the don't-knows.
  For whatever cause, the opposition has faded. Yesterday, our majority ranged from about 70 to about 200. Once the timetable was agreed, the time allocated was never fully used in Committee. That is because in their hearts Opposition Members know full well that, in the next Parliament, there will not be a majority to repeal the Bill—rather the reverse. It is more likely that there will be a majority for further measures—perhaps, for example, to democratise the trade unions.
  The Bill is another step on the road to improving our industrial relations, making our work force more effective and our industry and commerce more successful and profitable so that they can offer more, better paid and more secure jobs. The Bill deserves its Third Reading. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friend to support it with me in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 224.

  Division No. 163]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Eggar, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Elliott, Sir William

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Eyre, Reginald

  Arnold, Tom

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Farr, John

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David(B'm'th E)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Banks, Robert

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

  Beith, A. J.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fox, Marcus

  Best, Keith

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freud, Clement

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Blaker, Peter

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Body, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Gow, Ian

  Brinton, Tim

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  Brotherton, Michael

  Greenway, Harry

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Grieve, Percy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Grylls, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nick

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, John

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hastings, Stephen

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heddle, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Henderson, Barry

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hill, James

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Cope, John

  Hooson, Tom

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hordern, Peter

  Corrie, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Costain, Sir Albert

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Howells, Geraint

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Dover, Denshore

  Jessel, Toby

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Dunlop, John

  Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  403

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knox, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lang, Ian

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Renton, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  RhodesJames, Robert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Loveridge, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Luce, Richard

  Rost, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Scott, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N bury)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Major, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Marlow, Antony

  Sims, Roger

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Dudley

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

  Mawby, Ray

  Speed, Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Speller, Tony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spence, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Mellor, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Squire, Robin

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Stainton, Keith

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanley, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stevens, Martin

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Moore, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Stokes, John

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Myles, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Needham, Richard

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Donald

  Neubert, Michael

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Newton, Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Normanton, Tom

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Trippier, David

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Trotter, Neville

  Osborn, John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Viggers, Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Waddington, David

  Parris, Matthew

  Wakeham, John

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Pawsey, James

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Penhaligon, David

  Waller, Gary

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Walters, Dennis

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pollock, Alexander

  Watson, John

  Porter, Barry

  Wells, Bowen

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Wheeler, John

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  404

  Wilkinson, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Forrester, John

  Adams, Allen

  Foulkes, George

  Allaun, Frank

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

  George, Bruce

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Golding, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Ted

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

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

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Homewood, William

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hooley, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Cant, R. B.

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Huckfield, Les

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  John, Brynmor

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Cowans, Harry

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kerr, Russell

  Crowther, Stan

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cunningham, G.(Islington S)

  Lambie, David

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

  Lamborn, Harry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lamond, James

  Davidson, Arthur

  Leighton, Ronald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Deakins, Eric

  Litherland, Robert

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dewar, Donald

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Dixon, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dobson, Frank

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dormand, Jack

  McElhone, Frank

  Dubs, Alfred

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Eadie, Alex

  McMahon, Andrew

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McTaggart, Robert

  English, Michael

  McWilliam, John

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton.)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ewing, Harry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martin, M (G'gow S 'burn)

  Field, Frank

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Fitch, Alan

  Maxton, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Ford, Ben

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  405

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Morton, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Newens, Stanley

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stoddart, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Palmer, Arthur

  Straw, Jack

  Park, George

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Parry, Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Tilley, John

  Prescott, John

  Tinn, James

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Torney, Tom

  Race, Reg

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Radice, Giles

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Richardson, Jo

  Watkins, David

  Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

  Weetch, Ken

  Roberts, Allan(Bootle)

  Welsh, Michael

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  White, Frank R.

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Robertson, George

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Whitlock, William

  Rooker, J. W.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Ryman, John

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

  Sever, John

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Woodall, Alec

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Silverman, Julius

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question Accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7.12 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill gives legislative effect to a most important section of the Conservative manifesto. We said in that section:
  "For violent criminals and thugs really tough sentences are essential. But in other cases long prison terms are not always the best deterrent. So we want to see a wider variety of sentences available to the courts."
  The Bill received its Second Reading with no Division. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who is sitting in lone splendour on the Opposition Front Bench, gave it what she described as "a cautious welcome".
  In Committee, for over 60 hours, our debates were marked by the concern of everyone to grapple with the absorbing problems of crime and criminality. If there were observers who had expected stereotyped conflict across the Committee, they will not have found it. As I have cause to remember, it was a Committee of singularly independent minds.
  We were greatly helped by the enormous volume of comment from outside and inside Parliament. I should like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee, and those who spoke on Report, for the care which they addressed to the Bill—even though many Labour members of the Committee are not in the Chamber today. I especially thank my hon. Friends for their support in carrying the Bill through to Third Reading. Nor can I in fairness withhold a tribute from the stamina and learning of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
  I acknowledge that when we have to sentence someone for a criminal offence we are in a sense already too late, because someone else has already suffered a wrong through the commission of the crime, a wrong which will seldom be remedied, whatever happens to the criminal.
  We are, and we ought to be, primarily interested in preventing crime, not simply in securing detection and punishment when it occurs. Whatever is needed to diminish criminality is certainly not confined to legislation, and the Government recognise that. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now reviewing, with other colleagues in the Government, the great potential that exists, quite separately from direct police action, for local initiatives to diminish crime, to reduce the opportunities for it, and to increase awareness among the public of what can and should be done.
  I agree with those who hold that it is the standards of mutual care and mutual thoughtfulness that are established in a child's home in his early life, and the discipline that he also learns at school that will deeply influence his behaviour towards others in later life. No Criminal Justice Bill can legislate for that.
  There is, however, much that sensible legislation can do. We have not been divided in the House by the contention that no Criminal Justice Bill is needed. On the contrary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said on Second Reading:
  "We certainly do not propose to divide against the Bill, as it contains good aspects on which we believe it is possible to build."
  On the same occasion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:

  407
  "We must have a sentencing structure which, while recognising that custody may be essential, secures that it be used only where necessary."—[Official Report, 20 January 1982, Vol. 16, c. 294–303.]
  That has proved to be common ground.
  It is natural that part 1 of the Bill is devoted to young offenders. Most crime is committed by young offenders, and it is among young people that the offending rate is highest. I do not believe that many hon. Members will distance themselves from the unequivocal assertion of principle in clause 1 that
  "no court shall pass a sentence of imprisonment on a person under 21 years of age … unless…no other method of dealing with him is appropriate."
  We all want, if it is possible consistently with the safety
  of the public, to keep young people out of custody, albeit if necessary under some well-judged restrictions on the use they can make of their time, rather than send them inside an establishment where, it must be admitted, the chances of rehabilitation are so far not encouraging.
  As the result of discussion in Committee, we have been able to accede to Opposition requests to give that key-note provision a sharper focus. A new clause has therefore been inserted which will ensure no court shall pass a custodial sentence on a young offender who has not been legally represented. The Government have also accepted the principle that unless there are special reasons, which it should state, a court shall consider a social inquiry report about a young offender and his behaviour before passing a custodial sentence on him. These are but two of a number of instances where we have felt able to move in the direction generally sought by the Opposition.
  But another aspect of our duty—the provision of greater discretion to sentence sternly in a proper case—has been
  fulfilled by providing for the repeal of section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. This will bear on the relatively small number of young criminals committing serious offences for whom it is appropriate not only that they should go into custody, but that they should go inside for a substantial time.
  In future, it will be possible for most of such young offenders to be sent inside for terms as long as if they were over 21—at present, sentences falling between six months and three years are in most cases excluded. That was a specific manifesto commitment and it has not been controversial, although we pressed for it in vain for years when the Labour Party was in power. It was welcomed by the hon. Member for Ormskirk on behalf of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group.
  Not only does the provision restore much-needed flexibility to the courts' sentencing powers; it is also a corollary of our belief that all custodial sentences for young offenders should be determinate, save for life sentences. How long a youngster stays in custody, subject to parole and remission for good conduct, should be decided by the court and known from the beginning. That policy—it is a prime mover in the Bill's machinery—was also universally approved in our discussions. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he was in favour of the amalgamation of prisons and borstal and the introduction of determinate sentences. That is what the Bill achieves. Again, I am happy to be able to report further wide areas of common ground on the Bill.
  One of the most important and interesting debates that took place in Committee was about whether there should be statutory guidelines for the courts on the circumstances in which a custodial sentence should be regarded as
  408
  unavoidable. Many hon. Members believe that that can be so only when the offender appears unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties, when a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public, or when the offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified. Those principles are unexceptionable. We accept them and there is no judicial disagreement about their correctness. They are considerations which the courts should and do have in mind.
  There is real doubt about the value, and indeed the wisdom, of principles statutorily expressed at that level of generality, which nonetheless will come to form the subject of minute textual analysis as the cases come be fore the courts. We have come to the firm conclusion, following consultations, and after careful thought, that the type of guidelines in that context which are really helpful and effective are those which in its judgments the Court of Appeal lays down.
  I noted that in Standing Committee the hon. Member for Ormskirk said:
  "perhaps a great deal could be done if there was an authoritative statement by the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor on unnecessary use, as distinct from unnecessary length. of prison sentences."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 February 1982; c. 49–50.]
  We agree.
  The Court of Appeal can explain the principles, and get them across in language much less restricted and more readily grasped than the language of statute. It can use language that can call in aid examples of illustrations, delivered perhaps in judgments which are grouped together, to present a variety of circumstances, as when the Court of Appeal followed up the Upton judgment with the judgments in Bibi and other cases in 1980. Those judgments are now acknowledged to have been highly influential in the shortening of certain sentences.
  I can assure the House that we can expect the Court of Appeal to take suitable and early opportunities to lay down guidelines of that nature on the proper use of the sentencing powers which the Bill will give the courts in respect of young offenders. I am certain that that is the right way to provide the safeguards against unnecessary custody for young offenders that we would all like. However, when there has to be a custodial sentence, obviously there is a strong case for a power to let it be a very short sentence. It makes sense to keep the detention centres, the regimes of which are geared to shorter sentences, but to reduce the minimum sentence to three weeks, or two weeks with remission. The Bill does that, since there is good reason to believe that the earliest weeks are the most influential.
  It is now well understood by th judiciary at all levels that the shorter sentence must not be used to give a taste of custody to an offender who would at present not even be given a suspended sentence, let alone an immediate prison sentence.
  There is further common ground. The stronger supervision order provided by the Bill will help to enhance the courts' confidence in supervision orders. For the first time the courts will be given power to control the regime that the supervision order will impose—of course, consulting the supervisor. For the first time they can say what the young offender shall do and what he shall refrain from doing.
  We are considering amending the clause in another place so that the central principle of the curfew order

  409
  proposed in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) may be incorporated into a supervision order as a condition of it. We are advised that that would go a long way to meet many of the reservations expressed about my hon. and learned Friend's new clause which he withdrew after debate, and would be seen to be of real value. The strengthening of the supervision order in the Bill as drafted has again attracted much support.
  Mr. John Carlisle: May we have an absolute commitment that an amendment will be made in another place to provide a curfew order? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the strong support for the idea, not only on the Government Benches but throughout the country? May we have an assurance that something will be in the Bill when it returns from the House of Lords?
  Mr. Mayhew: We are looking closely to see whether the relevant clause can be adapted to provide for the principle of a curfew order to be incorporated in a supervision order as part and parcel of it. We are hopeful that that will be possible, but I cannot go further than that. I hope that it will be possible because I am sympathetic to the broad idea of a curfew order. We have to pay attention to the strong reservations and misgivings about enforceability if such an order were free standing and able to be imposed by itself as a penalty by the courts. I tried to make that clear in the debate on Report.
  There is grave overcrowding in our prisons. That has been fed by the increased volume of serious crime. Our aim, not least in the interests of the dedicated prison service, is for prison occupancy to come down as soon as possible to a tolerable level. The prisons exist to serve the criminal justice system, not the other way round.
  The demand for prison places depends on sentencing decisions taken by a properly independent judiciary. It takes into account the present overcrowding. It needs the insistent guidance of the Court of Appeal that custodial sentences should be imposed only when absolutely necessary, and then for no longer than necessary. We believe that it is right that serious offences of violence should generally lead to substantial prison sentences. They will, of course, continue to be available. Most such offences carry maximum sentences of 14 years, or even life. Fortunately, the movement towards shorter prison sentences for non-violent offences imposed by Crown courts and magistrates' courts—a movement since the lead first given by the Court of Appeal in 1980—is being maintained. Analysis of the prison population through 1981 shows that the number of offenders serving terms of over 18 months has declined significantly.
  We are absolutely clear that it would be right for Governments to interfere directly with the exercise of judicial discretion only in circumstances of overriding prison emergency, and then, wherever possible, subject to prior parliamentary approval. Should exceptional circumstances arise in which it is not possible to obtain Parliament's prior approval we have provided that the power be limited so that only prisoners in the last month of their sentences can be released under it, and again, not if their convictions are for violent offences.
  Naturally, however, overcrowding in the prisons has spurred us to examine every means by which changes in the law could bring relief, especially if they bring
  410
  penalogical advantages in their own right, as is the case with each of the measures that we have added to the Bill. Among those proposed, and overwhelmingly supported on all sides in Committee and accepted by us, are measures to abolish imprisonment for the offences of begging, sleeping rough and soliciting as a prostitute; a measure to remove the anomaly that time spent in custody on remand simultaneous to a detention order under the Immigration Act 1979 should not be taken into account in calculating the release date; a measure to allow a court to order the release, subject to conditions, of a person that recommended for deportation; a measure to limit the periods of imprisonment that can be imposed by the Crown court for fine default. We have undertaken to provide in another place for a legally aided appeal to the Crown court against refusal of bail and to give magistrates the power to commit to the Crown court following an initial deferment of sentence.
  We have undertaken to take powers in the Bill to lower the threshold for parole, it being understood that at present we can give no commitment. In addition, the Bill will significantly relieve pressure on the prison service by another reform which is supported by the all-party penal affairs group. A remanded prisoner will need to attend court—of course, under escort—only once in four weeks, provided that he consents and is legally represented throughout, instead of every eight days as at present. However, it will still be every eight days that the courts must consider afresh whether to renew the remand.
  The greatest aid to reducing the prison population is a measure for which the Advisory Council on the Penal System gave its support as long ago as 1978. I refer to partial suspension of sentences, with the first part served in prison and the second part suspended. Of this, the advisory council said:
  "It enables the court to pronounce a sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence but which does not need to be fully executed;…there is a double deterrent effect, consisting of an initial period of custody, with the balance of the sentence providing postponed deterrence during the suspension period."
  Later, the council added:
  "Partial suspension provides an opportunity for the court to impose a shorter custody than it otherwise might, knowing that on release from prison a specific contingent liability to imprisonment will remain."
  I acknowledge that there was a subsequent time when there was anxiety that this sentence would be used to give a taste of prison to a person who at present would not be given a custodial sentence at all. We expressed that anxiety in the review of parole last year. Of course it is a possibility. However, our consultations among the judiciary last summer established a wide awareness of the way in which the partially suspended sentence should be used. In consequence we do not think that it will be misapplied.
  The virtue of partial review is that it is discretionary. It preserves the discretion of the courts and is not a general gaol delivery taking effect after one third of every sentence has been served. That was the great defect that was perceived in our earlier suggestion for supervised release, which we said we put forward expressly for consultation.
  In support of partially suspended sentences I am happy to rely on two further statements of high authority. The first is from my predessor, as Minister of State, Home Office, who had charge of the Criminal Law Bill in 1977,

  411
  the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). In considering that Bill on Report he said of the partially suspended sentence:
  "Fears have been expressed that the new form of sentence will lead not to a diminution in the prison population but to an expansion. [strongly believe that the opposite will be true…The courts are being given maximum flexibility in the type of sentence they may pass, and I hope that they will use it in such a way that the prison population, which is, alas, too high, will be reduced without a significant diminution of the deterrent effect."
  On the same day the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said:
  "I, too, congratulate the Government on New Clause 4… the new clause does not have just the motive of reducing the prison population—although that is important—but is intended to give the courts greater flexibility and discretion in their sentencing processes which, in company with the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells… I hope they will use imaginatively. The courts should use the powers available in the new clause to obtain a reduction in the prison population and a far more sensible attitude to sentencing."—[Official Report, 13 July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 462, 475.]
  On that occasion I put it only slightly better myself.
  The Bill will contribute massively to the aptitude of our criminal justice system—
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Mayhew: —and its ability to respond with intelligence and flexibility, as well as with stern strength, to the challenge of modern crime. It rightly received its Second Reading without a Division, and that is the basis on which—responsibly amended as it has been in Committee—it deserves its Third Reading tonight.
  7.36 pm
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Consideration of the Bill has provided us with a valuable opportunity to introduce changes in the sentencing and treatment of offenders, especially of young people who are appearing before the courts in increasing numbers. The changes should be designed to deter as well as to punish criminals. The Bill provides the the courts with a range of powers to deal with offenders, the aim being more flexible sentencing. However, unless each of these powers can be shown to be effective and a deterrent to further crime, it will be hard to justify them. Indeed, they could even be counter-productive. The quality of sentences is obviously more important than the range of sentences which is on offer.
  The Minister has listed the areas of common ground between the Government and the opposition. We welcome the many valuable and important additions and changes in the Bill that were agreed to in Committee and on Report. These included the removal of the penalty of imprisonment for soliciting, sleeping rough and begging and involve attendance centre orders, Immigration Act prisoners, discretionary parole for short-term prisoners and bail applications by remand prisoners. However, there are major aspects of the Bill which we cannot support and which we tried unsuccessfully to alter in Committee. There were 25 sittings of the Committee, including a sittings motion that was designed to speed up the proceedings.
  We are opposed to the imposition of a custodial sentence on any offender under 17 years of age, be that offender a boy or a girl. A valuable opportunity has been lost to move from custody of very young offenders towards the concept of their care and control within the
  412
  community. For young offenders over 17 an opportunity has been lost to introduce one sentence of youth custody and supervision of indeterminate length with the chance of full educative and rehabilitative treatment for all.
  If a young person has to be given a custodial sentence, the emphasis should be upon opportunities for training, education and preparation for a return to life outside. The sentence of youth custody, which we proposed in Committee, would have been exactly the same for boys and girls. It would have replaced the undesirable manifestation of sex discrimination in the Bill as it stands, for which there can be no justification. Boys and girls should be liable to the same type of sentence and regimes.
  Existing regimes have manifestly failed. In 1977, 83 per cent. of all youths leaving borstal training were re-convicted within two years, and 76 per cent. of youths leaving detention centres were re-convicted within two years. The continuation of detention centres, with their notoriously high reconviction rate, is one of the most retrogressive features of the Bill. There can be no justification for supporting a regime which has manifestly failed to deter or to reform.
  Detention centres have become totally discredited among the people who work with young offenders. They can even alienate young offenders and make them wish to re-offend. The present short, sharp shock experiment is unnecessary. The 1970 Advisory Council on the Penal System has already reported on the effects of detention centres. We are given no justification for the Bill's endorsement of the centres and for their indefinite continuation. On the contrary, the regimes have been tried and found wanting. Only the punitive elements of the Conservative Party will welcome their perpetuation.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way'?
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: There is a punitive element.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady draws attention to the fact that the recidivism rate is extremely high. Perhaps the treatment was not strong enough. Does she have an alternative system to reduce the rate?
  Dr. Summerskill: We do not have the results of the experiment from the Government. That is another reason why it is difficult to justify continuation of the centres. There is no evidence that the present regime is different from that examined by the advisory council.
  Mr. Carlisle: Should we not give the punishment more time before judging it?
  Dr. Summerskill: We are told something of the regime but not of the results. There is no difference between the present regime and that reported on by the advisory council in 1970. Everyone who has worked with offenders or examined the evidence on recidivism states that the centres are ineffective and can be counter-productive.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Can the hon. Lady advance evidence to show that the kindness alternative approach would have a recidivism rate of less than 76 per cent?
  Dr. Summerskill: If Conservative Members wish to experiment, perhaps they should shut detention centres. Givern an alternative regime, people may not re-offend in such large numbers.
  The size of the prison population is uppermost in the mind of anyone interested in the criminal justice system.

  413
  At Question Time tomorrow we shall hear from the Government what the latest prison population is. I understand that it is nearly 44,000. In many prisons conditions are degrading, inhuman and totally unacceptable. On Second Reading the Home Secretary stated:
  "We must have a sentencing structure which, while recognising that custody may be essential, secures that it be used only where necessary."
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill by reinforcing the movement towards shorter sentences, would relieve the pressures on our under-provisioned prison system. That was one of his aims. He was again advocating the use of custody only where necessary. On another occasion he stated that its use should be reserved for offenders who were a danger to society. He repeated his exhortation for shorter sentences, in which he was joined by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.
  We were led to believe that both objectives would be promoted in the Bill, with a consequent reduction in the prison population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) stated:
  "It is against the belief that the prison population should be reduced and that the Home Secretary can act to reduce it that we must judge the Bill."—[Official Report, 20 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 294–303.]
  That is why I gave the Bill only a cautious welcome.
  In Committee we sought to amend the Bill with the two central objectives of reducing the numbers given custodial sentences and reducing the length of sentence with a view significantly and permanently to reducing the prison population. Due to the resistance of the Government and their supporters we are left with a Bill which contains measures that could increase the prison population and the number on residential care orders and which totally lacks a major positive measure significantly and permanently to reduce the prison population.
  Three measures could lead to an increase in the prison population, prison establishments and people in residential care. The major one is the introduction of the partially suspended sentence. By its nature, the measure is a shot in the dark. It might be used to give an offender a short taste of imprisonment in cases where at present courts would impose a fully suspended or non-custodial sentence. The Minister of State has described it as a "gamble". He said that only an informed guess tells him that the new power will be properly used.
  The Parole Board opposed the provision. Last year its report stated that
  "there can be no certainty that implementing the section would achieve any reduction in the numbers in custody".
  Most informed opinion agrees, and also agrees that the measure could gravely increase the number in custody. Bodies such as NACRO, the Justices Clerks Society, the probation officers and the Advisory Council on the Penal System support that view.
  Is it right to gamble with the prison population? The Government may lose, which would be a disaster. The success or failure of the measure depends on the courts. If they do not respond to the exhortation, there could be a serious rise in the prison population. We need a positive measure to reduce it.
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we should let people off because our prisons are full? Is not the answer to build more prisons?
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman did not suggest to the Minister that we should build more prisons. He is entitled to his view, but I do not believe that it has much support.
  Mr. John Carlisle: When I tried to intervene my hon. and learned Friend looked the other way.
  In my county, the court telephones the prison to discover how many places are available before deciding whether to impose a prison sentence. In her anxiety and enthusiasm to reduce the prison population, the hon. Lady may give comfort to criminals. Should she not support the Home Secretary in his keen attempt to build more prisons and increase the number of places available for people committed to prison?
  Dr. Summerskill: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. I shall be coming later to the relationship between the courts, when they sentence, and the number of prison places available. We dealt with the issue in Committee.
  A further measure in the Bill that could increase the prison population is the shorter detention centre sentence. Although shorter sentences are to be welcomed both by the Government, I understand, and by the Opposition, the reduction of the minimum sentence at detention centres from three months to three weeks could mean this form of sentence, which is not used at present, being used by courts to give offenders a very short experience of a detention centre. That is the firm belief of probation officers and of many others.
  In Committee, the Opposition asked that no custodial sentence should be imposed on a young offender unless he had shown himself unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or a custodial sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. The Minister agreed to consider whether some additional guidance on criteria for custodial sentences might be included in the Bill. As this did not appear on Report, I wonder whether the Minister has considered the matter, as he undertook to do, and what is the result of his consideration.
  Mr. Mayhew: The great penalty of being tied to every word that one has prepared for one's speech is that one is unable to respond to a speech made immediately before one's own. I spent quite a lot of time dealing with this issue. I endeavored to explain that we had come to the firm conclusion, following consultation, that the kind of guidance that is helpful is that which comes from the judgments of the Court of Appeal, as in the case of Upton and Bibi, because the court can group cases together and illustrate their principles by references to varying circumstances. I spent quite a long time on the matter. The hon. Lady will perhaps be able to read my remarks tomorrow.
  Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that. It means that the Minister has not accepted the specific proposals made by the Opposition in Committee. We are still left with the real possibility—probation officers believe it is a certainty—that more young people will be sent to detention centres than are now being sent because of the availability of this much shorter sentence.
  Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Lady suggests that probation officers believe that the shorter sentence will result in increased use of imprisonment. That can only be a subjective opinion. Does she have any

  415
  knowledge of the views of the Magistrates' Association? Has the association suggested that it believes that its members, who impose the shorter range of sentences, will make greater use of the custodial sentence? Is there any indication from the association that its members are thinking in that way?
  Dr. Summerskill: I have no such evidence from the magistrates. I can only quote the views of people who are working in the courts with offenders day by day. Much emphasis is given to the people who impose sentences. We tend not to give enough consideration to the views of people who are working with offenders and who are in court throughout their working lives. I believe that the views of probation officers are extremely important and should be seriously considered by the House.
  I come now to the new care orders. The Opposition unsuccessfully opposed clause 21 in Committee. Here, again, it will mean, according to people working in this sphere that 500 to 900 additional children a year will be kept in community homes away from their own homes at an estimated cost of £6 million. It has been said that the power in clause 21 could represent simply another non-custodial provision. But the probation officers and the young people involved frequently disagreed with this interpretation. They see it as another form of custodial sentence involving loss of liberty. If that argument does not persuade Conservative Members, I hope that the £6 million will. There is evidence that recidivism among children committed to care orders is over 50 per cent.
  I come now to the measures proposed by the Opposition which would have the effect of reducing the prison population. All were rejected by the Government. The most significant and effective proposal was automatic supervised release for prisoners sentenced to less than three years. This would reduce the prison population dramatically and continually. In that sense, it is incomparable to the partially suspended sentence proposal. At one time, it was enthusiastically canvassed by the Home Secretary inside and outside the House. It was then dropped, apparently after he had listened to the views of the judiciary.
  In Committee, hon. Members were told that there had been a sentencing seminar in Roehampton last autumn which was apparently a decisive event. It opposed this proposal, the main reason being, we were told, that it was not selective. I feel that the Government are allowing themselves to be controlled too much by the views of magistrates, judges, recorders and other members of the judiciary. The duty of the judiciary is to impose sentences within the limits set by Parliament. The duty of Parliament is to decide what those limits should be. The judiciary, because it sentences people, is not necessarily the fount of all wisdom, even on sentencing.
  Lord Justice Lawton, interviewed on television, said that, in his view, all first-time burglars should be locked up, apparently without the need for explanation and without taking any mitigating factors into consideration. There was to be no difference between one burglar and another. His view was simply that all first-time burglars should be locked up. That is an extremely dogmatic attitude to sentencing. It would be wrong for the House to take the views of the judiciary on sentencing as being the first and last word on the matter.
  Regardless of the explosion in our prison population and regardless of the views of many of those who work
  416
  with offenders, the Government are opposing this reasonable measure of automatic supervised release which they themselves canvassed. They are throwing away a great opportunity to bring about a dramatic and continued reduction in the prison population.
  The Government have also rejected other measures suggested by the Opposition to reduce the prison population. These included the proposal to take out of custody the under 17-year-olds and the proposal to make some offences non-imprisonable. The proposal to make male soliciting non-imprisonable was rejected by the Government, although they were prepared to make female soliciting non-imprisonable. The possession of cannabis for personal use is still to be imprisonable. Maintenance defaulters are still to be imprisoned. It has to be borne in mind that the Home Secretary's view is that the only people who should be put in prison are those who are a danger to the public. The right hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that all those people that I have mentioned fall into that category.
  We also proposed that drunks, who are fine defaulters, should be taken out of prison. Again, that was rejected. I draw the Minister of State's attention to the confusion that still seems to exist between himself and the Home Secretary on the question of drunks in prison. The Times reported the Home Secretary's speech to a conference of the Conservative Central Council in Bournemouth. The headline was:
  "Mr Whitelaw to stop jail terms for drunks."
  The report stated:
  "Mr. Whitelaw said it was no use continuing to overburden staff, too often working in antiquated and inadequate buildings, with petty offenders such as persistent drunks who could not pay their fines".
  We were assured by the Minister in Committee that the drunks who are imprisoned are not those who cannot pay their fines but those who will not pay them. Apparently there is all the difference in the world between a drunk who cannot pay and a drunk who will not pay his fine. They are still drunks and they are still in prison. It may have been a misprint, but of course it is The Times.Although the Home Secretary believes that the drunks in prisons cannot pay their fines, whereas the Minister of State believes that they will not, the Opposition believe that they should not be in prison at all.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Is the hon. Lady suggesting to the House that if the categories of prisoners that she has just described—drunks and those convicted of drug offences—are removed from the prisons, it will make any significant difference to the prison population?
  Dr. Summerskill: The number of people who would be removed from prison by all the measures that we proposed—automatic supervised release, the taking out of custody of those aged under 17, the four remaining offences that we wished to be made non-imprisonable, plus those that I shall now list—would add up ro thousands, especially with the emphasis on automatic supervised release.
  The introduction of a 110-day limit on custodial remand, which exists in Scotland, was discussed in Committee. I hope that it will be raised in another place, because the Government's answer was not at all satisfactory.
  In Committee, we proposed the establishment of guidelines for imposing custodial sentences. I now come

  417
  to the provision of information to courts about vacancies in penal establishments. This matter was raised by Conservative Members, and we also proposed it as a measure that would require courts to think long and hard before sending anyone to prison. Surely that cannot be a bad thing for the courts to do. Lord Harris, the chairman of the Parole Board, said that the board considers that factor when deciding whether to release a prisoner.It is far more sensible to take that into consideration before someone is sent to prison than when he is already there.
  On Second Reading, the Opposition stressed the major difficulties in and omissions from the Bill. Our efforts to correct them in Committee were opposed. The Bill fails to introduce a new single custodial sentence for all young offenders aged over 17 with early release to supervision in the community and it fails to introduce a measure, or measures, to bring about both a significant and a permanent reduction in the prison population.
  On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook said of the Bill:
  "Our continued support depends on the Government's cooperating with us when we make what we hope are entirely creative suggestions for ensuring that the new sentences and powers are used in the way that I believe the Home Secretary and the Government intend."—[Official Report, 20 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 303.]
  A golden opportunity for radical change has been lost. A chance to tackle decisively a crisis in our prisons has been thrown away. For those reasons, we shall oppose the Third Reading tonight.
  8.5 pm
  Mrs. Sheila Faith: I welcome the Bill, and I was privileged to serve on the Standing Committee for a short time. Combined with the policy of strengthening the police force and the proposed building of new prisons, the Bill should help to stem the increasing tide of lawlessness in our society.
  I am especially interested in the new shorter detention centre sentences and the stricter regime, because last September Foston Hall, a junior detention centre in my constituency, began a pilot scheme for the new short, sharp shock treatment. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Halifax, (Dr. Summerskill) that detention centres are of no use and never achieve results. Magistrates have given assurances that they will not use detention centres as a sentence unless a custodial sentence is deemed suitable.
  I have also had the opportunity of witnessing the frustration of judges in Crown courts over the restriction on the length of imprisonment for young offenders, because no sentence was allowed to be imposed of between six months and three years. I am glad that that restriction is to be removed. I know that magistrates who deal with juveniles have been worried about the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and will be glad to know that it has been revised. I welcome the fact that parents must bear in mind the fact that they may have to pay the fines imposed upon their children.
  I have no wish to find fault with the Bill, but I am concerned about clause 54. My concern is shared by the Magistrates' Association, which has asked me to state its concern on the Floor of the House. Magistrates are worried that soliciting by prostitutes on the streets of London and other large cities could again become a serious public
  418
  nuisance with the removal of imprisonment as a final sanction. They believe, therefore, that the possibility of imprisonment is the only real deterrent.
  The Magistrates' Association states:
  "It would seem that Parliament should consider whether there is any good purpose in retaining this law if, in the last resort, the sanction of imprisonment is not retained. To fine women in such a situation is merely an invitation to the offender to repeat the offence in order to pay the fine and, on the other hand, if the fine is not paid, they are liable to be imprisoned in default. To argue, as some do, that in the latter case a distinction can be made because they are then being imprisoned for disobedience to the order of a court does not seem to be either logical or helpful bearing in mind the likely source of any money to pay fines and the fact that the commission of an offence during the currency of a suspended sentence of imprisonment equally amounts to such disobedience."
  The association continues:
  "Many magistrates, therefore, are not attracted to the idea of fining women for such offences. The options of discharge or probation, of course, remain open for use in appropriate circumstances and the fact that, on third conviction, the offence is imprisonable means that it is possible to make a community service order. Strange though it may seem such orders have been made successfully. This power would be lost if the offence ceased to be imprisonable."
  Not all magistrates would agree with the views of the association, but whenever this matter has been debated by the association, proposals to remove the possibility of imprisonment for soliciting have been heavily defeated.
  Unlike other members of the Standing Committee who voted in favour of the new clause, I am old enough to remember what it was like in our cities before the Street Offences Act 1959 became law. Prostitution was very much in evidence in all areas of the West End of London and in the centres of our larger cities. However, I have received strong support from other hon. Members of my own generation.
  I know that my hon. Friends on the Committee were motivated by the most humane considerations when they voted for the new clause. I am sure that they were bearing in mind that conditions in our prisons are disgusting, overcrowded as they are. However, in trying to reduce the prison population in this way they are chasing rainbows. Since the early 1960s, only 300 prostitutes per year have been imprisoned, and then only for short periods. Therefore, we are not dealing with large numbers and the impact on the prison population will be small. Indeed, the women's prisons are not so crowded.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I remind my hon. Friend that probably the greatest offenders are not the women concerned, but those behind them. Does she not agree that it is unfair that the offenders whom we are trying to keep out of prison are those who commit the less serious offence? Should not my hon. Friend turn her attention to those behind the women, who are financing them, and who have the most to gain financially?
  Mrs. Faith: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I shall come to that issue.
  The number of people apprehended for soliciting dropped dramatically from a peak of 19,000 in 1959 to 3,000 in 1960. The 1959 Act worked very efficiently. The effect was immediate and spectacular. It would be a grave mistake to disturb that measure.
  It is the duty of the House to uphold the moral climate in our cities. I pay tribute to the Indecent Displays (Control) Act, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I was privileged to serve on the

  419
  Standing Committee that considered that Bill and all the political parties represented were agreed on the value of the measure. If the clause is allowed to remain in the Bill there will be a real deterioration in standards. Many people who voted Conservative at the last general election will be surprised that the Government are allowing this to happen. I am sure that my constituents did not elect me to allow a situation to develop where they will not be able to visit London, or even Derby, without being aware of the effects of the new clause.
  Mr. Wheeler: My hon. Friend suggests that some parts of our big cities—I refer to my constituency, which is within the area of London where these matters are of some consequence—will be worsened by the -removal of the power to imprison the more inadequate type of prostitute who is arrested and taken before the courts. That is not the view of my residents' association, nor is it the view of magistrates like myself who have served in inner London, or that of many other people who have given a great deal of thought to this problem. I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully before she makes sweeping generalisations about what she believes to be the views and opinions of people in inner London.
  Mrs. Faith: I am happy to say that I am not judging by experiences in my constituency, but looking back to several years ago when I was a magistrate in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which, unfortunately, is no stranger to this type of problem. I am putting forward the views not of all magistrates of course, but of the Magistrates' Association.
  I am not attempting to pass a moral judgment on the rights and wrongs of prostitution, and it is certainly not illegal. However, I should like to draw attention to an article in the News of the World on 14 March, in which prostitutes themselves denounced the move to end jail sentences for soliciting. They said:
  "Pimps would have a field day and the streets will be flooded with 16 and 17 year old girls."
  It may not be the duty of the House to moralise, but it is our duty to protect the safety of those girls.
  Before 1959 our cities were still relatively peaceful places. Since then we have had an alarming increase in violence, robbery, muggings and gangs of youths roaming the streets, as well as in indecent displays. If we add to that an increase in the number of prostitutes, often with their attendant pimps, even if to a lesser degree than in the 1940s and 1950s, it will cause a further deterioration in the moral atmosphere of our cities. I hope that before the Bill returns from another place it will have been amended so that new clause 54 is no longer part of an otherwise excellent measure.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I thank the Minister of State for his kind remarks about me and for, even at this late stage—in a move that may be unprecedented on a Third Reading—fulfilling a commitment that he gave to me in Committee and which he was not able to fulfil on Report because the appropriate new clause was not selected by Mr. Speaker.
  We were not able to debate on Report an amendment to ensure that more stringent criteria were imposed before a custodial sentence could be passed on a young offender. Those criteria were that the offender was a danger to himself or the public, or that he had shown himself unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial alternatives, or
  420
  that he had committed so serious an offence that a non-custodial sentence was clearly inappropriate. Although those safeguards are not written into the Bill, they will form the basis of the guidelines that the Court of Appeal will lay down for the lower courts on a suitable occasion, and I am grateful to the Minister of State for that.
  I said on Second Reading that I warmly welcomed several provisions in the Bill, but that it was a major disappointment for two main reasons. The first was that it did nothing to reverse the trend of the past decade or more towards an increasing number of young offenders and juveniles being incarcerated in penal establishments and residential institutions. Indeed, many aspects of the Bill may exacerbate, rather than reduce, that trend.
  The second major disappointment was that the Bill did not address itself to the crisis of overcrowding in the prison system and the appalling conditions in most of our local remand prisons. The Home Secretary has attested to that situation and has conceded that it is incompatible with minimum standards of human decency. [Interruption.]
  May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suggest that the hon. Members behind me who are carrying on a conversation should do so outside and not in the Chamber? I have tolerated it for some time and I would not normally object, but one of the hon. Gentlemen has a very resonant voice which makes it difficult for me to concentrate.
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: We are prompting you.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman could not do that even if he tried.
  Although the Bill was improved in Committee, mainly because the Government accepted amendments tabled on behalf of the all-party parliamentary penal affairs group, the criticisms that I and several other hon. Members made on Second Reading are still valid.
  The Bill contains several proposals, particularly in part I, that should be welcomed, including the merging of the borstal training sentence and imprisonment into a new youth custody sentence and the enshrinement of the principle of determinacy of prison sentences for young people. That is a milestone on the road to a more sensible sentencing practice. Again, the Bill makes provision for time spent on remand to be counted for all custodial sentences for young offenders. That should be welcomed by everyone.
  Then there are the alternatives to custody which are now enshrined in the Bill, be they the supervised activity schemes, the long-awaited extension of community service orders to 16-year-olds, or the extension of the Crown courts' ability to pass attendance centre orders. Those are all highly desirable reforms, although the Government must acknowledge that, unless and until sufficient financial resources are made available to ensure that those alternatives become a reality, they will not achieve their objectives, which are shared by Labour Members.
  Part I of the Bill has been substantially improved by amendments tabled in Committee—reference was made to them but the provenance was not given—by the parliamentary penal affairs group. In particular, there is the provision for imposing statutory criteria for the imposition of a secure care order on children placed in secure care in community homes.
  There was the amendment tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group to relax the prohibition on an

  421
  attendance centre order being passed on those who had a previous custodial sentence. There was the amendment tabled by the official Opposition requiring that social inquiry reports should be undertaken—except in exceptional circumstances—before a custodial sentence is imposed. There was the improvement—proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and accepted—that legal representation should be mandatory before a custodial sentence is imposed upon a young offender. There was the Minister's announcement to me in correspondence that the Government will amend the Bill in another place to provide that juveniles given a youth custody sentence will not usually be held in adult prisons, except on a temporary basis. All those are substantial and important improvements made in Committee, yet there are two major drawbacks, in spite of those improvements to part I of the Bill.
  The first is undoubtedly the irrelevance and absurdity of the retention of the residential care order. Admittedly, the Government seem to be as embarrassed by that manifesto commitment as we are assured that it will not achieve any of its objectives, and that it will be counterproductive to the underlying philosophy of the Bill. It is a major and monumental irrelevance at a time when the Government acknowledge that far too many young people are held in residential institutions, and are held for too long, and when it is acknowledged that it damages the majority of them rather than helping them in any constructive way; when the Government accept that the recidivist rate in community homes is 76 per cent. higher than that in penal establishments, and when the Government acknowledge that all informed professional opinion is of the view that there should be a shift in emphasis away from custodial residential placements to treatment to care within the community. Having accepted all those factors, the Government nevertheless produce the ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and mischievous proposal to impose a residential care order.
  The Government have advanced £6 million for the residential care order when only £2 million can be found for intermediate treatment, even though the Secretary of State for Social Services and his junior Minister have said repeatedly that it is intermediate treatment that should be encouraged and behind which resources should be placed, and that residential treatment and residential care should be diminished. In this case in practice the exact opposite is happening to what the Government said they wanted.
  The hon. and l earned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) says that residential care orders are important. That was the implication of his rejection of my earlier comments. There is no way that he or his right hon. and hon. Friends can show that those orders will contribute towards dealing with the needs of delinquent juveniles or towards creating a more sensible, humane and efficient penal and criminal justice system. They will not reduce the level of juvenile crime. I hope that the Government may be persuaded in another place—not least by their own supporters—that even this watered-down version of what we find in the manifesto will do a great deal of damage to young people and the penal system. It is better lost now, before that damage happens.
  The consequences that may flow from the ability of the courts to impose shorter detention centre sentences are another drawback to part I. I approve of the power given
  422
  to courts to pass shorter sentences wherever possible. I accept that the Government share my intention of wanting to ensure that young people spend less time in custody. The Government must also accept that there are considerable misgivings on the part of those who administer the system, whether they be governors, prison officers or probation officers. They fear that the power given to the courts will result in a larger number of young boys being given the taste of imprisonment who would not otherwise have been given a custodial sentence. It is important to establish statutory safeguards to ensure that a prison sentence is passed only as a last resort on an individual who actually needs it, and to whom it would be of benefit.
  The part of the Bill that deals with adults has been substantially improved, almost exclusively as a result of amendments tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group in Committee. We have ended, rightly and properly, the absurdity and irrelevence—whatever the hon. Lady the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) may say, who seems to speak without her customary information—of the imprisonment of prostitutes for soliciting and those vulnerable, inarticulate and disadvantaged members of the community who commit the previously imprisonable offences of begging and sleeping rough. Those decisions were taken by members of all parties. They are welcome improvements.
  We have given remand prisoners the right to apply to the Crown court for bail. We have empowered the courts to release on bail those recommended for deportation. We have reversed the judgments in the Gilby case and the Rogers v. Cullen case. We have reduced the period for which the Crown court can imprison fine defaulters. We have introduced the possibility of the implementation of discretionary parole for short-term prisoners. Those improvements all resulted from amendments tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group.
  I should like to congratulate the Minister on having accepted those amendments and on having shown a facility—both in Committee and on Report, and even at this late hour—for being receptive to arguments, flexible in adapting those arguments and reasonably open-minded in an attempt to improve the Bill. It is fair to record that amendments tabled by the Oppostition or on an all-party basis found a receptive, willing and sympathetic ear in the Minister.
  I am not suggesting that the Minister of State is perfect. No Tory is perfect, by definition. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not perfect and, unfortunately, he was not prepared to listen to the cogent arguments advanced by the Opposition in favour of amendments which would have reduced the prison population substantially. The Bill contains no major provision, regretfully, which would deal with the crisis with which we are confronted. There are, of course, many sensible and desirable proposals in the Bill, and I do not gainsay that, but as a Bill it is irrelevant to the more than 44,000 people in our prisons today.
  The partially suspended sentence provided for in clause 25 will apparently—and, on all the evidence available to us, is likely to—increase the prison population rather than reduce it. I accept that it is a gamble. I accept that there may be a fine balance between whether there will be more or fewer people in prison as a result of the activation of partially suspended sentences, but we all know that had the Minister of State been prepared to accept amendments designed to introduce automatic release on parole after the

  423
  expiry of one third of a sentence through the Bill, we could have reduced the prison population by a significant 7,000. We all know, too, that if the Government had been prepared to accept amendments, again tabled by the parliamentary penal affairs group, to introduce a conditional release scheme of the kind that has been operating successfully in Northern Ireland since 1976, we could have reduced the prison population by about 4,000.
  Neither method would be enough to achieve the objectives set for us by the Government, the Prison and Borstal Governors' Association and the new chief inspector of prisons, all of whom want to get the prison population down to the middle 30,000 figure. Neither of the two suggested amendments would have achieved that, but they would have made a substantial march on the road towards a more humane level of prison population.
  I accept that the Government responded positively to our amendments proposing to provide that short-term prisoners should be eligible for parole and that parole eligibility should be reduced from 12 to six months, and we have amended the Bill so that the Minister may by order introduce that if at the end of his review he finds the system to be practicable. If the hon. and learned Gentleman succeeds in catching your eye a second time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will say how long he expects the review to take.
  The most important feature of the Bill is the way in which it addresses itself to the two fundamental problems that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks. It does not really relate to the very serious problems of our juvenile system, and clearly it is irrelevant to the real, fundamental and deep-seated problems of overcrowding in our prisons.
  The Home Secretary has gone up and down the country telling everyone that there is no need for the large number of people to be kept in our prisons who are there today. He has argued convincingly, articulately and with great sincerity that many thousands of prisoners could be released without any danger to the public or to public order. He has argued cogently and vehemently in the House and outside that we must reduce the lengths of prison sentences and that we must reduce significantly the number of people in prison.
  In the Bill, the Home Secretary had the major—probably the only—opportunity in the lifetime of this Parliament to carry those reforms into legislation. Unfortunately and regrettably he has funked the issue. For whatever reason, he has not had the political courage or the political will to address himself to the fundamental problems in our prisons and to do what he says is right and knows to be right, which is to amend our legislation to ensure that significantly and permanently we can reduce the prison population. It is, therefore, a great disappointment, given the amendments that have been made, that we must give a Third Reading to a Bill which is half-complete and at best irrelevant to the real needs with which we are confronted.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: The debate is remarkable, if only because, if one looks around the Chamber, one sees that few hon. Members are present. The hon. Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) complained about the chattering of two SDP Members sitting behind him. One immediately fled the Chamber, leaving but one with us. On the Opposition Benches, apart from the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill),
  424
  there is only the hon. Member for Ormskirk and the Whip who is on duty. That is remarkable when we are debating a measure that deals with—
  Mr. Edward Lyons rose—
  Mr. Wheeler: I have only just started.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Social Democratic Party. Is he aware that in proportion to the overall number of Conservative Members, the number of alliance Members present is far higher?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. We really ought to get on with the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Dr. Summerskill: For the benefit of the record, which I know hon. Members who are not present will read, will the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) enumerate the Conservative Members in the Chamber?
  Mr. Wheeler: I am afraid that I was too generous in giving way as I did. I was about to say that we are debating an extremely important Bill, which deals with the criminal justice system.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Answer the question. There are eight Conservative Members present.
  Mr. Wheeler: I shall. After the management of the economy, the issue that now concerns British people most is that of crime and law and order. That is my point. That is why I pointed out that so few hon. Members are present. That is surprising, as the Bill contains many important clauses.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: More Tories are leaving There are now only five.
  Mr. Wheeler: The way in which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has guided the Bill through Committee and the House has been an object lesson in itself. I congratulate him on the way in which he has considered the details and presented the measure both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
  I am a strong friend of the Bill. I understand that in the early days of the Committee my name was mentioned several times in connection with many of the measures being examined. I understand that my statements were being prayed in support of proposals to reform, change or improve some of the clauses that were under consideration.
  It is worth considering, however, what the Bill attempts to achieve. Most of the provisions relate in one way or another to the sentencing of offenders. The principal purpose of the Bill is to provide the courts with flexibility and effective powers to deal with the range of offenders who appear before the courts. In that connection, we must remember that the group in society who contribute most to crime are, unfortunately, young offenders. The Metropolitan Police arrest rate for 1981 shows that one-quarter of the arrests in London were of children aged between 10 and 16. The next quarter of arrests were of young persons between the ages of 17 and 21. The balance consisted of persons over the age of 21, although most of them were in their twenties or early thirties.
  It is in that context that we must examine what the Bill seeks to achieve. The new system of youth custody, for example, provides for replacement of the existing borstal sentence and ends the existing sentence of imprisonment

  425
  for those under the age of 21. I think that everyone who knows the criminal justice system will agree that the old borstal system was not effective. It did not meet the conditions of this age or provide the kind of sentence required by the courts. Instead, offenders aged 15 to 21 for whom a sentence of more than four months is appropriate will now be committed to youth custody and proper training facilities will be made available for them. Restrictions on sentencing 17 to 21-year-olds to between six months and three years in custody will, as promised, be removed, as is appropriate in view of the nature of the arrest rate, particularly in our big cities.
  I welcome especially the fact that more community service orders will be made possible and that such orders will be available for 16-year-olds as well as for older offenders. That, too, is particularly appropriate.
  The extension of detention centres is also to be welcomed, especially the relaxation of the sentence itself so that the courts may, if they wish, impose a sentence of three weeks. The whole of modern penological thinking, based on all the research available from the Home Office research unit and institutes of criminology in the United Kingdom, Europe and North America, shows that a shorter sentence is just as effective as a longer sentence in deterring and controlling the young offender. For that reason, especially, I welcome the proposal. I do not share the fear that it is likely to lead to an increase in the use of the custodial sentence. I believe that the judiciary, and especially the magistrates, understand that it is essential that the custodial sentence should be used only as a port of last resort and that the other disposals available to the courts should be used in the first instance.
  Other aspects of the Bill are perhaps not yet understood by the House as a whole or by the public. For example, the parents and guardians of young offenders will be required to pay any fine or compensation. That is extremely important and long overdue. It is high time that the parents of young offenders were told that they must become responsible for the wrongdoing of their children. The arrest rate in London alone demonstrates beyond argument the urgency of parents becoming more responsible for the conduct of their children if we are to have any control over the increase in crime, particularly in the great cities.
  I welcome also the new standard scale of fines provided in the Bill, although I am disappointed that my own attempts to improve the fines in the housing legislation to deal with bad landlords have not yet found favour. I live in hope, however, that my hon. and learned Friend may be able to use his influence in another place in a constructive and helpful manner.
  The other part of the Bill that is of great importance is that dealing with compensation for the victims of crime. The improvements that are to be made under the Bill are especially welcome. We often talk about the problems of the criminal justice system, overcrowded prisons and crime in general. However, we fail to talk about the victims, those who suffer as a consequence of the wrongdoing of young people in our society. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Bill makes it possible for courts to make a compensation order instead of another penalty, such as a fine.
  Where both compensation and a fine are levied, the payment of the compensation is to have priority. In the Bill
  426
  we are reversing hundreds of years of history. We are saying that the victim shall have priority over the State when it comes to the collection of money through the criminal justice system. That is very much to be welcomed. The House should endorse it and tell the country about it.
  At present, only the whole of a sentence can be suspended, otherwise a full prison term has to be imposed. The Bill enables the courts, to suspend part of a sentence so that a short period of imprisonment can be given in cases where, after careful consideration, the court believes that it is sufficient to encourage the deterring of crime.
  That is a very welcome measure, because I agree with many hon. Members that, on the whole, we send people to prison for far too long. We could often use a shorter sentence, especially for crimes where no violence has been used. That must be the purpose behind the measure. Therefore, I welcome it.
  I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ormskirk suggest that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was lacking in courage in what he was proposing in the measure. When one looks at the record of my right hon. Friend, one is bound to say that in the short period that he has been in office he has faced with great courage and determination a whole range of problems.
  My right hon. Friend began by looking at the state of the police service in England and Wales. He did not hesitate to ensure that the police were properly paid. He has seen the strength of the police force build up in all constabulary districts so that, with the exception of the Metropolitan Police, those districts are up to the authorised establishment. Even in London we are within about 1,300 of the authorised establishment. That has resulted in more police officers being available for duty on the streets. That is an important contribution to the prevention of crime, which is the first responsibility of the police. That is very much to my right hon. Friend's credit. When we look at the clauses, we should remember that the strength of the police force is essential if we are to fight the growing crime problem.
  My right hon. Friend looked at the problems of the prison service. He took on board many of the recommendations of the May committee. He has revitalised the prison service under a new board of management, with a director general who is more accessible to the media and to the public. He can talk about the problems of the prison service. Many other commendable measures have been taken and again that is to the credit of my right hon. Friend.
  Whatever measures the House may take to control crime, there is no absolute guarantee that the measures that are made available to the courts will inevitably result in the control of crime or the reduction of the number of persons going to prison. There is no simple solution that we can examine and apply to a complex human problem.
  By its flexibility and approach to the sentencing problems of the courts, the Bill makes an important contribution to the general control of crime. Too many people are sent to prison. I hope that the courts will recognise the importance of using the shorter sentence, especially for those who commit property crimes, small theft crimes and non-violent crimes. For such persons, the shorter sentence is just as effective and in no way imperils the well-being of society.
  The Government must soon direct their attention, with a great deal more enthusiasm than has been shown so far

  427
  to the prevention of crime in the first instance. Over the past 20 or 30 years we have failed to control crime because we have not examined the possibility of preventing it from occurring, particularly with regard to property. The time is coming when we must provide the new larger police force with the measures to enable them to do more by way of crime prevention than has been the case.
  Perhaps I might offer some suggestions. Most of the crimes committed by young offenders are to do with property—burglaries or theft of property from cars or buildings. Surely it must be sensible to try to prevent the entry of such young people into buildings. The police crime prevention service should be greatly strengthened from within the resources of the existing police establishment, with a view to encouraging programmes of crime prevention, especially in the cities. Our large housing estates and mansion blocks should be equipped with entry phones, toughened glass, decent locks and door frames that can withstand a kick from a child wanting to enter the building to steal property. Those measures would inevitably prevent crime and stop these young people appearing before the courts.
  The next stage in the control of crime is to look more eagerly at how it may be prevented. That must be one of the essential duties of the police service, if the measures in the Bill that are concerned with widening the powers and the flexibility of the courts are to be successful in the long run.
  I welcome the Bill. It makes an important contribution to the criminal justice system. It will not result in more people going to prison, as some hon. Members have suggested. On the contrary, I believe that it will equip the courts with a range of long overdue powers. I again congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the way in which he has piloted the measure through the Committee and the House.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. William Pitt: On Second Reading I said that the Bill was a curate's egg, and I called for a reduction in crime and in the prison population. I am sad to say that I still believe the Bill to be a curate's egg. It is good in parts, but it is not good in as many parts as it should be. I should like it to contain more definite measures for the proper training of youngsters in custody. I should like it to provide that no custodial sentences be imposed on young offenders under the age of 17, unless they need to be detained for the protection of society or themselves. We fail if we use imprisonment, save to ensure the protection of the community and of some persons from themselves.
  I am worried about clause 21. It provides for another form of custodial sentence. I hope that the Government will seek in another place to amend the clause.
  We discussed at length in Committee and on Report the possibility of a curfew to deter young offenders and to keep unruly young people and hooligans off the streets. Although most hon. Members agreed on Report that a curfew could be effective as a deterrent, they were worried as to whether such a scheme could be operated. I suggested that the only way to use the curfew was as part of a supervision order. Therefore, I welcome the fact that such a scheme will be considered in another place. We must weigh the burdens that may be put on the police, the courts, the social services and people who may be involved in ensuring that young offenders adhere to the curfew.
  428
  I firmly believe that young offenders should not be allowed to get away scot-free. Contrary to what many Government Members may think, I do not believe in the "pat on the head" treatment. Being patted on the head and told to be a good person is not effective. However, we do not necessarily deter by imposing custodial sentences.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member probably knew that I would seek to intervene at this stage, because I normally do. I take the hon. Gentleman back to his dislike of supervision orders and his desire for a creative method of correcting young offenders. Does he agree that offenders are probably better candidates and easier to handle if they are under some form of supervision than if they are not? Lack of supervision makes it difficult to use the creative methods that the hon. Gentleman advocates.
  Mr. Pitt: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I thought that he would refer to the curfew. I agree that young offenders should be under some form of supervision. I do not think that young people should be allowed to go scot-free, but, save for a number of specific offences involving violence or which are so dreadful that the young offender should be kept in custody for his own protection, there should be greater emphasis on supervision in the community. If a person has started to climb the ladder of various forms of custodial sentence, at a certain level a custodial sentence will not be much of a deterrent. It will not be of much use in protecting the community from him or in expiating his crime.
  I am glad that in some respects the Bill will provide forms of sentencing and treatment of young offenders that will mean them to take their place in society while paying their debt to it. I have reservations about embodying curfews in supervision orders because of the administrative burdens that will fall on so many in ensuring that the curfews are obeyed, but in general I welcome the provisions. Undoubtedly, it will be difficult to enforce curfews.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Pitt: There is sufficient in the Bill for me to that the Liberal Party will not oppose it. The Bill takes us a small step forward, and we should welcome any such step that serves to make criminal justice work more efficiently and effectively.
  On Second Reading the spokesman for the Liberal Party, in concert with the spokesman for the official Opposition, said that Liberal Members would not oppose Second Reading and that we looked forward to amending the Bill in Committee and on Report. The Liberal Party will not be opposing the Third Reading because we feel that it is a minor step forward to the more effective and efficient administration of criminal justice. However, it is not such a significant step as to obviate the need for much deeper discussion and a more careful examination of potentially better provisions in subsequent Criminal Justice Bills.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Matthew Parris: I shall concentrate my brief remarks on a small and relatively unimportant part of the Bill with which I had something to do in Committee. I refer to the control of street soliciting. I do not have the advantage of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who has been the architect

  429
  of 99 per cent. of the modest hints that have been dropped to the Government at various times. The Government have responded by fulfilling certain commitments.
  I wish to support a corner of the Bill against my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith). Before doing so, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the able and courageous way in which she spoke about street prostitution. I cannot understand the ribaldry that greeted her remarks. She is worried about the rise in street prostitution, and there is no reason why she should not view it with some concern.
  The step which those who considered the Bill in Committee wanted the Government to take was not an obvious one, and the previous Labour Government did not make any alteration to the penalties for street soliciting. It would not be an obvious step and, to use a phrase that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister used in another context, it would be something of a gamble. If it were taken, the outcome might not be what we desire.
  I draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph on the attitude of the Magistrates' Association towards street prostitution. First, it contended—this argument was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper—that there was no point in having offences on the statute book for which prison is not the ultimate sanction. That is a strong argument that would wreak havoc with many planning laws, parking laws and motoring laws. There is no reason why fines should not be the ultimate sanction for some crimes.
  A second argument that both the association and my hon. Friend put forward was that, by fining people, we simply invite offenders to repeat offences to pay the fines. We have many similar pieces of legislation on the statute book for which fines are the only ultimate sanction. Examples include the Shops Act, particularly those parts dealing with Sunday trading, and some of the street trading legislation concerned with trading from barrows. In all those cases, fines are the ultimate sanction. In all those cases it could be said that to fine the offender is simply to invite him to repeat the offence to pay for the crime but it seems common sense to me that, by depriving the offender of the profit that he may have made from the commission of the crime, a repetition of the crime is discouraged. That may be the case with prostitution.
  The point was also made that community service orders can be given only for imprisonable offences. It is important that street soliciting should be imprisonable so that magistrates can, if they wish, impose community service orders. With 3,336 convictions relating to prostitution in 1980, only 116 community service orders were made. That is a negligible proportion. I cannot see that as an argument for retaining imprisonment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belper mentioned the 1959 Act and the improvement that has taken place since that time. That improvement has continued after further legislation in the late 1960s. The legislation has provided both a carrot and a stick. Prostitution has been made easier to practise indoors and more difficult to pursue on the pavement. The effect has been not to stop prostitution or necessarily to reduce its incidence, but simply to drive it off the streets. Part of the purpose in driving prostitution off the streets is to enable it to be continued in a way that is not illegal. By and large, most of the people left
  430
  soliciting on the streets are the inadequate offenders for whom imprisonment is a punishment for inadequacy and is not in any way appropriate
  The Magistrates' Association suggested that the argument on this subject has gone by default. It has not. During two and a half hours of discussion in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Belper ably and fully put forward the views of the Magistrates' Association. No new or determinant conclusion is likely to be reached through the submission of further evidence. The only evidence that we now await, if the Bill becomes law, is evidence from the streets. We want to see whether the provisions will lead to a great increase in street prostitution. I do not think that they will; I do not know that they will not.
  In another context, my hon. Friend the Member for Belper was brave and right to talk of an element of gambling. There is such an element in the proposed changes. It may prove that we are wrong, but I do not think so. I hope that the Bill will make little difference. It seems a humane and sensible little reform.
  This is not a sensational Bill. It is imaginative and intelligent and it requires a certain amount of courage. At the same time, it is hard-headed and liberal. I have always admired men and measures who and which succeed in combining hard-headedness with liberalism. There is no reason why those two qualities should not go together. I wish the Bill a safe passage in another place.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Over the years there has been argument about the extent to which judges should have absolute discretion in imposing sentences. The Bill celebrates the return to judges in all offences except murder of the discretion broadly to impose the sentence that they consider fit. As the years go by we shall see the way in which they use the discretion.
  The custodial sentence imposed on a young person for the first time is usually either three or six months in a detention centre. In imposing a sentence of borstal training the judge does not determine the length. The authorities decide when to release the young person. Section 3 of the 1961 Act imposed severe restrictions on sentencing to prison young people between the ages of 17 and 21. They will be swept away.
  Under the Bill for the first time a magistrate may impose a detention centre sentence of between 21 days and four months. The lower limit of 21 days may encourage magistrates to send more young people to a detention centre for a short, sharp shock. But we shall never reduce sentences if it is always argued that to reduce the minimum sentence will increase the number of people in custody. It has been the prime motive of reformers to reduce sentences. We must take a chance although I fear that more youngsters may be sent to prison. We must hope that the judiciary at all levels will use the new power responsibly and not see it as an easy way to give people a taste of custody. We must hope that the new power will reduce the number of days spent in prison by young people.
  I am not sure what the outcome of scrapping borstal will be. Owing to the pressure on the number of places, young people are normally released from borstal after six to eight months. They do not normally stay for a year. Judges will now be able to sentence an 18-year-old to youth custody for 18 months, which with one-third remission means 12 months. That would be a longer sentence than the normal current borstal sentence, so young people could be in

  431
  prison for longer. That is the danger of scrapping borstal and giving the judiciary the discretion to sentence young persons over 17 to any term up to the maximum laid down by statute for the offence. It is a good idea to get rid of the concept of borstal but we wait with trepidation to see what the judiciary will do with the new power.
  Judges will be able to impose whatever sentence they wish up to the maximum for the offence, with the exception of offenders under 17, where they are limited to 12 months, and the sentence for murder. The Government are worried about the reaction of the public were they to restore to judges the right to give what sentence they think is proper after a person is found guilty of or has pleaded guilty to murder. The automatic sentence is life imprisonment. Everyone knows that the great bulk of murder cases are domestic. They are not robbery charges. Judges who would prefer to give sentences of six years, eight years or whatever they think appropriate must simply say "Life". The whole question of the appropriate sentence is pushed away from the judges to the executive and administrative authorities. They are concerned that anyone released from prison after committing a murder who offends again will get them into hot water. There is therefore a tendency to keep people convicted of murder imprisoned for a long time even though the authorities know that it was a domestic murder without any real likelihood of repetition.
  The judges want to have the power restored to them to give the sentence that they think fit. It would save an enormous amount of court time. Many trials are simply designed to reduce a possible murder conviction to manslaughter to enable the judge to give the sentence that he thinks appropriate. It might be life; it might be less. Now we have a glaring exception to the general trend of restoring judicial discretion. Murder is left in a category of its own even when, as sometimes happens, the person convicted of murder is found not to have intended to kill but to have intended serious bodily harm. In those cases, a heavy sentence is required. It seems odd, however, that judges are to be trusted with discretion in all areas, but that for murder, officials operating in private should decide the true sentence. It is they who decide when a person convicted of murder is released.
  An oddity of the Bill is that it enshrines in statute a difference of approach towards women and men. I give two examples. There is no detention centre provision for girls whereas there is for boys up to the age of 17. The second example of the Government's attitude is that for youth custody for those over the age of 15, the sentence normally for males must be four months or more but for females it can be 21 days or more. Just because the offender is female, the minimum for youth custody is 21 days. I do not argue that there must be equality and that there must therefore be heavier sentences for women. It is, however, a curiosity. I believe that the Government have acted on the basis that they want to keep as small as possible the need for custodial accommodation for women. They are prepared to take a calculated chance to see that women are treated more lightly than men because of the great pressure on accommodation.
  There are other examples in the Bill to show that the Government are being forced to do things simply because of the pressure of prisoners on the available accommodation. What are the pressures for reform? There are those who, because of their view of society and humanity, want reductions in sentences and a different approach to our
  432
  penal system. There is then the Home Office approach, which may have about it something of the attitude that I have just described. However, the Home Office is understandably obsessed and at its wits' end over the need to reduce the number of people going into custody when the prisons are simply not available. The prison building programme is not really big enough even to replace our nineteenth century prisons, let alone to add to that accommodation.
  To counteract that, the Home Office has come up with a brand new proposal in English law, which is that prisoners can be released by a special procedure up to six months before their sentence expires, including remission, where there is not enough accommodation in the prisons. The Bill is disappointing because the Government have not taken every opportunity to reduce the numbers of prisoners entering the prisons. While they wish to give the impression that they are tough nonetheless when the numbers in prison become too high they have taken the power of early release. The prison system is breaking down and the Home Secretary knows that three prisoners to a cell is not acceptable.
  The Government have chosen that option possibly in the hope that the public will not notice it. Judges will sentence convicted persons as normal and everything will continue in the same way, but suddenly the Home Secretary will announce that the "class of '81" can be released six months earlier because there is not enough space for them. The fact that that provision is in the Bill is an admission by the Government that they know that, if present trends continue, there will be totally insufficient prison accommodation. It means that the Home Office has managed to persuade the Home Secretary that the position in our prisons is desperate.
  We accept that there must be continual investigation to find ways in which people can spend less time in prison without damage to public security. The police have been mentioned this evening with doubtful relevance to the Bill. More policemen mean higher detection rates, which is what we wish. However, we must face the fact that a higher detection rate means more pressure on our prisons. I support the call for more police officers, because the rate of detection of middle-grade crime is very low. The detection rate for murder is 97 per cent. and the murder rate is going down. There are fewer rape cases, for example, but middle-grade crimes are increasing by leaps and bounds.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the provision of more policemen, which as he says would improve the detection rate, would cause such pressure on the prisons that he could possibly question whether we should provide more policemen?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) will not respond to that, because we are now going wide of the matters that may be discussed on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Lyons: That is not what I was suggesting. We need more policemen to increase the detection rate.
  Some provisions of the Bill are retrograde. The 28-day remand period in place of the present eight-day period will keep people in prison for longer and in practice will deprive accused persons of access to their lawyers for longer.

  433
  The partially suspended sentence is another retrograde step. It will increase the number of persons who are sent to prison. The previous Minister of State, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was opposed to that provision. I have opposed that provision since it was introduced in 1977. It lay dormant on the statute book for four years and it is now being reintroduced to a chorus of condemnation.
  The proposal for a curfew is not, happily, in the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again before introducing in the House of Lords, curfews for youngsters. A curfew will result in even more people going to prison. It will make people appear criminal unnecessarily. If a young person who is subject to a curfew order runs out of the house because of a family quarrel, or his father tells him to get out, and a policeman calls to see him when he is out he will be guilty of breaking the curfew. A youngster who is deaf might not hear the doorbell. He would be assumed to be out and later be hauled off to court for breaking the curfew. That is not a measure we need in this country.
  This is a curate's egg of a Bill. The Government have not taken the opportunities open to them. There are both bad and good parts. There are also parts where it is impossible to know whether they will turn out to be good or bad.
  However, I do not believe that we should oppose the Bill. The House did not divide on Second Reading. It is not good enough to wreck a Bill simply because it does not go far enough. The criterion is whether the Bill is an improvement on the existing legislation. The improvement may be only marginal, but, on balance, I believe that the Bill should be given a Third Reading.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: I welcome the Bill. I served on the Standing Committee, and I believe that the Bill will be welcomed throughout the country.
  There is no doubt that people are worried about law and order. That is evidenced in articles, in opinion polls and in everyday life. Crime and violence have drastically increased over the past decade.
  I strongly supported the abolition of imprisonment for soliciting, for vagrancy and for begging. In this latter half of the century, with the number of people in our prisons and with society holding the views that it does, those are not the sort of crimes that worry people.
  I make one point about soliciting. There is a big difference between the types of soliciting. If one is solicited by a female and there is a refusal, one is not pestered. However, it is right that the provisions affecting "kerb crawlers" and others should remain in the Bill. The problem has been encountered recently and has increased with the advent of greater car ownership.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) spoke at length about clauses 24 and 25. Clause 24 puts the onus for the payment of fines on parents. I may be old-fashioned, but I believe that many of the problems facing our society emanate from a lack of discipline in the home, which is often the result of a lack of parental interest. Making parents more responsible for the payment of fines may restore their sense of responsibility for the guidance of their children.
  Criminals who commit acts of extreme violence have not reached that stage overnight. They have been through
  434
  a process that continues over many years. Had corrective action been taken in their formative years, many of the problems facing society might have been avoided.
  It is right that a person on the receiving end of violence should have preferential treatment for compensation. That will put a responsibility on the individual committing the act, and will make him realise not only that it is wrong to commit acts of violence, but that he has a debt to pay to the person on the receiving end. The provisions in that regard will bring about a change of thinking among young people.
  I was greatly concerned about clause 28 in its original form. It provided for up to three months' early release from prison and that only those who had committed murder would not be eligible for early release. I am glad that the period has been reduced to one month, but I was concerned that even those who had committed crimes of violence could be released early.
  Therefore, I was delighted that, after I had moved an amendment in Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who has done an excellent job in steering the Bill through, introduced on Report a comprehensive schedule providing that those who had committed crimes of violence would not be eligible for early release. That is in accord with the views of the vast majority of the public. It would have been a retrograde step to allow the early release of those who had committed violent crimes.
  I also welcome most other parts of the Bill. It was a pleasure and a privilege to serve on the Committee with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I wish the Bill well in another place.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who did so much about the omissions in the Bill when he introduced on Report new clauses for the return of capital punishment for certain offences. Together with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and one or two Opposition Members, I regret that his proposals did not find favour. I supported the new clauses and I pay tribute to the vigorous support and encouragement that my hon. Friend has given to the Bill.
  Like my hon. Friend, I was privileged to sit on the Committee. It began, if slightly superficially, to tackle one of the greatest problems facing this country, which is rising crime, particularly among young people. If the Bill helps to lessen that rising tide and to bring home to young offenders the need to have a proper respect for society, it will have been well worth while.
  It is very sad and regrettable that Parliament, in its customary way, should be considering a Criminal Justice Bill—necessary though it is—against a backcloth of rising crime, particularly among young people. It is particularly regrettable for those who represent urban areas and have knowledge of that crime day after day and week after week, together with increasing tides of vandalism. Such acts of crime and violence were unheard of not many years ago. Many of those acts are attributed to the type of society in which we live, with high rates of unemployment. If the Bill can make a small dent in the crime figures, our time will not have been wasted.
  I add my tribute to those already given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) who has guided us through the Bill with great aplomb. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for

  435
  Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and to the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson)—who is not in the Chamber this evening—for their great co-operation. It has been a worthwhile Bill and one of which we should all be proud.
  I am rather disturbed that some Opposition Members have given the impression that the Bill was designed to reduce the prison population. I do not think it befits this House, or those of us who purport to be legislators, to bring in any legislation or statutory instruments simply because the prisons happen to be severely overcrowded.
  Bedford prison, which serves my county, is probably one of the most severely overcrowded prisons in Britain. Certainly the conditions in that establishment are disgraceful. Those who fall foul of the law and have to go to such an establishment obviously suffer a very real punishment, but, that having been said, I hope that this House will not pass legislation which will restrict the deterrent effect of imprisonment, or the effect of punishment, which is necessary for some of the heinous crimes being committed today, particularly by young people. I hope that legislation will not be passed simply on the ground that our prisons are overpopulated.
  There have been siren voices on the Opposition Benches suggesting that we should pass virtually any measure which will reduce the prison population. Some of the provisions that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) would like to introduce would reduce the prison population but would at the same time reduce the protection available to our society. Obviously, overcrowded prisons and bad prison conditions should not be a feature of a decent society. They present great difficulties for those who have to administer the prisons. Those hon. Members who have visited such establishments will fully understand what I mean. But let it never be forgotten that the people in those establishments are there because they have committed crimes against society. They are there because society needs to be protected from such people. If life happens to be unpleasant for them, so be it. We must be as humane as possible but do not let us go overboard in reducing numbers for the sake of expediency. There are one or two omissions with which I will deal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member is not dealing with omissions. On Third Reading we deal with what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Carlisle: I respect you and your judgment, Sir. I took my line from the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax who talked about the fact that no regulations had been introduced for drug offences. I thought that I might follow a similar line.
  I will continue wth the clauses that are in the Bill. I support the new clause that was tabled in Committee to provide that tramps and vagrants should no longer be imprisoned. I support the initiative of those who brought that clause forward. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for giving it fair wind and including it in the Bill. It is right that those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances—many of them not minutes from the House under the arches of Charing Cross railway station—should not have to suffer imprisonment because of their misfortune. Their misfortunes may have occurred for various reasons. In the majority of cases, and certainly in rural areas, they are those who do not commit offences and from whom society
  436
  needs no protection. It is absolutely ludicrous that certain persons should be put behind bars to punish them for the misfortunes that they endure. Many of us hope we shall never have to endure those misfortunes ourselves.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) is not here, because I welcome the clause that provides that prostitutes should no longer be imprisoned. It seems a nonsense that the poor unfortunates—one can describe them in no other way—should be punished for offences into which they are pushed. The unfortunate women were well described by the hon. Lady the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). They are often forced to turn to obtaining remuneration in a way which is against any form of decency. It is absolutely right that those people should seek and gain compassion from the legislators. I fully support that clause.
  The main thrust of the Bill is that it makes parents more responsible for the sins and offences of their children. The Minister will know that since the White Paper on young offenders was introduced, many representations have been made to him that parents should bear a far greater responsibility for the sins of their children. For far too long schools, social workers, local councils, society itself and even the House have been blamed for the sins of the children. The clauses make the parents responsible for paying the fine. There is probably nothing that hurts more than when a man's pocket is hit. I know that the argument was put forward in Committee that several parents might find themselves in such impecunious circumstances that they would not be able to pay the fine and might possibly face a prison sentence because of their childrens' sins. However sad that is, if those parents find themselves in that position they must look to their lives and those of their children and at the way that those children behave.
  The Bill has the support of the vast majority of the people. It gives effect to the proposition that parents must bear the responsibility for the sins of their children. For too long we have heard the voices of those who say that if the parents are in unfortunate circumstances, there is no way in which they can take that responsibility. We heard that said many times in Committee. I disagree totally, and I support new clauses 24 and 25 which put the onus back on parents.
  Furthermore, I also support the idea of a curfew which was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell). This is yet another deterrent and another weapon for magistrates to employ against children who offend against society. I appreciate that there are obvious problems of enforcement and that the machinery of that enforcement will be difficult. We do not envisage an army of snoopers either from the court or from the police knocking on doors every night to discover whether offending youths or girls are at home. To my mind, that machinery is irrelevant. The fact that children can be brought under the control of a curfew order should be enough to act as a deterrent. It may deter only one or two—it may be more—but it should be enough to deter them from going to places where they habitually go, and it will be yet another weapon that magistrates will have against them.
  I hope sincerely that my hon. and learned Friend will prepare the machinery of government in another place so that under the supervision order arrangements this idea of a curfew will be adopted. If it proves successful it can be widened. It is a method which must be available to magistrates. There is no compulsion. The offenders

  437
  themselves are given a choice, and the parents are given a choice. That being so, I am rather perplexed by many of the voices raised in opposition to it.
  I am sure that everyone wishes the Bill a very fair wind. I know that my constituents do. It may just touch on the greatest problem before us today—undoubtedly the greatest problem with which we may have to face the electorate. It is an attempt to make some progress in the fight against the rising crime rate. It will give some comfort to those who believe that government is about protection—in this case the protection of the individual from those who habitually offend against society, regrettably, these days, in an extremely violent way. We may have taken one small step towards correcting the sadly rising crime rate. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the way that he has conducted the Bill through all its stages so far, and I hope that it receives the full support of the House.
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) extremely interesting and extremely rich in content. We heard a whole catalogue of evils which had not been remedied, of opportunities which had been missed and of magic palliatives and potions which had not been applied. The question is, what did the hon. Lady do when she was in power between 1974 and 1979? What did her Government do to improve our penal system, other than produce one Green Paper? If she carries out her declared intention and leads any Opposition hon. Member who may come into the House during the vote into the Division Lobby against the Bill, it will be opposition for opposition's sake.
  What are the main criticisms? What do people say about law and order? The answer that we hear repeatedly is that we are letting off too many villains too lightly and that they might almost be said to be getting away with murder. We also hear that not enough is being done to frighten people away from the consequences of their wrong-doing. The Bill is essential and important. It arms the courts with new and extended powers to deal with crime. Although I completely endorse the wonderful things that have been said about my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for both the wisdom and the panache with which he carries off the almost un-carry-offable, he should not go away in a fit of euphoria thinking that the Conservative Government have done all that needs to be done to remedy crime and lawlessness. Much remains to be done. I hope that in due course we shall do it.
  There are three stages to the reduction of crime. First, one must catch the villain. We have made a substantial step towards that by increasing the number of police, by paying them more and by getting them on to the beat and out of their panda cars. I expect that we shall witness a rise in the detection rate. Having caught the villains, they must be convicted. We must do something about the criminal legal process which acquits too many people. Either they should never have been charged in the first place or they are guilty.
  The Royal Commission which examined the matter has advanced some proposals. I accept some and reject others. We must urgently consider some of them and do something about it. Having caught and convicted villains, it is no good then to pat them on the head, give them
  438
  tuppence out of the poor box and then cast them loose onto society again. That is not what pleases the people who send us here. They believe that villains who are caught and properly convicted should be properly punished.
  One of the important steps in the Bill which I strongly welcome is the reflection of public opinion which says that we are fed up with letting sentences be decided by social workers rather than the courts—encouraged by wet Socialist intellectuals from all over the place. I quite understand that there would be some impatience if we had never let them have a go at all. But we let them have a go in the 1960s and the mid-1970s when the Labour Government were in power. All those wonderful tender palliatives were tried. The result was that the crime rate has shot up to alarming proportions—so alarming that it is extremely difficult, even for a Conservative Government, to do anything about it.
  An important part of the Bill is that we have restored to the courts the powers to impose proper sentences. We have abolished the six months or three years distinction which has long been a thorn in the flesh of the courts. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) in his criticisms of the residential care order. It cannot be realistic to suggest that we should have nowhere to put a young person who is living at a home where his parents do not give a damn and who is mixing every night with gangs and is going onto the streets at night and repeatedly committing crimes. It must be sensible to say that we will take such a young person away from that environment and give him a given quantity of supervision and care in a prescribed regime. Criticism such as that of the hon. Member for Ormskirk is misguided. It is sensible to have more determinate sentences and fewer indeterminate ones. The extension of the community service orders by lowering the age level is good, in view of the relatively low recidivism rate among juvenile offenders that measure has achieved.
  I do not understand the Opposition's criticisms of detention centres. With what would they fill that gap for the persistent offender who is no longer a juvenile? If they could advance some choice other than taking such people into some form of guiding custody, I would understand. They even prejudge the results of the new regime. Why remove something if one does not know whether it can be replaced by something that is more beneficial and before one has the results of the existing scheme? If it is argued that only 24 per cent. do not re-offend, one must accept that that is 24 per cent. who would probably re-offend if one allowed the try-a-little-tenderness lobby to work its way through the 1980s as it worked through the 1960s.
  All those measures are admirable in transferring the burden back to the courts and away from those who wish to engage in their rather more subtle but quite unsuccessful schemes of gentle treatment for almost everyone in almost any circumstances.
  With regard to the partially suspended sentence, I am somewhat less of one mind with the Government. Incidentally, my hon. and learned Friend may be interested to know that somebody told me today that some courts had been operating these sentences for some time, apparently in the belief that the 1977 Act had already taken effect.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: It has.
  Mr. Lawrence: I thought that the purpose of this legislation was to give a more refined effect to something that had not yet been brought into operation.
  My view of the value of the partially suspended sentence may well mean that I shall never be a judge. I believe that it meets a great need in our penal system. I am not talking about reducing the number of people in prison. That will never be acceptable to the public. If more offenders are caught and convicted and there is nowhere to send them, we shall have not just to replace the prisons that are falling down but actually to build more prisons. The partially suspended sentence must not be used as an excuse to solve the problem of overcrowding in prisons.
  To me, the value of the partially suspended sentence is precisely the value that the Minister does not wish to see. Very often, what is wrong with the criminal fraternity is that offenders can commit goodness knows how many offences before they are caught. When they are caught and fight the case in court by pleading not guilty, there is a fifty-fifty chance of acquittal. When they are eventually convicted, nothing much happens on the first one or two offences. Therefore, by the time anyone sees the inside of a penal establishment he may have been offending for half his life and not only have an enormous criminal experience but have fallen into a regular pattern of criminality.
  That is not just a lawyer's view. It is the view of many people in the prison service and of many people with knowledge of the workings of these matters. Surely, if we can manage it, we should show some people—perhaps the worst offenders, or perhaps not the worst—a glimpse of what life in prison will be like if they carry on down the slippery slope. That means showing them a glimpse of the inside of a prison far earlier in their history of offending. If it is only for a few weeks, rather than for months or years, that is all right by me, but let us show it to them.
  Any prison officer will confirm that the effective result of imprisonment occurs in the first few weeks of the prison sentence. After that, prisoners become institutionalised cabbages, there is very little deterrent effect and the criminal education department gets to work on them. The early stage—the stage of shock—is the time at which to hit them, and we must consider doing that to more offenders at an earlier stage. The partially suspended sentence provides just such an opportunity.
  I mention briefly a few other small but important points. The Bill abolishes imprisonment for vagrancy, showing once again that the Conservative Party has a human face. Moreover, any Opposition Member who laughs can laugh on the other side of his inhuman face, because in all their years in power the Labour Goverment did nothing to remove the inhuman blot of imprisonment for vagrancy when they had the opportunity to do so.
  I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who have supported the abolition of imprisonment for repeated prostitution. It does not seem sensible to remove a barrier to incessant criminality. To make it unnecessary for prostitutes ever to stop plying their wares in the street and to remove all deterrents—small fines are no deterrent to those who can earn £200 or £300 per week on the streets—does not seem remotely sensible. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) has presented the case so persuasively. I am only sorry that the situation does not remain as it was.
  I shall not dwell on the subject of the lower threshold for parole. I repeat my belief that the parole system should be reinvestigated. During the debate, we heard about
  440
  parole and its problems. We heard about the way in which people felt an injustice when their parole was refused. We discussed whether it was necessary to give reasons. I am positive that it is not necessary. It would be highly undesirable to do so. The fact is that, if we did not have a parole system—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill and the Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Mr. Lawrence: As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted, if we did not have a parole system but instead had a points system whereby someone who was sent to prison could work his way out of prison by notching up a requisite number of good points for devotion to studies, trying hard and producing good work, we would be able to get rid of a large number of people in our prisons at the same time as instilling into them the work ethic.
  It is regrettable that the House did not decide to restore capital punishment. Few other measures—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that subject should not be discussed during the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Lawrence: That subject was in an amendment, which was thoroughly discussed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that the Third Reading deals with what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Lawrence: What is in the Bill is good. I wish that there had been more of it.
  The Bill is a move towards a better sentencing arrangement for our courts. It improves the adequacy of sentences, but it is not the whole answer. It is up to the judges to make proper and full use, whether they are High Court judges, circuit judges or magistrates, of the powers that are available to sentence. It is necessary for the Government to consider for the future the construction of more prisons, if that should be necessary. If we catch and convict more villains, more prisons are inevitable.
  I hope that the members of the Government will appreciate that this is not the end of the saga. There may have to be other Criminal Justice Bills so that we get our legal and penal system on to the level that is wanted by the people. They want a safe and peaceful Britain. They want to be able to go out on to the streets secure in the knowledge that they will not be attacked. Until we get our sentencing right, I am afraid that the level of crime will remain high. The people expect a Conservative Government to do something about it. We have done something. We must do more. I hope that my hon. Friends will bear that in mind for the future.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Mayhew: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words at the conclusion of this interesting debate. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said kind things about me, much to my surprise. I came into the Chamber after an indigestible sandwich to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) saying something kind. Others have made such remarks, too. I am grateful for them.
  I am sorry that the Opposition have failed to observe, or at any rate to avoid, the absurdity of voting against a

  441
  Bill on Third Reading that has been substantially amended in Committee in the direction that they wanted. They not only did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading; they welcomed it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) has succeeded in communicating the decision to vote against the Bill to her troops. I doubt it, judging by the consistently empty Opposition Benches throughout the debate. That decision was frivolous and a mistake.
  It has been disappointing that there has been a sustained drizzle of criticism from the Opposition Front Bench of the provisions of the Bill. Such criticism is the lot of anyone who tries to tackle a problem in politics. The previous Labour Government, of which the hon. Lady was a member in the Home Office, took great care not to run that risk. Although the Labour Government were in office for nearly five years, they did nothing about sentencing except to produce a Green Paper in December 1978. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has treated his Front Bench with such scorn. The hon. Member for Halifax would have been proud to introduce such a Bill, but the Labour Government did nothing in this connection.
  We have heard much tonight about prison over-crowding. No Home Secretary has done more than my right hon. Friend to draw attention to the problem, and he has done a great deal about it. Not only did the Labour Government do nothing to change sentencing options, but they weakened the ability of the prison service to cope by year after year cutting thousands of new prison places from the building programme.
  I cannot muster much patience when I listen to attacks on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for having consulted the judiciary and for refusing to distort our criminal justice system to secure relief in the prisons from what, in part, resulted from the Labour Government's neglect. Overcrowding will not reduce suddenly, but the best agents for reducing overcrowding are the discriminating sentencing policies of the judges and the partially suspended sentences which the Bill introduces.
  Necessarily, the Bill is something of a miscellany, as are all criminal justice Bills. We have not even mentioned tonight several measures which, with the measures about which we have talked, will help to restore respect for the law. That remains the Government's objective, as it was when we sought election, and is the principal purpose of the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 62.

  Division No. 164]

  [10.6 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Ancram, Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brotherton, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

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

  Budgen, Nick

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Beith, A. J.

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Berry, Hon Anthony

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

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Blackburn, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Body, Richard

  Cope, John

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  442

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Murphy, Christopher

  Crouch, David

  Myles, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Neale, Gerrard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Needham, Richard

  Dover, Denshore

  Nelson, Anthony

  Dunlop, John

  Newton, Tony

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Dykes, Hugh

  Osborn, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Parris, Matthew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Pitt, William Henry

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Pollock, Alexander

  Greenway, Harry

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Grist, Ian

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Hampson, DrKeith

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rossi, Hugh

  Hawksley, Warren

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Heddle, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Henderson, Barry

  Silvester, Fred

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sims, Roger

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lang, Ian

  Speller, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spence, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Squire, Robin

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, John

  Luce, Richard

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  McCrindle, Robert

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

  Thompson, Donald

  Madel, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Major, John

  Trippier, David

  Marlow, Antony

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Viggers, Peter

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Waddington, David

  Mates, Michael

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Mather, Carol

  Waller, Gary

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Watson, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Wheeler, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Wickenden, Keith

  Mellor, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. David Hunt.

  Moate, Roger

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hardy, Peter

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Homewood, William

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoyle, Douglas

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

  John, Brynmor

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leighton, Ronald

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McCartney, Hugh

  Davidson, Arthur

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

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

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dormand, Jack

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Eadie, Alex

  Morton, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Palmer, Arthur

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Parry, Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  George, Bruce

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Graham, Ted

  Race, Reg

  443

  Richardson, Jo

  Welsh, Michael

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Sever, John

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Tilley, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  Criminal Justice Bill

    INDUSTRY BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Read the Third time and passed.

    PROCEDURE (FINANCE)
    Ordered,
    That the Orders relating to the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) made on 22nd January, 16th February and 12th May be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

  Musicians (Work Permits)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  10.18 pm
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I wish to raise an issue that concerns an agent who works in my constituency and who is seeking to arrange a series of concerts next May and June by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by the world-famous conductor Giulini. The series is planned as part of the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Brahms.
  This well-known American orchestra is corning to Europe with the intention of giving a series of cycles of the whole of Brahms' orchestral works in various centres. It appears that the orchestra will be heard giving its full cycle of Brahms concerts in Paris, Copenhagen, Florence, Milan and possibly another major European centre, but it will not be heard in London because of the Department of Employment's decision to accept the recommendation of the Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association, which has decided that the orchestra may not be permitted to give more than two concerts in central London. When it was brought to my attention, I was amazed to learn that such an organisation as VOCA existed—I had never heard of it before—and that it had the power to make recommendations that would decide virtually what Londoners, including my constituents in Kensington, might be entitled to hear in the way of first class musical performances. On hearing more about the manner in which this case had been handled, including the fact that the first application was made as long ago as May 1981 and that the final objection was not made known to the agent until February 1982, I felt that the whole operation of the system needed investigation. If the agent in question were to ask me to refer this case to the Ombudsman, from what I have seen of the way in which VOCA operates I would be willing to do so.
  In the House tonight, I should like to raise some wider questions and not simply to dwell on the circumstances that have at the present time led to my right hon. and hon. Friends deciding that they are not prepared to review this question and to allow work permits for the orchestra to perform their cycle of concerts over one week. I should like the House to consider the whole business of the operation of this little-known quango, the Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association, and the policy of using the work permit system or, one might be tempted to say, abusing it, to restrict competition in the performance of music in central London.
  I understand that VOCA was set up in 1952. It has a wide membership of bodies representing performers in London and outside. I understand, however, that few of those bodies are represented at its executive meetings. The meetings themselves are rare. There is no consumer representation that I can discern in the list of bodies that have been appointed to VOCA. Much of the proceedings are dominated by spokesmen for the Musicians Union and the Association of British Orchestras who take a rather restrictive view of the extent to which they want to welcome competitive performers into central London.
  The constitution of VOCA has recently been changed. My hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to supply me with its constitution as set up on 1 July 1974

  445
  and on 1 July 1981. There is a decided and obvious difference between the two texts. In the second, all reference to quotas appears to have been ruled out. The reason, I understand, is that the Office of Fair Trading has started to take an interest in the way in which this little quango works and in particular of a rule known as the two-concert rule, which appears to have been suppressed so far as reference in the constitution is concerned.
  My hon. and learned Friend has admitted in a parliamentary answer that, although the quotas have been taken out of the formal constitution, the rule continues to be applied. This is the rule that has obstructed the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra from coming to London. In his letter of refusal, my hon. and learned Friend mentions that for the future he thinks that it would be sensible to consider whether there is some scope for easement of the two-concert rule. I am bound to say that I hope that he will follow that line of thought and do so sufficiently quickly to arrive at a reversal of his decision on the work permit for the Los Angeles orchestra.
  I have taken a little time to consider the issues that lie behind the setting up of VOCA and its continuing existence. Obviously, we wish the London orchestras to flourish. That is why the House has approved substantial subsidies, amounting to about £25 million a year for music generally and about £3·5 million for the established orchestras.
  The political question, which bears on the Government's policy, is whether they should leave it to the audiences to decide what they are prepared to pay and whom they wish to hear, or whether a gentleman in Whitehall should be allowed to show that he knows best about what audiences should hear, through the operation of the work permit system. It is an especially topical question, not just because of the Los Angeles Philharmonic but because in the past few weeks we have seen the opening of the Barbican concert hall, which has resulted in an increase of more than 20 per cent. in seats in the central London halls where first-class orchestras can perform.
  At the same time as there has occurred the sharp rise in the number of seats, we see adverse influences affecting concert-going. I am sorry to say that those influences are likely to persist. One example is the decline in London Transport services in the late evening and a sharp rise in the cost of those services. People are suffering a general shortage of cash which prevents them from buying expensive tickets for evening entertainment. Before long, increasingly people will be tempted to stay at home in the evening in order to enjoy home video or satellite television, which will give them much more variety in home entertainment.
  In deciding our subsidy and protection policies, we must ask whether we are trying to attract larger audiences into the concert halls, or whether we wish instead to protect London musicians by obstructing competition. The Conservative Party and the Opposition are divided on that sort of issue.
  However, my hon. and learned Friend should bear in mind the Conservative Party's philosophy, as plainly stated, certainly by me and by himself and my right hon. Friend, I am sure, to the voters of central London. Do we believe sincerely in freedom of choice, personal discretion, competition and variety? If so, we should leave
  446
  it mainly to the box office to decide who is to be heard and who is to be discouraged from performing in central London. Or do we believe in management by bureaucrats, quangos and little-known bodies with powers that are not much advertised, leading to a sameness in the performances on offer, and a general restriction of choice?
  One might be diposed to ask why we should interfere at all with the musical life of London. Is not the use of work permits to restrict artistic freedom an insult to London audiences? I do not go as far as that. The calling of a musician is an honourable one and performers deserve to be rewarded not only with our applause but with a reasonable income and some job security, as any other professionals. The musical life of London is part of the amenity of the capital, adding to the civilisation of those who live here and attracting tens of thousands of overseas visitors.
  We must consider not only the interests of the performers but the facilities for music, especially the concert halls. My hon. and learned Friend, by his restrictive policy, is in acute danger of being sucked into a downward spiral of diminishing audiences, lower margins, tamer programmes, duller and less well-rehearsed performances, little-known soloists, and a further reduction in attendances. Before long, London's splendid reputation as an international centre for music could be lost. We could be said, fairly or unfairly, to have turned ourselves into a musical backwater, which there is no point in tourists visiting because they will hear only second-rate concerts by stale local performers. That is now often said about other music centres. I do not believe that it has yet been said about London, but it could begin to discourage visitors from coming to London to join us in the enjoyment of music in the capital.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make, and I think that the Minister will, too. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to stale music and stale performers in London. Is he aware that at any one time many London members of the British Musicians Union are themelves out of work? As regards the two-concert rule, is he also aware that that is common throughout the world, particularly in the United States where they are extremely keen to prevent musicians from this country from performing to the detriment of their own musicians?
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman has made a real point that I was about to deal with. There is a danger of retaliation. Indeed, it is already a threat. But Britain has an extremely favourable balance of payments if one considers the orchestras from this country that go abroad; and they receive big royalties from records that are sold abroad, largely on the splendid reputation that they have established. It is true that foreign orchestras come to this country, but if one adds up the numbers it is apparent that British orchestras have done extremely well as regards the facilities that have been offered in the United States.
  In California, where the Los Angeles orchestra is among the best known and established, visits are planned for next year and during the Olympic Games, and so on. It would be disastrous for us to lose those visits because an angry spirit had grown up. That undesirable result is a real danger if my hon. Friend pursues his policy.
  As to the two-concert rule, I understand from a parliamentary answer that the application on behalf of Los

  447
  Angeles is the only application that has been received by the Department since 1970. I do not believe that that is because everyone knows that it is hopeless to apply. The cost of travel, accommodation, insurance and other factors work against orchestras that want to come to London and expose themeslves to competition for too long. Unless they are subsidised—that is an important proviso—foreign orchestras will not often want to give more than two concerts in central London. Visits take a long time to arrange. If my hon. Friend changed his mind about Los Angeles orchestra it might be a couple of years before another orchestra could put into its schedule such a big event as a musical cycle in central London.
  I shall list the possible compromises. Some are unsatisfactory and, in fact, are ridiculous. Last year the Chicago orchestra was allowed to come here and give three concerts. The explanation was that the orchestra went abroad during the middle of the fortnight during which the three concerts were given. That made it possible for the orchestra to slip through the two-concert rule. That is bureaucratic nonsense and does not solve the problem. The Department also suggested that the orchestra could give part of its cycles of performances in central London and then go to Wembley, Croydon, or some other musical centre in Britain for the remainder. That is also ridiculous if the intention is to give a single cycle of concerts that has an artistic unity.
  There is also the suggestion made by myself and others that concerts with no particular artistic unity, which are not part of a series, or a celebration, or a single cycle, should be limited to two concerts in central London; but where they constitute a single event or an artistic unity they should normally be allowed. I say "normally" because I should not want to make an absolute rule that cycles should always be given with no restriction, because there may be a subsidy or promotional element that creates an artificial situation and unfair competition. There could also be something of a stunt. One does not want that.
  The halls should also be allowed to operate a "clash" list to discourage performances of the same or similar works on the same days, or close together, to the disadvantage of performers, promoters and of audiences.
  It has also been suggested that, provided that the agent can arrange an exchange visit to the home town of the orchestra that he proposes to introduce to the London audience, a visit here would be permissible. That would obviate retaliation to some extent, but I doubt whether it would often be practical and it would amount to a continuation of the two-concert rule. However, in the dispute with the LAPO, it might end some of the bitterness that is beginning to develop in the United States over the Department's attitude.
  I fear that if VOCA is allowed to operate in its present form it could add to London's decline as a musical centre. Our soloists and orchestras would become less well known worldwide and receipts from record royalties would fall, as would other sources of income.
  I ask my hon. and learned Friend to change his mind and not to refuse work permits for the LAPO next May and June, to give VOCA a thorough overhaul and perhaps invite the Office of Fair Trading to consider how it operates. He should also consider whether it should include representatives of consumers.
  I also ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider the basis of policy for the protection, subsidy or other means of support for British concert halls and British musicians.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for raising a matter which has recently attracted publicity and has caused considerable concern to him and to others.
  The issue has been brought to the attention of the public by the Department's decision not to grant work permits to allow the LAPO and the celebrated conductor Giulini to perform five concerts at the Royal Festival Hall between 31 May and 5 June 1983.
  I must make one or two matters plain. First, there is no question of Giulini or the orchestra being prevented from coming here, but, in circumstances that I shall outline, we have not found it possible to allow as many as five concerts by the orchestra in central London during the one tour.
  We have to start by looking at the nature and purpose of the work permit system. The Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules made under it provide, in effect, that those who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom may not work here unless they have permission. Whether people come here to work on a temporary basis or with the object of permanent settlement, they will be doing work that might have been carried out by our own people. The object of the work permit system is to protect the jobs of our own people.
  I admit that the system is protectionist, discriminatory, anti-competitive and an obstacle to the free movement of labour. It is aimed at protecting people's jobs and is a fetter on the freedom of people in this country to choose who they want to work for them and who they want to contract to perform for them. It is all those things, but it is in the interests of British jobs. That is the object of the system.
  Certain workers do not require work permits, because it is judged that their skills are badly needed in this country and that if they come here there is no risk of damage to the job opportunities of our own people, but, with that caveat, the work permit system applies generally.
  I understand the views of those who say that music transcends national boundaries, but one cannot have music without players and those who play do so as a job and our players are as entitled to the protection of the work permit scheme as are lorry drivers or bank clerks.
  Of course, different factors have to be taken into account in different areas. Sometimes, it may be in the long-term interests of jobs in this country if a person is allowed to come here to work. A person may have a special expertise that will help to create more jobs in a factory, and an outstanding foreign soloist will help not only to keep a British orchestra in work but to maintain artistic standards in this country and to keep London the musical capital of the world. I am glad that my hon. Friend admitted that that was still the case. That is good for jobs, and it is still jobs that we are talking about. I am standing at this Dispatch Box defending a system that is all about jobs.
  I know precious little about professional footballers, but I have to deal with work permits for footballers. I take advice. How else could I do it? So the Department, on my behalf, consults the Football League, the Football Association and the Professional Footballers' Association.
  Although the decision must ultimately be that of the Department, it would be ludicrous if I did not seek advice and take that advice into consideration, alongside the representations made by the intending employer, in coming to a conclusion.

  449
  Whose advice am I expected to seek in the case of orchestras? Overseas orchestras present those operating the work permit system with a special problem. The case for admitting the outstanding soloist is obvious. There will be more work for a British orchestra if an outstanding soloist comes here and he has to be accompanied by a British orchestra, but the case for admitting foreign orchestras is much less clear. If one broke down an orchestra into its component parts and thought of the third or fourth violins, one would not grant a work permit to a third or fourth violinist to come into Britain to play with a British orchestra. So our job is obviously difficult.
  In dealing with work permits for the admission of a complete orchestra, there are very special problems. In London alone we have four major symphony orchestras. They are all dependent, to a very large extent, on the London box office—on the custom of the music lovers of London. There must be a limit to the amount of money that those music lovers are willing and able to pay. If a large slice of that money goes to buy tickets for concerts by foreign orchestras, it is surely a fair assumption that there will be less money spent on concerts given by British orchestras.
  My hon. Friend says that we must leave it to audiences to decide, and not to the man in Whitehall. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is the opposite of the intention of the work permit system, because the work permit system is not there to allow the consumer in Britain to decide that he would prefer to have his cars made here by Japanese or by Taiwanese. The object of the work permit system is to protect the jobs of people in Britain.
  Mr. David Crouch: It is appalling for the Minister to suggest that work permits should in any way determine the appreciation of great music. The idea that in its centenary year the Berlin Philharmonic could not come to Britain is distasteful to me and I could not accept it.
  Mr. Waddington: It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has to accept if we have a work permit system. If we have such a system, then in default of Parliament deciding that there should be exempted from that system special categories of employees, such as musicians, we in the Department of Employment have to carry out this invidious task and decide whether particular people should come to Britain. There is no escaping the dilemma.
  I simply cannot, under the Immigration Act 1971 and the rules made thereunder, decide off my own bat that I shall not apply the work permit system to foreign orchestras. I have to apply it and in doing so I have to adopt the same criteria as have to be applied in the case of all others who want to come and work in Britain. Obviously, in applying those criteria I have to take a different sort of advice and different matters have to be taken into account.
  I have to remind my hon. Friends of the law, and the law is as I have stated it. I have to take into account the consequences on British jobs of having a free-for-all. However desirable it might for the music lover to have free
  450
  entry for all foreign orchestras, I would not be performing my job correctly if I were to follow a policy which allowed such a free-for-all.
  VOCA is talked about as if it were a secret society. In fact it is a representative body that was set up on the invitation of the Department of Employment in 1952 to provide advice on the specific problem of work permit applications for visiting orchestras. The executive committee, which conducts its day-to-day business, consists of representatives of the Arts Council, the British Council, the Musicians Union, the Association of British Orchestras, the Institute of Municipal Entertainment, and an agent who is also president of the British Association of Concert Agents.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: What about the concertgoer?
  Mr. Waddington: If my hon. Friend is right to talk about concertgoers, I could say equally that it should be the consumer who should be entitled to elect that Taiwanese should be allowed to manufacture shirts in this country because they are prepared to work for half the price. That is not the purpose of the work permit system.
  Mr. Snape: Can the Minister confirm that it is not just orchestras to which we refer, but also groups, steel bands and individual musicians, and that if there were no such system there would be little paid employment for many British musicians?
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is difficult. We try to make sure that musical standards are not adversely affected. The most generous attitude is adopted to the stars of the musical profession. It becomes much more difficult in the case of the admission of orchestras.
  There is no doubt that there is a limit on the amount of money that people are prepared to spend on concerts. The more that is spent on concerts staged by foreign orchestras the more danger there is to British orchestras that depend on the same box office. If I did not rely on the advice of VOCA I should have to rely on some other body. VOCA's view obviously must not take precedence over the Secretary of State's discretion. There may be certain circumstances when a Minister must take the view that the advice given by VOCA is wrong. If my hon. Friend says that VOCA is unrepresentative, he will have to advise me what body I should set up to advise the Department of Employment. I certainly cannot take the advice of the concertgoers of London. To do so would run contrary to the whole purpose of the work permit scheme.
  The decision about the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra was taken only after the fullest consideration. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well how I agonised over it. I did not make a casual decision. I talked to him about it for a long time. The decision was mine and not that of VOCA. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not find it possible to agree with me. That, I am afraid, happens to be that. I am perfectly prepared to look carefully at the whole scene again—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half and hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  Private Business (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)
  The following Private Ruling given by MR. SPEAKER is published in accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S statement of 5 November 1981.—[Official Report, c. 113.]
  On 21 June 1950 Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown ruled that a Member speaking in debate in the House must not quote from the evidence given before a Committee on a Private Bill. He explained that he so ruled because of the general principle that a Committee document not formally laid before the House should not be quoted.
  I am informed that on a number of occasions since that Ruling was given, Members speaking on Report or Third Reading of Private Bills have quoted from such evidence and that no exception has been taken by the Chair or by the House to their doing so. I have therefore re-examined the matter.
  The general principle, that oral evidence or papers which are submitted to Select Committees should not be quoted in debate in the House until the Committee
  452
  concerned has reported them, is clearly necessary for the efficient functioning of Select Committees and the Chair will continue to uphold it. However, evidence given to Private Bill Committees is in a rather different category. It is not formally reported to the House, but is printed or duplicated by the promoters at their own expense, for their own and the Committee's and others' benefit. It can be bought by the public direct from the promoters as soon as it has been duplicated, and Members who are not members of the Committee can with notice obtain copies free of charge.
  If Members were to quote from such evidence while a Committee still had a Bill under consideration, there might well be a danger of interfering with the proper working of the Committee. But no such difficulties arise once a Committee has reported a Bill. I have therefore decided that it would be right to take account of recent practice and to give a formal ruling that the Speaker will not intervene to prevent Members quoting the evidence given before, a Private Bill Committee once the Committee has reported the Bill to the House.

TRADE
  Consumer Credit Licence Applications
  Consumer Credit Licence Applications
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
PRIME MINISTER
  Public Service (Security)
  Public Service (Security)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Bunge and Company
  Bunge and Company
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Profession
  Legal Profession
  Divorce Law
  Divorce Law
HOME DEPARTMENT
  David White
  David White
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Firearms and Shotguns
  Firearms and Shotguns
  Prisoners (Discharge Grants)
  Prisoners (Discharge Grants)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  High Point Prison
  High Point Prison
  Residential Homes (Fires)
  Residential Homes (Fires)
  Fire Certificate Applications
  Fire Certificate Applications
  Murder (Life Sentences)
  Murder (Life Sentences)
  Murder (Reconviction Statistics)
  Murder (Reconviction Statistics)
WALES
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
4. EMPLOYMENT
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Publicly Owned Trading Bodies
  Publicly Owned Trading Bodies
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Community Enterprise Programmes
  Community Enterprise Programmes
  Elephant Jobs Ltd.
  Elephant Jobs Ltd.
  Manual Load Handling
  Manual Load Handling
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Agricultural Research
  Agricultural Research
  Police (Deployment)
  Police (Deployment)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Anorexia Nervosa
  Anorexia Nervosa
  Crofts
  Crofts
  Family Statistics
  Family Statistics
  Health Boards
  Health Boards
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Ischaemic Heart Disease
  Ischaemic Heart Disease
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Eventide Homes
  Eventide Homes
  Western Isles (Development Programme)
  Western Isles (Development Programme)
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Weather Damage (Costs)
  Weather Damage (Costs)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Hopetoun House Banquet
  Hopetoun House Banquet
  Intelligence Agents (Exchange Arrangements)
  Intelligence Agents (Exchange Arrangements)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Staff Reductions
  Staff Reductions
  Health Centres (Ante-natal Clinics)
  Health Centres (Ante-natal Clinics)
  Elderly Persons (Malnutrition)
  Elderly Persons (Malnutrition)
  Elderly Persons (Needs Project)
  Elderly Persons (Needs Project)
  Hypertension (Clinics)
  Hypertension (Clinics)
  Mental Health Care (Resources)
  Mental Health Care (Resources)
  Foster Placements
  Foster Placements
  Adoptions
  Adoptions
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  National Health Service (Staff)
  National Health Service (Staff)
  New Cross Dental School
  New Cross Dental School
  Midwives (Pay)
  Midwives (Pay)
  "Inequality in Health"
  "Inequality in Health"
  Spina Bifida
  Spina Bifida
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rents and Rates (Outstanding Demands)
  Rents and Rates (Outstanding Demands)
  Abortion Act 1967
  Abortion Act 1967
  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
TRANSPORT
  Cycle Lanes
  Cycle Lanes
  M27 (Hedge End-Chilworth)
  M27 (Hedge End-Chilworth)
  M25 (Signposting)
  M25 (Signposting)
DEFENCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Staff Reductions
  Staff Reductions
  Service Men (Pay)
  Service Men (Pay)
  Royal Navy (New Ships)
  Royal Navy (New Ships)
  HMS "Invincible"
  HMS "Invincible"
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Social Science Research Council (Report)
  Social Science Research Council (Report)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Student Mobility
  Student Mobility
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Industry and Commerce (Assistance)
  Industry and Commerce (Assistance)
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
  House Building
  House Building
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Merseyside (Task Force)
  Merseyside (Task Force)
  New Town Development Corporations (Promotional Activities)
  New Town Development Corporations (Promotional Activities)
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Marine Nature Reserves
  Marine Nature Reserves
  Industrialised Building Systems
  Industrialised Building Systems
  Greater Manchester Structure Plan
  Greater Manchester Structure Plan
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Historic Monuments and Special Buildings
  Historic Monuments and Special Buildings
  Council Flats (Demolition)
  Council Flats (Demolition)
  Waste and Vacant Land
  Waste and Vacant Land
  Playing Fields
  Playing Fields
  World Cup
  World Cup
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Tenants' Exchange Scheme
  Tenants' Exchange Scheme
  Canal Repairs
  Canal Repairs
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Housing Act 1980
  Housing Act 1980
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Local Authority Land Transactions
  Local Authority Land Transactions
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Sewerage Treatment
  Sewerage Treatment

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

Public Demonstrations and Criminal Offences
Lord Monson: 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 the behaviour of those demonstrators at a rally in Hyde Park on 9th May who were chanting "British fleet, murder fleet, we want the Brits' defeat" and "Victory to Argentina" and who tore up and burned Union flags, was seditious; and if so, whether they will ascertain why nobody was arrested and charged with sedition.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, may I remind the House of the answer I gave to a question asked last week by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Tunis. It is for the courts and not for Her Majesty's Government to decide what conduct is capable of constituting a criminal offence and in what circumstances. The police are independent officers of the Crown and it is not for Her Majesty's Government to decide what action they should take when they are present for the purposes of ensuring public order at a demonstration. I am informed that, contrary to what is suggested in the Question, three persons were in fact arrested, one for assault and two for offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. I am informed that at a subsequent rally under the same auspices last Sunday, there were two more arrests under this section of the Act.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. Would he agree that, if anyone in France were to burn the tricolour or to accuse the French Navy of acting as savages, or if anyone in the United States were to burn or desecrate the Stars and Stripes, they would almost certainly go to prison? Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that the law of this country is sufficient to deal with this kind of grossly offensive behaviour? If so, does he think it would be right to encourage the police and the courts to come down harder on such activities?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not set myself up as an expert on the law of either France or the United States. With regard to English law, as there are five cases pending, perhaps we ought to await the judgment of the courts.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say, if we had been at war and the Defence of
698
the Realm Act had been in operation, in the context of this Question, what would have been the legal position?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a very interesting question, but it is a hypothetical one.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the organisers of this rally, initiated by Quakers, dissociated themselves publicly from any use of slogans of this character, which were due to a small infringement of the demonstration?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says. I understand that the slogans were uttered by members of the Socialist Workers Party—the SWP.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can remember the name of his predecessor who, when faced by a similar Question replied, "As far as I am concerned, they can sing what they like if only they would sing it in tune."
The Lord Chancellor: I am afraid, my Lords, that he was a more generous man than I.

Horticulture: Fuel Costs
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the
Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made in negotiations with our European partners to offset the high fuel costs borne by the horticultural industry.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there has been a satisfactory outcome to my right honourable friend's continued pressure over the last two years in the Council of Agriculture Ministers to restore fair competition to the glasshouse sector. At yesterday's council, the European Community Commission reported their agreement with the Dutch Government to eliminate the Dutch growers' preferential gas tariff by 1st April 1983 by alignment with the industrial tariff on an oil equivalent basis.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Fellers very much indeed for what appears to be a very successful outcome to what was a very difficult thing for the glasshouse industry in this country. I congratulate and thank my noble friend warmly for having brought this about.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.

The National Health Service: Increase in Funding
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: 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 by what amount they have increased spending on the National Health Service in the past two years, in real terms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, between 1979–80 and 1981–82 expenditure on the National Health Service increased by about 4.75 per cent. in real terms. After allowing for the savings which we asked authorities to make in 1981–82 by more efficient use of resources, growth in services amounted to about 5 per cent. We plan a further real increase in services of just over 1 per cent. in the current financial year. This will come very largely from new resources, but we are again asking authorities to make a contribution through further efficiency savings.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, I wonder whether he can tell us what proportion of the expenditure goes on wages and salaries, and will he also comment on the cost in terms of wasted and lost resources—apart from the very considerable human anxiety and suffering—which may result from today's industrial action? What will be the loss to the health service in terms of unused resources today?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question, I can say that about 75 per cent. of National Health Service expenditure goes on salaries and wages. With regard to my noble friend's second supplementary question, I have to say that it would be difficult to determine that figure—at least until we have a better idea of the effect of today's unfortunate action.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he will be good enough to expand on the Answer he has given his noble friend and indicate whether the service given by the National Health Service is as good today as it was in 1979? Will he say whether or not the patient care, as a result of shortage of money, is as good now as it was three years ago?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said, the increase in expenditure in real terms since 1979–80 is a figure approaching 5 per cent. The answer to the noble Lord's question must therefore be that the standard of service has indeed improved.
Lord Byers: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what would be the cash sum reouired to meet the Government offer to the hospital workers, and how much extra in cash would be required to meet their demands?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if we were to meet the full demands of the Health Service unions I think the figure would be—I am speaking from memory on this—something like £300 million or £400 million.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as a previous report submitted that the increase in Health Service expenditure would have to be about 5 per cent. in order to enable the service to stand still, to meet the cost of inflation and other impositions they are suffering from, does the noble Lord not agree that, although this is not a bad performance on the part of the Government, we are not moving forward as rapidly as we should? Would it not be a much better idea if the Government, instead of waiting for the employees of the Health Service to get exasperated, were to meet them and see if they could meet some of their demands in a more rational way, rather than let the situation continue as it has been doing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think we have met the demands of the Health Service employees in a rational way. For example, we have provided additional funds over and above those that were originally earmarked for this purpose for the nurses and midwives. Their offer, as the noble Lord will know, is in excess of 6 per cent. The figure I gave for the increase in Health Service expenditure generally since 1979–80 was, of course, the figure which had already taken account of inflation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that much of that money is coming from the increased prescription charges and that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other? With regard to the point on industrial action, I believe—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on information I have previously received, I have in this House asked the Government to meet the leaders of the trade unions involved in order to avoid the industrial action that is now taking place? It is still not too late for the Government to make a move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there has been no lack of communication between my right honourable friends and the trade union leaders in this matter, but of course the question of industrial relations between the workers and the management is a matter for the health authorities themselves and is not primarily a case for ministerial intervention.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, do not these exchanges demonstrate the need for a pay policy which caters not only for employees in the National Health Service but for those employed in public services generally?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my recollecton is that in previous times when a pay policy of one sort or another has been in operation we have not avoided difficulties of this kind.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether it is not a fact that in the last three years there have been ward closures owing to lack of money and curtailment of services for the same reason?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is sometimes the case that Health Service facilities that have been in existence for some time, such as hospitals that have been built for many years, do actually need to be closed, but in general the aggregate result of Government policy in this matter is an increase in expenditure, which I described in the original Answer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister confirm that when the pay policy which has been referred to was in force the review bodies' recommendations at that time for people working in the Health Service were actually set aside and not implemented? Can he tell me in how many years those review body recommendations have not been honoured, and will he say whether he is considering setting up a nurses' review body?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State discussed development of permanent arrangements for nurses' pay with the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council on 17th March. As a result of that meeting, a small working group, on which both sides of the Whitley Council will be represented, has been asked to produce more detailed proposals. We are most anxious to move forward on this complex issue and I hope that the working group will meet shortly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I would ask the Minister to answer the other part of the question, concerning the failure of various Governments to implement review body recommendations.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not got that information to hand. Perhaps I could write to my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while he is quite right when he says that there are certain old hospitals that have been closed, and it may be that that was necessary, what causes frustration is that a brand spanking new hospital, of which I am sure he is aware of will be when I have finished, was not allowed to be opened to the full, but only half of it—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, please put a question correctly and not make a short speech?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I will immediately respond to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and put the question quite fairly. I thought I put it quite fairly, anyway. As the noble Lord said, certain old hospitals have been closed, and maybe that was quite right and proper, but is he aware that what is causing frustration is this: there is a brand new hospital of
702
600 beds in Ealing, with all facilities—it is only 18 months old—and only half of it is allowed to function because of the action of the Secretary of State? Many people find that totally irresponsible.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the day-to-day management of the health service rests with the regional health authorities and the district health authorities. It is not always the case, however, that difficulties such as the one which the noble Lord has described are the result only of lack of resources.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that, on the face of it, there seems to he something wrong with our society, which offers in the case of the most civilised institution in the country, namely, the health service, a salary increase of 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. to the workers, whereas at the same time the most decadent of the organisations in the country, namely, the Sun newspaper, has just settled at 9½per cent.?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I could be asked to comment on that matter, which, of course, goes pretty wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Clearly the Government have no responsibility for the matter to which the noble Lord refers.

Church of Scotland Report: Scottish Identity
2.51 p.m.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have seen the report of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland, published on 12th May, and if so, whether they will make a statement on that part of the report which discusses "The Scottish Identity".
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I have noted with interest the report of the Church and Nation Committee to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and in particular that part of the report to which the Question refers. It implies that the Scots should build on their strengths and eradicate their weaknesses and in that respect expresses sentiments with which I am sure your Lordships—whether Scottish or not—would fully agree.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that slightly curious reply, may I ask whether he agrees that it is not altogether fair, when the Scottish workforce has taken a number of years to come away from the reputation of the "Red Clydeside" to being the favourite investment point for almost all American industry in Europe? In those circumstances, is it not rather unfair for the Church of Scotland at this moment to suggest that

703
Scots are too fat, too lazy and too drunk to be of much use in the industrial field, and is this not quite contrary to what my noble friend and his right honourable friends are trying to do to bring industry to Scotland?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the general assembly is due to debate this report tomorrow, and I hesitate to pre-empt its deliberation. However, what I can say to my noble friend is that many representatives of foreign companies which have set up in Scotland have expressed their satisfaction at Scottish workers' competence and adaptability to change, and as witness of that we have the example of the development of the electronics industry in Scotland and the highly successful oil-related industry up the eastern seaboard.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that self-criticism is quite a healthy sign? Might it not apply to the Government in some cases?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think that it is worthy of note that the committee has, in fact, paid tribute to the Scottish Office for its contribution to the development and the fostering of national pride, and for its securing the development of all things Scottish.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that that answer illustrates the need for self-criticism instead of self-praise?

Business
Lord Sandys: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Agriculture Council.
My Lords, with the leave of the House I would now like to make a brief announcement about future business. It has been agreed that in the place of business which currently stands on the Order Paper for tomorrow, Thursday 20th May, a full debate will be held on a Motion to take note of the situation in the Falkland Islands. The Motion will be moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House. The continuation of the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill, which was to have taken place tomorrow afternoon, will now be taken next Monday, 24th May. This will be followed later on Monday by the recommitment stage of this Bill which my noble friend the Chief Whip explained to the House last Thursday.

Coal and the Environment
3.4 p.m.
Lord Kearton Lord Kearton rose to call attention to the report of the Commission on Energy and the Environment entitled Coal and the Environment (8th July 1981); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
704
I should perhaps mention that the Motion was originally put down by my noble friend Lord Sherfield who is unfortunately unable to be present. The Commission on Energy and the Environment was appointed in March 1978, as a standing body by the Secretaries of State for Energy, the Environment, Scotland and Wales. The terms of reference—to advise on the interaction between energy policy and the environment—were very broad. The commission decided that its first task would be to consider the longer term environmental implications of increased coal production and use in the United Kingdom. "Longer term" was assessed to cover the period to the end of the century. "Use" included conversion to other fuels and raw materials.
The commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Flowers, had a most distinguished membership. It produced by mid-1981 a most distinguished report, the result of an exceptionally thorough study. Evidence was taken from some 70 organisations covering the whole spectrum of those with an interest: national and local government; industrial and commercial undertakings; agricultural and transport activities; trade unions; planning and conservation bodies: health and safety assessors and monitors; research organisations and learned societies et cetera. The commission took evidence from individuals as well, and the members paid many visits, during which they met a whole range of local representatives. The commission received most gratifying support in the conduct of its inquiries from all it approached, or who approached it, and the relevant nationalised industries—the Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Rail—were especially helpful.
The report is a comprehensive and indispensable source book on the implications of the future use of coal. It is written with clarity—about 200,000 words—and is supported by numerous tables, diagrams and photographs. It draws a number of conclusions and makes 70 detailed recommendations on matters great and small. As befits the commission's noble chairman, who is himself the head of one of our premier colleges of science and technology, the report meets rigorous scientific standards. It provides a practical guide to action both with regard to past dereliction and future safeguards affecting the environment. And withal, the balancing of costs against benefits as always came firmly in the forefront with regard to recommended action.
It must have been with some surprise that the members of the commission learned as their report went to press that the Government of the day had decided that with this report the commission then fell into abeyance. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will express their disappointment at what appears to be a very short-sighted decision. This particular standing commission represented voluntary service to the state at the highest intellectual and practical level. It is difficult to believe that any other approach to the problem it considered would have been equally objective or equally effective. The next field of study which the commission indicated it had in mind was an assessment of conservation and efficiency in energy use. That would have been most useful.
The commission's overall conclusions were more favourable to coal production and consumption than

705
perhaps it had expected when it began its task. During the inquiry the commission observed an increasing emphasis by the Coal Board, and an increasing sensitivity, to ameliorating the environmental hazards of coal operations. The members were favourably impressed by the best current practices of the Coal Board while recognising that at some sites these could not be accepted in toto. In such cases the commission satisfied itself that best practicable practices were tolerable.
Subject to important reservations and qualifications, the commission concluded that there were no insuperable obstacles to increased coal production and consumption over the next 20 years. These reservations, besides environmental and planning matters, included the meeting of productivity targets and the production of coal to be sold at competitive prices. This implies the closure of high cost mines. In considering the past of the coal industry, when it was a cornerstone of our one time industrial pre-eminence, the commission had to have regard to the previous sins of omission and commission. The image of coal as a dangerous and dirty industry for its workers, destructive of local environment and amenities where produced, and inconvenient and grimy in use, is deep-seated and was justified. Today's production of deep-mined coal is little more than a third of its peak before the First World War and is only about half what it was in the years immediately following the end of the Second World War. The availability of cheap imported oil in the 25 years to 1973 and the development of North Sea natural gas from the end of the 1960s weaned domestic, industrial and commercial users away from coal as a fuel.
The immense improvements in urban atmospheres brought about by the Clean Air Acts and supporting legislation are in large part due to the much reduced use of coal domestically and industrially. Now, having become used to the greater convenience, versatility and cleanliness of oil and gas, it is clear that only stark necessity or compelling economic reasons will lead the generality of consumers to change back to coal.
Coal has been left with power stations as its major market. Here the post-1973 relative price changes with regard to oil have left coal as the economically desirable fuel, and it is an end use where large-scale arrangements for delivery, complete combustion, ash disposal, and flue gas treatment are at their most developed and where the environment is best protected. Until a few years ago the power station market was considered to be very vulnerable to the cost advantages of nuclear energy. The change in attitude here has been in part due to the construction delays in the United Kingdom's second generation nuclear power stations, the AGRs, and consequent large cost overruns, in part to a heightened sense of the possible health hazards from nuclear station mishaps and from disposal of their waste; and more esoterically to a fear that nuclear power stations could possibly provide a source material for nuclear weapons. In actual fact, the health and safety record of existing nuclear stations in this country is outstandingly good. Pollution of any kind has been virtually nil. Generation costs have been low. It is my personal view that safety aspects are obsessively provided for in recent designs. But even the great expense of providing for safety contingencies of the most improbable and remote kind still seems to leave power from such nuclear
706
reactors cheaper than that provided by coal; and though the proliferation danger with regard to weapons is one to be taken most seriously, it is also one which can be contained.
With regard to nuclear power, it seems that the results of the French programme are likely to be decisive. Their ambitious plan has survived changes of Government and, on present evidence and expectations, will give France, for the rest of the century, the cheapest bulk power supply in Europe, cleanly and elegantly. The commission took the view, independently of, but in line with, Government policy, that in the interests of diversity there is a strong case for the United Kingdom to develop coal and nuclear power. A component of the argument is that the United Kingdom has coal in plenty, enough for hundreds of years. The commission put the United Kingdom end-of-the-century demand for coal at 110 million to 170 million tonnes a year, with production levels at 100 to 150 million tonnes. Within these figures there is scope for both imports and exports. The range is lower than that considered likely only a few years ago. It reflects changed assumptions about the long-term levels of economic growth, estimates as to the effect of conservation and the development of more energy-efficient manufacturing processes, and a judgment on the sharing of power generation between coal and nuclear sources. Electricity generation remains a principal use for coal, with coke ovens a smaller one, and the growth area, compared with the present day, is forecast to be a switch by industrial users from oil back to coal. Synthetic natural gas is seen as a possible major user in the early years of the next century, but not before.
Present pits will not be capable of producing coal, even the lowest forecasts for the year 2000. As established pits are worked out, there will have to be a steady opening up of new pits. In traditional areas, establishment of new pits will be regarded as normal development. In areas hitherto free of coal production there are usually strong anxieties and reservations. As the commission report comments, the benefits of new developments accrue to the country as a whole, while the disadvantages are borne by local communities.
There is no doubt that past dereliction caused by the coal industry over a very long period was shameful: there was dereliction of townscapes, dereliction of once-beautiful countryside and pollution of rivers. The latter continued in some areas long after individual mines had been closed down, with the discharge of particularly obnoxious overflow liquors. Efforts at reclamation have been actively in process for some years now with some creditable success, but much more remains to be done. The cost is presently met from a variety of sources. The Coal Board feels that it cannot be burdened with the cost of putting right past bad practice, a view which the commission share. The cost should be a central Government responsibility.
The drawbacks of future deep-mined coal production are brought out in the commission's report. These drawbacks are land subsidence, the problem of the disposal of spoil, and pollution caused by combustion. The actual mine buildings, pitheads and colliery surface activities can now be made visually acceptable and, if the immediate environment is landscaped and

707
kept tidy, even visually agreeable. This will be particularly true in a new area such as Selby.
Coal production is now based on mechanised long-wall mining and power loading instead of the old stall-and-pillar method, with hand loading. Working conditions at the coal face are in consequence much better than they were formerly, although still uncomfortable, unpleasant and dirty. We owe a great debt to our miners who are undertaking work in such an industry. There has been a considerable reduction in the incidence rate of accidents and deaths, although as an industry coal mining is still high on the list of hazardous occupations. There has also been a welcome and marked fall-off in new cases of pneumoconiosis.
The new methods give rise to much more spoil than the old and are not conducive to back-stowing. There is more surface land subsidence. The workings collapse behind the coal face and this is reflected at ground level to an extent depending on the depth of the mine, the thickness of the seams being extracted, and the nature of the local strata. What happens at the surface can be forecast with some accuracy. Subsidence can be minor or severe, and the effects likewise. In severe cases, buildings, pipes, sewers, cables, drainage, roads and rail are damaged as well as agricultural land.
The areas subject to subsidence, minor or severe, are large—perhaps up to 50 square miles or so a year. Severe damage is, in fact, the exception. But the figures are still formidable. In the East Midlands coalfield in a 10-year period recently examined, 62,500 houses were damaged. Most of the damage was classified as slight, but 2,000 cases were ranked as appreciably damaged and 250 as severely so. I have the impression that the numbers in some of the Yorkshire areas are higher. The Coal Board pays compensation. This compensation amounted to £54·7 million in 1980–81 and perhaps could be as much as £80 million in 1981–82. But the compensation does not have regard to the worry, the upset and the general unhappiness caused by living in houses affected by subsidence, whether slight, appreciable or severe. This was vividly brought out by Members of Parliament from mining areas recently, speaking on the commission's report in a debate in another place.
With regard to spoil, the present national ratio of spoil to coal is 1:2, although it is appreciably higher in some districts. There are 50 to 60 million tonnes of spoil a year to be disposed of. This is about five times as much per year as in the 1920s, when coal production was much higher. More spoil is due to be tipped in the next 20 years—half as much again—than in the whole history of the industry to date. It is estimated that 20 square miles of new land will be required to accommodate this spoil. The commission stops at the year 2000. Perhaps it could not contemplate the thought of more than 100 square miles of new land being required for tips in the next century.
It is true that modern techniques of restoration allow land to be restored on one part of the site as tipping proceeds elsewhere. But even after restoration the land naturally is not what it was. The problem is exacerbated by the current geographical concentrations of derelict spoil tips, active spoil tips, and waste
708
lagoons. One-third of current spoil is in the Barnsley, Doncaster, North and South Yorkshire areas. There may not be sufficient land nearby to accommodate the spoil of the next two decades in an acceptable manner. Distant disposal of spoil is more expensive, and possible reclamation areas or estuarine fill-in sites only offer limited capacity.
The commission expressed appreciation that the Coal Board have made great advances in safer tipping and had reduced dirt and dust pollution in the process. The new tips are lower and less intrusive than the old conical tips and need more land for a given weight of spoil. More use is being made of landscape architects—but as consultants. The first lone landscape architect direct employee of the Coal Board has now been engaged—I think.
Opencast mining for coal in the United Kingdom is a relatively recent development—it began in 1942—and now accounts for about one-eighth of total coal production. Although the operation is controlled by the National Coal Board it is characterised by different management, different unions and different plant than deep-mined coal. There were 67 sites open in 1981. The area affected or planned amounts to 40 square miles. The sites can be open for a period of years, and when extraction is complete restoration times are five years initially under detailed supervision and costs about £1,500 an acre.
Opencast mining is an unpleasant visual intrusion and the workings cause dust, noise and heavy road traffic. In some parts of the country opencast mining occurs in residential areas with workings coining up to 50 yards from property. The inconvenience and disturbance are intense. The evidence to date is that restored land gives lower agricultural yields than virgin land, and there is a lasting effect on the ecology of an area and a substantial reduction in the quality and variety of a landscape.
It has to be said that much of the coal produced is of good quality. Some finds special applications. Some is used to upgrade poor quality deep-mined coal, and the operation is profitable. In the Coal Board's recent finances, profits on opencast coal have virtually offset the losses on the much greater volume of deep-mined coal. Environmentally, opencast coal production is a disaster. The commission would like to see it progressively decline as the new, efficient and lower cost deep-mine production capacity becomes available; and who would disagree?
With your permission, my Lords, may I turn to coal use. The burning of coal gives rise to grit, ash, smoke, tar and a wide range of atmospheric pollutants. It is best used in large power stations or in industrial boilers where the measures to control and minimise all the adverse possibilities are most effective. A large coal-fired power station, burning up to 20,000 tons of coal a day, is visually attractive; causes no local dirt, noise, smell or pollution; is effectively landscaped; and internally is almost clinically clean.
A recent brochure from the generating board called Landscape in the Making gives strong pictorial evidence of the environmental success of the generating board's efforts. Many of their procedures were initiated 25 years ago by that most eminent Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Hinton. The brochure itself is virtually the swansong of Mr. Glyn England, whose

709
recent departure from the chairmanship of the Central Electricity Generating Board is a matter for such general regret.
A large power station gets its coal conveniently and cleanly by a so-called rail merry-go-round system direct from the pit, and the coal is off-loaded automatically in enclosed conditions, and mechanically and cleanly distributed to stockpiles. Ash is either sold for further processing or transported to distant sites to be used as fill, or to go on progressively landscaped tips. About 12 million tons of ash is produced per year, and commercial uses have been found for about 5 million tons of this. The amount of ash going to tips is currently less than 10 per cent. of the Coal Board's spoil, and is likely to diminish.
Flue gases are tar free because of complete combustion of the coal, grit-free because of the effect of separation, and have a low ash content. The gases are discharged from high stacks, and well diluted before reaching ground levels. But there still are respirable particulates, less than 15-millionths of a metre in size, and therefore inhalable, discharged to the atmosphere from coal combustion. Even though so much lower than in the days of the domestic coal fire, it amounts to several thousand tons a year.
Traces of carcinogens are released. The corn-mission cannot put a figure on any death rate from these carcinogens, but feel there could be an additive effect in putting up the death rate from lung cancer due to cigarette smoking by up to 150 extra deaths a year. This would seem to me to be very much a top figure. The commission also considered the effects of radiation due to products from any radioactive materials in the original coal, and gave reasons for dismissing this particular hazard as negligible.
Sulphur dioxide emissions in flue gases are substantial. There are an estimated 5 million tons a year in total of surphur dioxide released to the atmosphere in this country. Three million of this 5 million tons comes from coal. This figure could rise to 4 million tons from coal by the year 2000. The sulphur dioxide is so well dispersed due to the high chimney policy that there is no convincing evidence of bronchial troubles being increased or of crops being seriously affected. There is some hope. There is some corrosion of buildings, and there is some incidence of acid rain. Great Britain contributes a small proportion of the acid rain falling on Scandinavia.
Measures to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are possible, but expensive, and a case of irrefutable need has not been established. Nevertheless, the nuisance exists, even if it is tolerable. Nitrogen oxides—rather unpleasant materials—are also products of combustion. The emissions are estimated at 2 million tons a year in this country, about half from coal. There is no conclusive evidence of ill effects. As with sulphur dioxide, this contaminant is heavily diluted.
A major product of combustion, whether of coal, oil, wood or gas, is carbon dioxide. About a billion tons a year is produced in the United Kingdom. There is some evidence of a gradual build up of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere and a continuation of this trend could lead in time to a so-called greenhouse effect, with a slow increase in the world's average temperature. This would threaten the stability of climates worldwide. But whether the long-term threat
710
is real or not, I doubt whether any of those Members of your Lordships' House here today will live to see it.
In considering the future use of coal I have mentioned that the commission saw a big increase, a quadrupling in fact, in the amount of coal used by industry. The report draws particular attention to the advantages, from the point of view of efficiency and reducing some sorts of pollution, of fluidised bed combustion, which they wish to see encouraged. As a personal view, I think the grant inducements and economic advantages of using coal will have to be greater than at present, if the change back is to occur. The transport of the coal, the storage requirements, the ash disposal needs, are all practical disadvantages for an industrialist. With modern equipment, the coal-fired boilers can be less labour intensive than formerly. But they are likely to require more supervision and maintenance than the equivalently rated oil-fired boiler.
The commission have also studied the lively impact of synthetic natural gas plants, based on coal. If the technique was adopted to provide the equivalent of the present United Kingdom natural gas consumption, a number of major plants would be required, using 70 million tons or even 100 million tons of coal a year, and costing many billions. Apart from the increased coal production adding 50 per cent. or so to subsidence areas, and to spoil tip areas, already formidably large, the SNG plants themselves would bring their own environmental problems. The commission believe that with forward planning starting now the environment need not be put under too great an additional strain. But strain there would be. Success would depend on finding a sufficient number of suitable sites. The commission suggest the search and identification of such sites should start very soon.
I have doubts myself about the provision for many years of large-scale synthetic natural gas plants. The capital costs are so high, and the gas tends to be so expensive. The need in the United States would seem to be much more urgent than our own, on the available statistics. But many of the projects envisaged two or three years ago have now been put on one side, and the search for more natural gas stepped up, a policy which we ourselves should follow.
I have run out of time and I have done scant justice to the commission's remarkable report. I know that Her Majesty's Government have it under close study and will comment in due course on its numerous specific and valuable recommendations. For myself, I would say that the commission have, by their very thoroughness, persuaded me to the view that coal, while plentiful in this country and on a world scale, is a fuel of last resort. Its extraction and use, if properly controlled, can be made tolerable. The commission's 70 recommendations are directed to that end. We have heard much in recent years about the possible hazards of nuclear power. I venture to think that if nuclear power had come first, the uproar on environmental grounds against the introduction of coal as a primary fuel would have been indubitably not less than strident. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and the

711
noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for giving us the opportunity to debate this very topical subject today—for it is just that, with both the comparatively narrow subject of the report and the much wider environmental implication of increased coal use that arise therefrom. The noble Lord raised both points in his speech. The Government, like the Commission on Energy and the Environment, attach great importance to public discussion and understanding of energy policies and not least their relationship to the environment in which we all live. Hence today's debate is particularly welcome, as was yesterday's "stand part" debate on Clause 15 of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, all the more so when one recognises, as the commission has done, that coal is likely to play a central and growing role in the United Kingdom energy strategy for many years to come.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the other members of the Commission on Energy and the Environment on producing a thorough and painstaking study. I am delighted to see that Lord Flowers is to speak later, and will listen carefully to what he says. I wish also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her personal kindness to me; having recognised my state of shellshock, she has allowed me to precede her in the batting order for today's debate. Before proceeding, I would make two personal remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. First, I believe there is no one in this House better qualified, through his long service to the country in the energy field, both inside and outside your Lordships' House, to introduce this debate. Secondly, I promise him that I will neither misquote his remarks nor quote them out of context; he at least will understand what I mean.
The Government welcomed the commission's report when it was published. It represents a valuable contribution to the discussion and the Government are now giving careful and detailed consideration to the recommendations and conclusions in the report; there are over 120. We have asked all the bodies who gave evidence to the commission, and other interested organisations, for their comments on the report. We cannot at present give a date for publishing the Government's formal reply, but we are striving to complete our consultations and deliberations as quickly as possible. Today's debate will, I am sure, add further to our appreciation of the wide-ranging problems involved. I hope the House will appreciate that it is not for Lords in Waiting to announce Government policy, and therefore I am unable to anticipate in detail the Government's reply to the commission's report. I should like, rather, to explain more generally the Government's thinking on energy policy and its interaction with environmental interests.
The fundamental aim of the Government's energy policy, as recorded in the opening chapter of the commission's report, is to ensure the availability of adequate and secure supplies of energy at the lowest practicable cost to the nation. That involves ensuring that all fuels are used efficiently and cost effectively and that our energy resources are developed to meet our long-term needs. The concept of lowest practicable costs is clearly crucial to our deliberations here, and I will spend a few moments on it. As the com-
712
mission's report says in its first chapter, the scale of costs imposed for environmental reasons has to be considered against the decreased competitiveness of our coal in the market place. In other words, there has to be a trade-off between environmental values and energy policy objectives.
I would not want to give the impression that any simple, arbitrary rules can apply here. The commission have, I believe, drawn the same conclusion in their final chapter, where they say that the realities of pollution control require a continuing balance to be struck between the costs and benefits of pollution abatement for industry and society. There are several aspects to this problem. Allocation of costs is important in a market economy. The "polluter pays" principle has been an integral part of pollution control policy in the United Kingdom for a long time. As the commission say in paragraphs 44 and 45 of Chapter 1, in the case of the current activities of the coal industry, this means that the cost of environmental control should in general be borne by the National Coal Board and be incorporated in the price of coal. Dealing with pollution from past activities raises difficult questions. Finding the right balance between minimising energy costs and protecting our environment will often be a difficult process, sometimes involving lengthy consultations and inquiry.
There are three main strands to our overall energy strategy. First, we aim to maximise the benefit to the nation from our oil and gas supplies over as long a period as possible. We are now self-sufficient in oil in terms of net requirements, and this position should be maintained until the early 1990s. North Sea gas now meets all our gas requirements, with over 75 per cent. coming from United Kingdom fields. We are doing all we can to encourage continuing exploration and development of oil and gas resources.
The second element of our strategy is to encourage the appropriate and efficient use of fuels. An example of this is the Government's commitment to encourage industry to replace oil and gas-fired heating equipment with coal firing where that is economically attractive. In two successive March Budgets in another place we have initiated a scheme providing £50 million for grants of up to 25 per cent. of the costs of converting oil and gas-fired equipment to coal. I should like the House to note that, in Chapter 13 of the commission's study, this scheme is welcomed, because it should facilitate a gradual transition back towards coal-burning in industry at a pace which should enable environmental difficulties to be kept within acceptable limits. This second aim of our energy strategy means, more generally, promoting the economic pricing of energy, reflecting full costs, including environmental protection, and encouraging energy conservation. The House will, I am sure, appreciate that the cause of environmental protection is particularly well served in general, although not in all cases, by encouraging consumers not to waste energy but, rather, to get the maximum return from each unit of fuel supplied.
The third main strand of our energy strategy is to develop those resources needed to meet our longer-term energy requirements, in particular nuclear and coal, the immediate subject of today's debate. The proportion of electricity generated from nuclear power will increase to about 20 per cent. when the three new

713
advanced gas-cooled reactors are commissioned, probably later this year. And as the House will be aware, the Central Electricity Generating Board have made an application to construct a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, which will be the subject of a full inquiry next year. In that connection, I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, praise the safety record of our nuclear industry; I would be the first to agree with him.
Renewable sources will also have their part to play in meeting our future energy needs. On the basis of current knowledge, it has been estimated that a contribution up to some 30 million tonnes of coal equivalent per annum—that is, about 7 per cent. of our total energy requirements, might be possible from such sources by the early years of the next century. The realisation of this potential will depend on the success of research and development in reducing the costs of the technologies and on their rate of penetration into the market place. Research and development on new and renewable sources of energy is being funded by Government departments, public organisations, including the Central Electricity Generating Board, and by private sector companies. The Secretary of State for Energy is currently considering advice from the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power about departmental support for renewable research. The Southampton and Cambourn geothermal scheme and the large aerogenerator at Orkney are major development projects currently under way funded wholly or in part by my department.
Turning to coal, we have been generating about 80 per cent. of our electricity from coal, and the massive scale of our national coal resources is illustrated by the calculation that at the current level of usage our proven coal reserves will last 50 years or more. The ultimate level of recoverable resources is likely to prove to be several times longer, probably over 300 years. The Government therefore take the view that the coal industry could meet a significant portion of the nation's long-term energy needs, provided that it can produce coal efficiently and be in a position to sell the coal at competitive prices.
Over many years now the Government have supported large-scale investment in the National Coal Board to enable the board to develop a modern, efficient industry and to move progressively towards financial viability. We hope in particular that these investments will permit the board to compete effectively for the large potential for coal to reassert itself in industrial markets. Perhaps one of the most crucial findings of the commission's study—in Chapter 1, paragraph 19—is that this objective of developing a modern, highly productive coal industry, employing new technologies, would be beneficial in terms of environmental impact as well as economic efficiency.
In order to implement their energy strategy, the Government do not advocate central or indicative planning, but aim rather to create the conditions in which market forces can work to bring about their objectives. Perhaps the most important example of this approach is the economic pricing of energy, because it gives both suppliers and consumers correct signals about the true cost of fuels. The promotion of competition is also important as a spur to efficiency,
714
permitting consumers to make rational choices and obliging suppliers to contain their costs.
The report states, in Chapter 3—and quite correctly in our view—that energy strategy cannot be translated into a blueprint; nor, given the uncertainties that we face, can we produce precise forecasts or numerical prescriptions for the future. The Government, rather, keep a close watch on world and United Kingdom energy developments and carry out regular analyses of the ways in which energy demand and supplies may develop. The results of those analyses are made available to the public in the form of energy projections as part of the Government's contribution to the public debate on energy policies. The last set of projections was published at the end of 1979, and a new set will be produced later this year in good time for the Sizewell inquiry.
I hope that I have succeeded in explaining, at least in outline, the overall energy policy which provides the context within which today's debate, and indeed any discussions on energy and the environment, must be considered. We must of course take steps to protect our environment when we plan the development of our energy resources, but equally there is widespread recognition of the continuing importance of developing those resources in a competitive way. I hope that the need for a balance between these considerations will never be far from our minds throughout this debate.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am slightly taken by surprise. I had rather hoped that the EEC Statement would intervene between the Minister's speech and my speech. At the very welcome initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, we have this afternoon the opportunity of discussing the report on Coal and the Environment. We very much welcome the opportunity to discuss what are the crucial issues of energy production and environmental conservation. I should like straight away to pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and his commission, for while they would appear to have produced a daunting and an extremely expensive report—though I do not think that the cost had anything to do with them—it is in fact eminently readable, and is a classic example of the value of such standing bodies as the Commission on Energy and the Environment.
I feel particularly concerned with this matter because, when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment in the last Government, it was not only part of my role, but also my passionate hope and inclination, to try to build bridges between the national industries and the demands of the environment. I found that I received considerable sympathetic response in regard to the change in attitudes. It is difficult to discuss this subject without mentioning, if only very briefly, that we have seen changes in attitudes to our environment and towards what we like to feel is an improved quality of life in this country. That has related not only to mineral resources, but also to buildings and design—though we still suffer from a great deal of bad design—as well as getting over the terrible years of the bulldozer.
The problem posed to the commission was to find a balance between cheap energy and environmental

715
protection, and this is the crucial core of whatever we are discussing today. I would agree with the Joint Minerals and Reclamation Group, recently formed by the three local authority associations, in its description of the report as a well-balanced study". I would also very strongly endorse the group's view that it is "unfortunate and clearly regrettable" that the Government should have chosen to mark the publication of the report with a decision in effect to abolish the commission. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, also drew attention to this very important point. The fact that the Government have used the rather felicitous phrase "in abeyance" does not make what they are doing any the more acceptable.
I do not know whether I missed something of what the noble Lord the Minister said. If I did, I am sorry and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will refer to it when he replies to the debate; but I did not hear any explanation of why the commission was being wound up. It was set up only fairly recently and this was its first report. Frankly, I regard the decision as a gratuitious insult to the commission, and one which I find very difficult to understand. Are the Government suggesting that there are no other issues to do with energy and the environment which need detailed investigation? Are the Government also saying that sufficient information has been collected so that a national energy policy can be brought forward and debated in this House? The Government really must fully explain why they have stopped the work of the commission.
I should have thought that the quality and importance of the report alone emphasises the case for reactivating the commission. In paragraph 3.41 it is stated:
"We would see considerable merit in a major study evaluating the risks inherent in a supply orientated policy compared with a policy emphasising efficiency in energy use".
There we have a clear indication from the commission itself of the future work that it feels should be undertaken; and it seems to me to make extremely good sense and to be very important. Probably all of us taking part in the debate will want an answer to this point.
I consider that the commission was right (as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, pointed out) to choose coal as its first major study, since the Royal Commission, in its sixth report, had already dealt with nuclear power. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was also the distinguished chairman of that commission, which produced an extraordinarily good and most original report. However, I wonder how the noble Lord the Minister feels about the fact that so many of the recommendations in that report have not yet been implemented and are still awaiting governmental word. Perhaps I should hastily add that all Governments are fairly slow in taking up the recommendations of commissions which they set up, but now there is quite a queue of recommendations, and it is about time that there was done something that is in the interests not only of the commission, but also of the country.
The coal industry, I believe, has been a well-organised and well-run industry, on the whole, and one which plays a vital role in the economic wellbeing of this country; and, of course, it is the base of the many other sources of energy which depend on coal. The
716
job of extracting coal now requires a highly skilled labour force, but one which must still face up to the inherent dangers of mining. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, drew our attention to the fact that the rate of accidents has gone down, and also the rate of sickness, but, as he rightly said, it is still a highly hazardous industry.
It is a workforce which has experienced severe contractions since the war, and I think it is a workforce to which a tribute is due. It is also a workforce which has to live in the environment in which it works, which is something which is very often forgotten. Unfortunately, we do not need to travel very far in any of our coalfield areas to see the environmental impact that mining has had—and I stress again that miners themselves live in that environment. There is much environmental degradation and blight, which should not be allowed to continue and which most certainly should not be replicated elsewhere.
Much of the dereliction dates back to before nationalisation, and undoubtedly the National Coal Board has done a great deal to improve some of the older mining areas, where the industry is in severe decline. However, much more needs to be done. I welcome the emphasis on high environmental standards in the new coalfields, such as Selby, and the proposed coalfield in the Vale of Belvoir. Although on environmental grounds I think there was a great deal to be said for the decision, it was brought about in rather a curious way.
Unfortunately, the commission, in my view, seems to take the long-term view that the environmental problems of coal-producing areas will gradually be solved as new mines operating to higher standards replace the established mines, which, I am sure we all accept, operate to much lower standards. If this approach is adopted then the established areas will have to continue to accept lower standards for many decades ahead. I think this is really unacceptable from the point of view both of the country as a whole and, even more especially, of those people who are living and working in those areas. I would agree with the Joint Minerals and Reclamation Group that,
"equal priority must be given to existing as well as new mining areas and resources must be made available to enable the NCB and local authorities to improve standards".
Ultimately, of course, the crucial question is one of resources—resources to deal with the disposal of soil, resources to deal with landscaping, resources to deal with the transportation of material and all the other needs concerned with this problem. Ultimately, the principle must be that the polluter pays; but as the National Coal Board is in public ownership, then ultimately the community as a whole must pay so that the benefits it gains from the extraction of coal are not measured in the coalfields by the environmental, social and economic problems which have had to be borne by local communities. As there is a limit to the amount of costs that can be reflected in the increase in coal prices, it comes down once again to the point that the Government have to make funds available so that the real environmental work is done.
The report recommends that an independent regional development agency be set up to deal with derelict land. This is, in some ways, an attractive proposition, but local authorities feel very strongly that as long as

717
money is available they can deal adequately with, for instance, derelict land reclamation without the need to set up an ad hoc body. I rather incline to that view as there is no evidence that the machinery does not work, but there is evidence that it lacks financial fuel. If we take the Welsh Development Agency as a comparison, we have to remember that there is a difference between the two countries. There is also the fact—and this is very important—that whereas here we have two departments, energy and environment, concerned with the problems of energy and environment, in Wales they come under the one department of the Welsh Office. I think that makes a considerable difference. But, obviously, the Government, in conjunction with all the other interests, will have to think about how resources are distributed, and just what priorities should be pursued.
Having said that the grafting on of a further bureaucratic level would not seem to help matters, I think it is very important that if regionalism is introduced in England there should be a new look at this. This then becomes another ball game. But, again, the crucial factor is the financial framework. What is most important in this area, I think, is that there should be predictability and consistency; and it is quite wrong to say that areas like Toxteth, with their urban problems, should have to compete with coal mining areas in order to get grants for their improvement.
I should now like rapidly to move on, briefly, to some of the recommendations contained in this excellent report—and, happily, I shall not refer to all of them, certainly in detail. As I see it, the four main areas are the disposal of spoil, opencast coal, subsidence and transportation. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, gave us a brilliant exposition on coal and the coal industry, so I shall be able to keep my remarks short.
On spoil, all of us are familiar with the typical spoil heaps associated with coal mining, but perhaps we are not always aware of the fact, or remember, that over the next 20 years as much spoil will be generated in some areas as was generated in the past 200 years. My Lords, 200 years, I would have thought, is a long enough period for the industry and for the state to have learned an environmentally and socially more acceptable way of disposing of spoil than simply dumping it on the land, thereby blighting the local environment and destroying thousands of acres of good agricultural land. The emphasis has for far too long been on maximising the production of coal, with little regard for the environmental consequences. I think it has to be said that the National Coal Board has come under relatively little pressure nationally to change the whole basis of its spoil disposal policy, and it has continued with a technology which belongs more to the 18th and 19th centuries rather than the late 20th century.
I was pleased to see that the Flowers Report has initiated some pressure on the Coal Board, and it is important that those concerned should keep the pressure up, both from within industry and within Government and as individuals and as pressure groups. Much more emphasis must be given to the retention of waste material underground and the return of other waste material to the underground workings. This, I am aware, is expensive financially, but it is also
718
cheaper in social costs, and we are always having to balance these two very difficult concepts. I accept that there are technical problems, but technical problems can evolve technical solutions if the will is there.
The Government must require the National Coal Board to perform far more effectively than it has done so far, but, again, it must make resources available. Obviously, spoil will still be brought to the surface and will be kept on the surface. Simply to dump that spoil in the collieries' back yard is about as environmentally acceptable as pouring household waste out of an upper window into the street below. Thank goodness! we have raised our domestic environmental standards: now we want to see industries raising theirs and ensuring, again with Government help, that spoil is taken to places where it can cause the fewest environmental problems and, through the reclamation of places such as the Bedfordshire brickfields, bring the maximum environmental benefits.
On opencast coal, some 15 million tons are produced each year, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, pointed out, it has a dramatic effect on a local environment for anything up to 12 years and more. It is undoubtedly highly profitable, and serves to subsidise some deep mining. But the report recommends a reduction in the amount of opencasting, and the local authority associations, with others, are also pressing for a phased reduction in production because of the environmental problems.
I think it is now more or less a question of general agreement (or it should be) that opencasting must not be carried on simply because it produces a handsome profit. That profit is made at the expense of areas such as Barnsley which have suffered long from the effects of mining. Where opencast is to take place, I would endorse the recommendation in the report that applications must be considered through the normal democratic planning machinery and not by the present procedures which involve consents being issued by the Secretary of State for Energy. The noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government was too modest when he said that he did not feel that he was senior enough to give us the Government's plans—and, in any case, he did not give any plans, although it was all put very elegantly and sounded good. But there were nothing of very much substance. I hope that the noble Lord who will speak for the Department of the Environment when he winds up will express his agreement with some of the points I am making on the environmental side and particularly on the question of using the planning mechanism.
On subsidence, the Joint Minerals and Reclamation Group has called for a more searching review of the procedures. I would endorse that and I believe that the report provides the basis for such a review. Living with the effects of subsidence is something which I think most of us would find difficult to appreciate because when things go bump in the night in places like South Yorkshire or West Yorkshire they can herald sudden and disturbing structural damage to people's homes. The only brief point I would make on transport is the obvious one, that once coal is mined it must be transported. The majority form of transport is by rail or by canal.
The report recommends that, wherever possible, rail should be the chosen means of transport. British

719
Rail have themselves a crucial role to play in this. They have introduced efficient merry-go-round trains for bulk loads travelling on a regular basis. Some concern has been expressed that they are not always perhaps willing or able to transport small loads on a less regular basis. Here we come to the problem from which British Rail themselves suffer as they are highly under-funded and all those things connect together.
In the final analysis we should not lose sight of the balance between the environment and industry and also our responsibility to the miners and to the environment in which they live. I know that the NCB is moving away from the old-fashioned colliery villages and towns and increasingly miners are living in housing estates not dominated by one industry, and the old tied cottage concept is gradually fading away. That must be an improvement which has been paralleled by improvements in pit safety and working conditions. All who live in mining areas, whether employed in the industry or not, deserve a decent quality of life. Between them, local government and the NCB have the ability to improve the environment—and now they need the resources.
The Flowers Committee Report, I would say, has given us a sound basis on which to move forward. Now we must await the Government's response, which I hope will not be long in coming. I was not very encouraged by what the Minister said about getting in the replies because interested bodies were given three months to consider and to respond, and five more months have elapsed since the deadline. We should like to hear from the noble Earl when we can expect to have a definitive and detailed response from the Government, because I do not think that the reply we have had so far has been good enough. When shall we receive a public response from the organisation most directly affected, the National Coal Board?
I would turn to Recommendation No. 22·77 in the report, which concludes that the board has a responsibility to ensure that the best environmental practices available are introduced as appropriate in the day-to-day management of the operation and also that this responsibility be assigned at the appropriate senior level in the board. My last word on this is that, even if the report takes some time to be implemented, as I fear it will, I believe that the commission, by its very work, by the inquiries it held, by the questioning it did, by the journeys and visits it made, has already made a positive impact both on the industry and, I hope, on those most closely concerned with our environment.

EEC: Council of Agriculture Ministers—Price Fixing
3.55 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Together with my right honourable friend the Minister of State"—
720
I should point that that is not me, but Mr. Buchanan-Smith—
"I attended a meeting of the Agriculture Council which met in Brussels on 17th and 18thMay.
"Since January at eight meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers we have been negotiating this year's price fixing arrangements. During these meetings member states had by negotiation obtained unanimity on many of the questions involved. Britain had retained specific reserves on a number of agricultural issues and a general reserve on the entire package. The purpose of the general reserve was to ensure that the position adopted at last November's European Council meeting in London by all member states in considering the 30th May Mandate that the budget and agricultural matters should be dealt with in parallel should be complied with.
"We therefore expected that at the meeting this week we would continue to negotiate on those remaining questions where unanimity had not been obtained. If by the time of the completion of our meeting there was no agreement upon the budget measures we would retain our general reserve.
"Together with Denmark and Greece we strongly protested when the Presidency, encouraged by the Commission, announced that for the first time since 1966 the principle of obtaining unanimity where a very important national interest had been invoked and explained was to be violated and that a decision was to be taken in accordance with the Treaty arrangements for majority voting.
"I made a firm statement to the Council contesting the procedure and declaring that the Council had violated an accepted convention under which all previous price fixings had been adopted. I stated that the Government considered that, as important national interests were involved, in accordance with the established practice of the Community discussions should have continued in this Council until a unanimous agreement had been reached. I pointed out that the decisions that were being taken would place a further financial burden on the United Kingdom, that there was clearly a direct and organic link between the price-fixing decision and the budget negotiations and that this link had been recognised by all member states in their agreement that the three Chapters of the 30th May Mandate should proceed in parallel. I placed on record that I considered the conduct of the Presidency of the Commission and the member states who had joined in this procedure had created a very sad and damaging day in the Community's history and that the Council had quite unjustifiably chosen to depart from the established working practices based on the agreement reached in 1966.
"A majority decision was therefore taken on all of the regulations in accordance with what had been negotiated and agreed on by 9 member states in the meetings prior to this week's Council. Under the Treaty, these regulations become Community law with effect from tomorrow.
"Had the normal process of negotiating continued and had not the presidency, the Commission and seven member states violated the normal traditions, we would have endeavoured to obtain some further improvements in the clawback arrangements on

721
lamb, an even larger reduction in the co-responsibility levy, while at the same time reducing the price increase for milk. We would have sought lower price increases in a number of cereals and in the prices of a range of Mediterranean products.
"Many of the regulations were of course in accordance with the package that had emerged from the negotiations that had taken place in previous meetings of the Council. In those previous meetings the United Kingdom had achieved a number of important objectives to the benefit of consumers and producers, and these will now be implemented.
"We successfully resisted pressures from the Commission and all other member states to revalue the green pound.
"We obtained a half per cent. reduction in the milk co-responsibility levy which will be worth around £10 million to United Kingdom producers in 1982–83.
"The Commission were made to withdraw their proposal for a progressive co-responsibility levy which would have been damaging to the interests of our industry.
"Improvements were made in the provisions and aid for school milk. The Community subsidy was increased and this should lead to an increased up-take by local authorities.
"We succeeded in obtaining an increase of two-thirds in the maximum beef premium payments and an increase in the Community contribution from the 25 per cent. negotiated by our predecessors to 40 per cent.
"We obtained a firm Commission declaration ensuring that the sale of wine distillates will not threaten the alcohol industry in this country.
"We resisted the Commission proposals for a large reduction in the United Kingdom butter subsidy, and the subsidy will continue at around 13 pence per pound.
"The result of the total package that has now been agreed on farm support prices in the United Kingdom is an increase of 10·2 per cent. The effect of this on the retail price index over a full year will be a quarter of 1 per cent. and on the food price index over a full year 1¼ per cent.
"The consumer benefit of the beef premium scheme, sheepmeat regime and the continuation of the butter subsidy will be worth some hundreds of millions of pounds, depending on the market situation.
"The Commission estimate that the settlement increases the budgetary cost of the common agricultural policy by around 1,500 million ECUs or over £900 million in a full year. They also calculate that the increase is well within that of the Community's own resources. We estimate that the extra budgetary cost to the United Kingdom is about £120 million in a full year. This emphasises the importance of agreement on the adjustment of our budgetary contribution, which member states had previously agreed should be decided in parallel with the agricultural decisions.
"Separately from the price-fixing, the Commission announced that a satisfactory solution had been reached to the problem of Dutch horticultural gas
722
prices, which should be of benefit to United Kingdom producers.
"It is wrong that for the first in time 16 years a number of member states should have changed the rules of procedure to suit their immediate requirements and it must be noted that three of the four member states that have joined the Community strongly protested at the violation of the normal procedures that took place yesterday, for they had joined the Community in the knowledge that these were the procedures of the Community.
"The Government will be urgently considering the implications of what was done yesterday, and what action it will take."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister of State for his Statement. This is a very important Statement affecting one of our most important industries. As a former agriculture Minister, I can appreciate what has happened in the Community and I hope that we will somehow have an improvement despite all the difficulties.
Will the Government consider a debate in due course? When shall we be told what action the Government propose to take in response to what is contained in the Statement? When are they going to announce this The Statement says that some of the regulations will be implemented immediately. Will the Minister state which regulations will not be implemented?
Can the Minister also say what implications this has for the common fisheries policy? Will a majority decision apply to that also? What are the wider implications? Will the Government not agree that our entry into the EEC was based on the veto principle? Does this not bring our position in the Community into question? I hope that I can have satisfactory answers on that matter.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is important and I should like to congratulate his right honourable friend on what he has achieved. The 10·2 per cent. rise in farm prices I can assure the House—and I am declaring an interest—is very much needed by the farming community all over the Community. This is evidenced, as it has been many times, by the enormous amount of money that the industry owes to the banks. This continues to rise. This is probably the best evidence that they are not—as people usually say of farmers—howling for the moon. So the 10·2 per cent.—which is much less than the 14 per cent. voted for by the Conservative Members of the European Parliament—is from his right honourable friend's point of view very satisfactory. It is going over the points.
It is absolutely first class that the right honourable gentleman has resisted pressure to revalue the green pound. This would have been grossly unfair. The reduction in the milk responsibility payment is excellent from our point of view, although it is not a satisfactory levy. The increase in the beef premium and the

723
increase in the Community contribution is really a startling achievement. This is against Community practice. Their practice has always been to raise the money from the Market through support buying. To give way to us in this shows a willingness to see the British traditional position.
I could go on and refer to the butter subsidy. The total package is all very good for this country and for the consumer. The rise of a quarter per cent. in the whole index and one and a quarter in the food index is very satisfactory in these times of inflation.
In face of this, our attitude in the Community is most disturbing. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government think they are going to do about it. In the face of the obvious concessions made by our European partners, it appears that our insistence on the practice—and it is not a principle, it is only a practice—of unanimous decision must have been very sorely trying to our partners in the Community.
I hope that when the Government are considering what they should do, they might consider stopping trying to bully our partners in the EEC and to think more in the way that our partners think and the concessions that they have given. I should be very pleased if the Minister would tell me whether we were offered a decent one-year concession on the amount of money we pay. I agree that this is important. It is more important that we remain as good members of the Community and do not get the reputation for being awkward, entirely selfish and non-communantaire.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought I was going to thank both noble Lords for their replies. I will thank the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for his reply and I will thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for part of his reply but will maintain reservations about the latter part of his comments on the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, was quite correct when he said that this was a serious Statement—so it is. It does contain a lot of problems which have not heretofore arisen in the Community. That I readily acknowledge. He also asked whether the Government would arrange for a debate to be held on this matter. That is a matter which can be considered through the usual channels.
The noble Lord also asked when the Government would announce a decision on what action they were going to take. I am sure he will understand that I cannot give an immediate answer to that because this happened only yesterday, and the question of what action should be taken is now under consideration—not just for the United Kingdom but for the benefit of the Community as a whole, of which we are full and determined members. The noble Lord asked when these regulations come into force. They come into force tomorrow; that is, midnight tonight is the starting point.
He also expressed anxiety over the fact that when we joined the Community we joined it on the principle that we had the right of veto. That is perfectly true and we have always accepted that. Indeed, that is the understanding on which other member states also joined. I refer to Denmark, Greece and Ireland, although of course Ireland voted for this package. It is not without interest to note that when Denmark had
724
a referendum on joining the European Community it was one of the nub points that they would have the right of veto. It was also a nub point when the United Kingdom joined the Community.
It is quite clear that the principle of the veto no longer exists. It is also curious—and I am bound to say this—that having voted this through the Council of Ministers yesterday, both France and Italy then said that the Luxembourg compromise had not been undermined. It is absurd for countries to try to stick to the rules when it suits them and to change them when it does not. This is a matter of very considerable concern and when the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that this settlement was good for the United Kingdom, I agree with him. Many parts were agreed and they were agreed by negotiation; they referred to things which would have been, and are, of benefit to the United Kingdom. But there were certain matters which we wanted to see improved and there are certain matters, as the noble Lord well knows, which cannot be considered out of context with the budget problem. It was part of the mandate agreement which was agreed by all member states on 30th May that, regarding the common agricultural policy, the budget decisions there and the budget decisions of the Community should be negotiated in parallel. That was the understanding of all member states and that is what has now gone by the board.
When the noble Lord says that we must really stop bullying our partners in the Community, I would only remind him of this—that we are there as full members and we want to play our full part in negotiations. We do not anticipate, and neither do other members of the Community, having regulations forced upon us which deeply affect national interests and in regard to which we have always previously understood the position to be that those were negotiable. It is the fact that these are not now negotiable and have been forced upon us, which is a matter of concern—and that is not bullying by the United Kingdom.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I mentioned the fisheries policy. The Minister has not referred to that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. There will be a fisheries meeting in due course and we shall have to await the outcome of that.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that we on this Bench are in sympathy with all that he has said? The destruction of the Luxembourg compromise can only be a sad day for the Community. Are we not right in thinking that it does mean that the nightmare of many of those who strongly favoured British membership of the Community has now come to pass? Law is being made in this country against the will of the British Parliament. Is this not a great gift of ammunition to those who opposed British membership and therefore is not this a most unfortunate development?
Is the noble Earl further aware that, despite our sympathy with all that he has said, there remain other things to be said? Has it been wise all this time to concentrate so exclusively on obtaining little budget refunds and tinkering with the price of this or that agricultural commodity rather than going in an

725
imaginative way for a complete reform of the CAP? Where is the Government's imaginative vision of a new CAP which will not operate against us? We would hope to be able to debate this and would call, with the noble Lord the Leader of the Labour Opposition, for an early debate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is perfectly correct in saying that this is, as he put it, one of the nightmares of some people who felt that there might be laws passed of which the United Kingdom disapproved. This has in fact happened, and it is a matter of considerable concern. I think it is right to point out that the Luxembourg accords represent a political agreement and are not part of the treaty itself. Despite the differences between member states about the interpretation of the accords, it has been the invariable practice for the member states which invoke the agreement to decide whether their important national interests were at stake.
What happened in the Agricultural Council is clearly at variance with the established procedures of the Community and it raises very serious questions which we are now considering. The issue will be discussed at next week's meeting of the Foreign Ministers' Council. It is clearly more important than ever that a decision on the budget problem should be taken next week if we are to avoid an even more serious crisis in the Community. We have made clear that we are ready to decide now on a third year refund, as provided for in 30th May agreement, while discussions are completed by the end of the year on a longer-term arrangement. Our views regarding the application of the provisions of 30th May agreement for a third year have been made known to our partners.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that this is a positive and encouraging Statement, in contrast to what has appeared in the press recently?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there are many aspects of this Statement which are extremely encouraging and highly beneficial to agriculture. The package will provide an extra £340 million of additional receipts to British agriculture, and there are many benefits to consumers as well with regard to school milk, the butter subsidy and the fact that the co-responsibility levy has been reduced. There are many benefits, and these have been slightly over-shadowed by the action that was taken yesterday.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would not the Government perhaps agree that, with hindsight, their recent policy in the Agricultural Council has been really misconceived? Not only for the reasons advanced by my noble friend but also for the fact that linking it so tightly with our subscription to the budget and holding up the whole process of agricultural policy for so long—apparently indefinitely—not unnaturally infuriated most of our colleagues, and that at the moment when their help was obviously desirable in connection with the Falklands crisis. Furthermore, despite what my noble friend speaking from the SDP Bench said, would he not further agree, on reflection, that the gradual abandonment of the famous Luxembourg compromise, far from damaging our long-term interests, is really the only way
726
to make the Community work, and therefore to avoid our all relapsing into protection and self-sufficiency and into the establishment in Western Europe of a series of directed economies, which can only be to the benefit of the Soviet Union?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me to say whether, in retrospect, I think that Her Majesty's Government's policy had been misconceived and that we were being too obdurate over the price fixing. I would only remind him of the debates which we have in this House, in which his noble friend and noble Lords opposite frequently take part, in which they criticise the common agricultural policy because of its high costs, because of its increasing costs and because of its increasing surpluses, and they ask what the Government are going to do to reduce these. We have consistently said to the Community that there must be restraints on these. We have consistently said that we must not increase absurdly the prices of those commodities which are already in structural surplus. That is what we have done, and I see the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who has invariably advocated that. With respect, that is not being difficult. It is trying to get a fundamental concession and review of the common agricultural policy. It is no use pretending that there is no connection between that and the budget, because our contribution to the budget is a very substantial one and, as a result of this agreement, it is now going to go up by £120 million.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that there are a number of us who believe that a shift from the principle of unanimity to the principle of majority voting is in the long-term interest of all Europe, but also that, if, as he suggested at one stage, what is going to happen is that each nation is to rely now on unanimity and now on majority voting, as happens to suit its interests at the time, that creates an impossible position and the Government must do their best to prevent that result?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in the latter part of his remarks. Of course, it is absurd if member states are going to use one set of rules when it suits them, and another set of rules when it does not suit them. We have to try to get unanimity. It always was the practice that there was unanimity and that these arrangements came about by agreement. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, would find that it would appeal very much more to the people of this country, and indeed to the people of the Community, if they felt that arrangements were arrived at by unanimity, rather than by diktat by other member countries over which they had no right of veto.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, at any time, there has been any attempt by any partner of the United Kingdom within the European Economic Community to link some of their support in our problems in the South-West Atlantic with the discussions on the agricultural pricing policy and the negotiations on the budget?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief, at no time has there been any con-

727
sideration by any other member state that the problem in the South Atlantic should have any bearing on these arrangements which they were discussing about price fixing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the firm, bold and courageous Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place is to be welcomed, and that lots of people will be asking how long it will be before this kind of thing is done again? Many folk will also be terribly worried if the Government do not act and at least take this opportunity of telling the House quite clearly that they are certainly not going to adopt the genuflecting posture of the Liberal Front Bench in this House, but will take this issue in a very serious way and tell the Community that they have done this once, but they will not get away with it again unless there is proper consultation about the rules, because that is the only way in which they will be indulged.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I always knew that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, were fairly different from our views, but I am glad that he has equally distanced himself from the views of the Liberal Party. He asks when this will happen again. I cannot answer that question. All I can tell him is that it has not happened for 16 years, and that is why we never expected it to happen this time. But I would add that we are members of the Community and we want to see it succeed. Inevitably, in the process of growing and evolving there will be difficulties and substantial problems. When one comes up against a difficulty such as we have now come up against, we should not regard that as the ending of all the previous relationships which we have had. We have to get over these problems and make sure that they do not happen again.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the noble Earl heard about the lady who was watching a troop of Boy Scouts going past and said "It's extraordinary. They're all out of step but my Johnnie"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know many stories, but I did not know that one.

Coal and the Environment
Debate resumed.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, in rising to continue the debate on coal and the environment, I must first express my profound gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for arranging this debate, and for the comprehensive and kind way in which he has spoken about my report. He has made my task much easier. I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for their encouraging remarks. May I also express my regret that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has had to withdraw from this debate due to illness? In his absence, I have been asked to associate the Liberal Party with what I have
728
to say. I hope that they will find what I say broadly acceptable.
I am not sure whether it is quite the done thing to speak in this House about one's own report. I do so, of course, as your Lordships have heard, in a state of abeyance. But at least I have a chance to thank all those who have worked with me for the best part of three years—the members of the commission and of the secretariat and the many witnesses. If we have made a useful contribution, it is because we tried to establish a consensus—an unpopular word these days, I know—about how to formulate energy policies, so as to be broadly acceptable among all the many interests involved.
Our first conclusion, given in Chapter 3, was that, having allowed for all other ways of meeting energy demand, and however optimistic one can be about nuclear power, there was likely to be until the end of this century, and for some time thereafter, a continuing annual consumption of coal in this country in the range 110 million to 170 million tonnes. It is about 125 million tonnes at present. We assumed that most of this coal could, and would, continue to be produced by the National Coal Board, allowing a desirable margin for imports and exports. We asked ourselves whether this could be done and, if so, without unacceptable damage to the environment. Our answer was in two parts: coal production and coal use.
Regarding coal production, our main conclusion was that the programme of modernisation was essential. Only in that way could the interests of the taxpayer and the energy consumer, on the one hand, and the long-term stability of the industry and better pay for its work force, on the other, be reconciled.
"These two sets of interests",
we wrote in paragraph 3.43,
"cannot be reconciled by policies which lead the NCB to produce the last possible tonne from obsolescent, high-cost capacity".
We understood, of course, the serious impact which pit closures have upon a tight-knit mining community, such as one traditionally associates with the Welsh valleys, near which I myself grew up. I, too, wish to acknowledge the admiration for the miners of this country, for their courage and forbearance in many matters. But the new mining communities are different. At Selby, for instance, miners and their families are intermixed with agricultural and other workers over a wide area. One should not assume that the agonies associated with pit closures will continue for ever.
We found, moreover, that there was no necessary conflict between economic and environmental considerations. Despite very real difficulties associated with the control of subsidence and with spoil disposal—to which we devoted a chapter apiece—low-cost, high productivity mines now introduced or planned are designed to high environmental standards. As the new capacity comes into operation, the NCB will be able to phase out obsolete mines, especially in areas whose decline is associated with the worst environmental legacy of the past. They will also then be able to afford to improve the state of the continuing capacity.
The legacy of the past gave us great concern because it is responsible for the image of the coal industry

729
that most people have. A modern deep mine, well managed, need be no more obtrusive than any other heavy engineering operation employing a few thousand workers. But it has not always been so, and it is not always so today, as a visit to West Yorkshire would at once confirm. So long as there remain great tracts of neglected and derelict town and country, dominated by rusting pithead workings, by the bitter heritage of uncontrolled subsidence and scrofulous soil heaps, people must be forgiven for believing—incorrectly to be sure—that this is what a flourishing coal industry exists to perpetuate and proliferate.
Many of our recommendations were concerned with clearing up the legacy of the past, but I will mention only one. Noting what had been achieved by the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies, who successfully mount modern enterprises upon formerly derelict mining land, we recommended in paragraph 22.62 a similar development agency, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, for the Yorkshire coalfield where so much industrial activity has taken place, and is taking place. I should like to ask the Minister what the Government's attitude is to this proposal. The problem is a real one—for the NCB, for the local authorities and for local people. I hope that the ritualistic dislike of quangos will not become a substitute for action.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, has said, spoil disposal is one of the main problems of coal production. The huge tips which he spoke about will be well designed and well restored, especially if our recommendations are followed. But there remains the problem of scale. Particularly in highly worked areas like West Yorkshire we were not sure that there would be enough suitable sites. We recommended in paragraph 22.57 that the Department of the Environment should promote arrangements for spoil disposal similar to those which apply to aggregates. I hope the Minister will again be able to give some indication of the Government's response.
In the long run, however, I believe that much more effort must be devoted to modifying the modern long-wall process—and it is a modern process—whereby the roof collapses behind the cut seam and the spoil can then only be disposed of on the surface. Backstowage underground was once the practice, but it is now out of fashion. The reasons are perfectly sound. Longwall methods are high in productivity and constitute a relatively low health and safety hazard. A return to backstowage would certainly be technically very difficult but it is environmentally desirable. It might be economically desirable, too, because of the loss in value of agricultural land resulting from insufficient land drainage when the inevitable subsidence has taken place. It is therefore one of our recommendations that long-term research should be undertaken into new forms of backstowage which would be acceptable both economically and in terms of the health and safety of the workforce. It would be very long term work.
In spite of detailed criticisms, we were not at all condemnatory of the coal mining industry. Indeed, we were encouraged by the evidence. In the particular case of opencast mining, however, we came to the firm conclusion that the pendulum had swung too
730
far against the environment. It is an obtrusive technique to practise in such a densely populated country, full of sensitive landscapes, farmlands and homesteads. The difficulty is essentially economic. The NCB makes up its losses in unprofitable deep mines by its profitable opencast operations. In 1980–81, it made a profit of £157 million on 15 million tonnes of opencast coal, against a loss of £135 million on 110 million tonnes of deep-mined coal. The losses on deep-mined coal arise from the unprofitable old pits that we recommended should be phased out—as, indeed, they are being. As deep mining thereby becomes more efficient, we recommended in paragraph 22.73 that the annual volume of opencast coal should be allowed to decline somewhat. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government were convinced by our arguments on that point?
Before I leave coal production I must make one remark about the question of reserves. It proved to be a difficult matter to discuss, not helped at times by the somewhat naïve pronouncements of the NCB. According to the accepted definitions, there is every reason to suppose that the board can continue to declare, as far ahead as one can see, that there are 50 years of operating reserves at the present level of output. But it depends on the definitions: if the definitions in future are to depend upon the environmental consequences of eventual extraction, there may be greater uncertainties.
We did not discuss the proposed development at the Vale of Belvoir because it was simultaneously being considered at a public inquiry. We did, however, note in paragraph 6.24 that the visual impact at Belvoir would be significantly different from that at Selby, essentially because the geology of the two coalfields is so different. Selby is almost spoil free. Belvoir is not. If one development can go ahead but the other not, it follows that a new environmental criterion will have to enter the estimation of the NCB's operating reserves.
I confess that I was myself surprised by the Secretary of State's refusal to allow the Belvoir development to take place as planned. If the proposals were made in accordance with our recommendations—and I have no reason to suppose they were not—I find it hard to believe that the Secretary of State could have discovered in our report any substantial grounds for rejecting the board's submission. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me about the role our report may have played in the thinking of the Secretary of State on this matter, and whether he was aware of the implication of his decision for future estimates of the operating reserves.
So much for production. Coal is used in power stations, for other industrial purposes and in domestic heating. In the future it may be used for synthetic fuels also, if the economics allow. In our report we pay a lot of attention to combustion technology in these different uses and to the means available to control the associated pollution—principally smoke, sulphur dioxide and, of course, ash. Smoke is really no longer a problem with power stations because they use electrostatic separators with an efficiency of something like 99.5 per cent., combined with hugh stacks to disperse the essentially gaseous residue. Low level emissions in towns are nowadays much reduced but in any case can be controlled by the introduction of further smoke control zones, if they are needed. We indicated where

731
the black spots might be. Ash disposal, as with spoil, is mainly a matter of site availability.
Sulphur dioxide is not so much of a health problem as it was once imagined to be, unless it is associated with smoke, and even then it is dangerous mostly to cigarette smokers who, quite literally, have the remedy in their own hands. The mandatory limits for smoke and sulphur dioxide set out in the EEC Air Quality Directive provide an adequate standard for the protection of human health. That being so, we also considered that they were adequate as regards local crops and vegetation and the protection of materials against corrosion.
There remains the vexed problem of acid rain. Sulphur dioxide, swept high into the atmosphere and carried across the North Sea, falls as acidified rain on to land which in certain parts of Scandinavia is already acid in character. Some of it also reaches the ground by dry deposition, but I will not go into that. The results are harmful to fish and to crops. How much of the damage results from acid rain and how much from the acidity already present is still hotly contested. It may be that adding lime to the appropriate watersheds would be a sufficient solution, although this too may have its side effects. The matter is being intensively researched under a convention of the Economic Commission for Europe. If acid rain should turn out to be the major culprit—originating in parts of the Continent, such as the Ruhr, as well as in the United Kingdom—and if it has to be arrested at source, the solution is likely to be very expensive, adding perhaps 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. to the cost of a unit of electricity. Someone has said that flue gas desulphurisation is the billion dollar solution to a million dollar problem. We did not think that enough was yet known to justify such expenditure at present, although we hedged our bets by saying that desulphurisation research should certainly continue.
Perhaps I should say a word about siting requirements for major energy projects. The problem arose, in our thinking, with synthetic natural gas for which a full-scale commercial plant would resemble a 2,000-megawatt coal-fired power station in terms of coal consumption, land take, water requirements, air pollution and ash production. There will be a need for sites of this kind not only for SNG plants and for coal-fired generating stations, but for other large-scale, energy-intensive industrial enterprises. We were not sure that there would be enough sites to satisfy the total need. I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees with our recommendation (given in paragraph 22.128)—we considered it an important one—that the Department of the Environment, together with the energy industries and the local authorities, should undertake a joint review of potential sites of this kind, initially in Yorkshire and the East Midlands.
Finally, we devoted a chapter to the planning process whereby, under the town and country planning system, one tries to reach an accommodation between the principal interests involved in any major development. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, both emphasised that the concepts of balance and of the interaction between energy policy and the environment were throughout fundamental to the way we approached our task. But how that balance
732
is perceived is a matter of opinion—the opinion of ordinary people as well as of experts. Ordinary people are no longer content that Ministers and their advisers should have a monopoly of judgment of the public good. They want nowadays to participate in the decision-making process, and the means by which they do so, under the law, is the town and country planning system. We therefore made a number of proposals for streamlining that system. I will not go into detail; suffice it to say that we assumed the public would have to be better informed of likely developments than they generally are at present, starting from the top. It is first of all necessary that the Government should itself make clear at regular intervals how it views the energy scene—what are the requirements and how might they be met.
It is, of course, a scene that changes with time: with the state of the economy, with external events, with technological innovations, and so on. This, we believed, could nevertheless be made generally comprehensible and would greatly ease the problems of getting any particular development or project into proper public perspective. I would like to know whether the Government agree that this should be done. Secondly, we thought it important to have some idea of site availability—whether it is a power station, a colliery, a spoil heap, or an SNG plant—well ahead of time, so that there can be an element of choice. It really is not good enough to research only one site and then to claim too late that there is no alternative.
Thirdly, we thought that consultation with local interests should be progressive, beginning early at an exploratory level, becoming gradually more comprehensive as and when the project moves forward. Many of the tensions which are encountered at public local inquiries, often the culmination of the planning process, would be eased by more effective dialogue between the relevant interests during the early preparatory stages of planning. The British town and country planning system is astonishingly versatile when properly used—hence, incidentally, much of the objection to the formal continental and American processes of environmental impact assessment.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long. I hope that the report we are debating today may help to put the future of the coal industry into better perspective. I hope that its 70-odd recommendations, if adopted, will create better conditions, a better public image and smoother planning. The challenge is there—to the industry, to the workforce, to the customer; but only a modernised industry can meet that challenge. In that way, coal can continue to play its full part in the economy, and in that way it can do so without unacceptable damage to the environment.
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, your Lordships are all greatly in debt both to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for opening this debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for the report which we are now debating. Somehow, I do not think of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, as "quango Man" or homo quangus—much more, homo sapientissimus. Certainly I have found study of his report rewarding but also, I must say, most demanding. Before I go any further, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence for the fact that a

733
long time ago I was committed to an engagement this evening which causes me to leave here at 5.45 p.m. Therefore, it is likely that I cannot be here for the conclusion of the debate and I apologise in advance to your Lordships and to my noble friend on the Front Bench who will be winding up.
This debate occurs in the wake of the Vale of Belvoir decision. Perhaps it is worth recalling the reasons which were given in the other place by the Secretary of State for the Environment for his decision. In Hansard for 25th March 1982 (cols. 1096–1097) we read:
"Permission should be refused for the proposed spoil tips at Hose and Saltby".
The Secretary of State went on:
"Other methods of spoil disposal should be further examined".
He concluded:
"Had there been acceptable proposals for spoil disposal, I would have been minded to grant planning permission for mines at Asfordby and Saltby".
Environment is, of course, the new religion and like many contemporary cults it is open to serious challenge. Environmental change is itself as old as geology—not so, however, environmental fashion. Environmental aesthetics are ever variable and ever volatile, and they are never predictable. There have been moments when the environmentalists have protested against the growth and, alternatively, the removal of hedgerows; of shelter belts; and even more recently of afforestration—let alone the almost paranoiac hysteria which developed a few years ago about the Brent geese being driven away from Maplin Sands as if there was no other place for the poor dear geese to alight and feed.
Either the landscape is to be kept static or we deny the energy needs of an industrial society while simultaneously wanting its comforts and its so-called improved quality of life. I was brought up on a nursery belief that one cannot have one's cake and eat it. It is inevitable that there will be an environmental on-cost which society must be ready to pay if it wants to have the energy that makes life more comfortable and more agreeable in an industrial world. This report focuses primarily on the problems which are going to arise in Yorkshire and the Midlands. The need is spelt out quite clearly. It is to cater for up to 60 million tonnes of spoil disposal a year which, if tipped, would require up to 500 acres a year.
I find paragraphs 9.31 to 9.33 not as sanguine as I personally could have hoped about the possibility of moving pulverised spoil for land reclamation of coastal sites, although at paragraph 9.33 there is the assurance:
"There is limited scope for using spoil for remote land reclamation. It should not be ruled out entirely and should be considered very seriously".
I should have thought, to the contrary, that there was abundant scope for this, both on the coasts, like Lancashire, where the sea is receding, and on the coasts, like Yorkshire, where it is in fact eating the coastline away. We are not an under-populated island: if anything we are over-populated. For many years we have been proud that we grow as much food as we do for our own people, but we should surely be prouder still if we grew more. Areas that strike one as having a relatively shallow shore and seeming to invite reclamation would include the Firths of Tay, Forth and Solway,
734
Morecambe Bay, especially the Lancaster Sands, the Lancashire coast—all of it—Carmarthen Bay, the Lincolnshire coast, the Wash, Northern Norfolk, Maplin and the Kentish Flats.
But what about feasibility? There are more than 1,000 pipe-lines existing in the United Kingdom at the present time, legitimised by the Pipe-Lines Act 1962. Not only do they carry industrial gases, oil and petrochemicals, but they also carry cement, clay and coal. But whereas pipe-lining accounts for some 24 per cent. of freight movement in the United States and 17.6 per cent. in France, it accounts for less than 5 per cent. in Britain. Those are figures taken from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in 1980. There have been many technical studies made, and one or two that have been brought to my attention are perhaps worth identifying. The Financial Times on 6th June 1973 quoted studies by the British Hydromechanics Research Association at Cranfield for a twin three foot pipe over a distance of 200 miles moving 10 million tonnes per annum of material at about £40 million. If one transposes those calculations to the sort of things we are talking about in Britain, which is a distance of, say, 60–70 miles to the coast, and you have 60 million tonnes a year to move, you get something like £60 million.
Three years later the Engineer, a serious publication in the field of mechanical handling, described on 29th April 1976, a comparison of costs for moving 1 million tonnes a year of aggregate over a distance of some 6;i miles by pneumatic capsules in concrete pipes. It found that the cost was 15 per cent. cheaper than the cheapest road haulage and 30 per cent. cheaper than by rail. These calculations take account of both capital and replacement costs. Broadly speaking, the figures work out the same but on a total annual output of, say, 180 million tonnes a year it looks as if you get a figure after inflation of somewhere between £5 and £10 a tonne on-cost to the cost of coal if you try and move this volume of spoil from, say, the centre of England, or the centre of Scotland for that matter, to a coastal site.
But against that one surely has to match the cost first of all of good farm land, or land of any kind, which is spared spoliation, and we are talking now about 500 acres a year, and also the cost of new good land which is created. So these are figures that should certainly enter into the calculation. There is, of course, another related factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has just drawn attention. He has mentioned the need for sites for SNG plants in the future. I think one should also bear in mind the need for new power station sites in the future.
I was rather surprised in reading the Flowers Report that there was no obvious reference—I may not have read it sufficiently—to the studies carried out by the Watt Energy Committee published in March 1979 on Energy Development and Land in the United Kingdom. There is a very interesting map in that report which indicates the sort of areas that seem most likely to be needed for power station development in the next 30 or 40 years. I notice that a number of those coincide with the areas I have already mentioned as possible for reclamation. They mention the Firth of Forth, the Berwickshire coast, the Ayrshire coast, the Northumbrian coast, Morecambe Bay again, South Humber-

735
side, Severnside, the area of Devonport, the Dorset coast, the Southampton area, Suffolk and Dungeness. So it is not only a question of finding sites for colliery spoil, but it is also for power stations and the various forms of refinery such as SNG plants that are going to be needed. This seems to me to be the area that the commission might well have studied more sympathetically.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, if the noble Earl would forgive me, that is exactly the point I made in my speech, and it is also the point that is made in the report itself.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for correcting me; homo sapientissimus beats the student every time. However, in the light of the general drift of the report, I find the noble Lord's conclusions quite remarkably restrained. I draw attention particularly to paragraph 22.57 where, in the most moderate language, we are told:
"We conclude that the problem of spoil disposal suffers from the lack of any coherent national or regional disposal policy and that better co-ordination",
et cetera, is needed. That is a very modest way of putting what is a crying disgrace.
Of course it did not surprise me that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, in opening, trotted out the sort of litany that issues from this Government—which in many ways, as your Lordships know, I support—about market forces. How on earth market forces are going to enter into providing the public service needed to create new land on a large scale, I do not know. I happen myself at this time to be concerned in seeking funds for a reclamation project of great economic benefit, sanctioned by the Minister of Transport in another part of the country, and I must say that the altruism of financial institutions, the altruism of the market, is not something that I have yet come to recognise. Be that as it may, there is obviously an area where market forces should be allowed to work their best, and there are areas where the public service has to exist.
We have two other quite modest recommendations in the noble Lord's report. At 22.126 we are told:
"there should be a more systematic explanation by Government of the progressive evolution of national energy policy, and of the options for its implementation".
My goodness! I go along with that. Which noble Lord interested in energy would not endorse that over and over again? We are told that this should be accompanied by regularly updated indication of the order of magnitude of possible future requirements for major energy projects. Tell that to the market forces and I wonder what answer you will get? We in this House perpetually ask of the Government more intelligent and more penetrating surveys of energy policy. I would not like my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale to think that we did not appreciate the general conspectus with which he introduced the Government's view this afternoon, but we always want more and better.
Finally, at paragraph 22.128 the report concludes:
"long-term planning of land resources suitable for energy developments needs to be improved".
My goodness! improved? It needs to exist; there is
736
very little at the moment. Whether all these polite words will affect this Government or any other Government in any way, I doubt. Reasoned argument in my political experience is nothing like so effective as hitting them with a hammer.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate initiated so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for his work in recent years in guiding public opinion in areas where authoritative analysis and informed judgment on technical and scientific subjects are needed. I had the privilege of sitting under his chairmanship on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution when he produced the Sixth Report on Nuclear Energy, acknowledged to be a classic in its sphere, which won worldwide esteem as well as influencing opinion at home. The report entitled Coal and the Environment is not perhaps quite in that class, but it is a most thorough and well-balanced study of the effects of a major extractive industry which, having been in decline, is now seen to be re-emerging as a front runner, despite the caveats of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. So the report that we are debating today is most opportune.
Nevertheless, I know that I echo the sentiments of many people in expressing indignation at the high price charged for this report by Her Majesty's Stationery Office—namely, £23 a copy. This is well above the price acceptable to most intelligent lay readers who cannot look to public or professional funds to furnish them with a working copy. If one goes to a library one cannot underline and sideline, which is what one needs to do with a report of this type if one is to deal with it adequately.
I speak with recent experience, having 10 days ago chaired a seminar in South Wales of some 50 people representing all the major interests in the matter in the area, public and private, to discuss this very report. It was under the joint auspices of the Prince of Wales' Committee and the National Coal Board, South Wales Area. We decided to photocopy and circulate the 11 pages of conclusions and recommendations. I do not know whether we were in breach of the copyright law, but if we were, so be it. To my mind it is monstrous to ask public spirited people to give their time, effort and expertise over some three years, with little or no reward, and then to price the results of their labours out of the market, which is what has happened in this case. It shows complete disregard for the true public interest. This is not the occasion on which to pursue the matter, but I hope that some of us may perhaps be able to take it up in the future.
After that little diversion let me return to the report itself. I propose to touch on certain aspects primarily from the standpoint of the area that I know best—namely, that of the South Wales coalfield. This is not just being parochial; this coalfield represents, at their sharpest and most comprehensive, conditions which still prevail elsewhere, particularly in the North-East of England but also in parts of the North-West and Yorkshire—in other words, the areas of the old coal regime. The older mines are, for the most part, less profitable; opencast workings are tolerated because they are, on the whole, more profitable and help to

737
redress the financial balance for the coalfield as a whole. This is particularly important in South Wales where geology, topography and—in relation to pollution and run-off—heavy rainfall, all enhance the problems and consequently the cost of remedying them.
For us, many of the environmental problems are legacies of the past rather than apprehensions for the future. I do not think that there is much prospect of a Selby in Glamorgan. Consequently, we are concerned that we shall not be left behind while attention is concentrated on how best to handle the developing areas in the Midlands, Oxfordshire and parts of Yorkshire. This, we believe, could be a very real danger.
In the papers provided for our seminar by those who are actually working day by day in the coal industry, I was struck by the difference in attitude of those in the National Coal Board and the Welsh Development Agency—which in Wales is responsible for dealing with derelict land restoration—compared with some of the recommendations in the report. In a region with long years of experience in tackling dereliction in particular, and doing it on the whole remarkably successfully, as the report generously remarks, there is a natural tendency to take the line, "We have faced and solved most of these problems; we do not need changes, for example, in planning controls and the like. We have worked out a reasonable modus vivendi over several decades with the other authorities concerned; all we really need is adequate resources to get on with the job".
The anxiety in an area of this kind—and I would suppose it would apply equally to comparable areas in parts of England—is simply to be allowed to keep pace and not to slip back inexorably, which is the fear, because the funds available continue to diminish in value. Had we been holding the seminar, for example, in North Oxfordshire, I am sure that the attitude would have been quite different. There one looks forward to potentially intrusive development of rich resources in virgin land and, on the social side, to the possible advent of potentially obtrusive miners. I was delighted with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, about coal miners. Coal miners are among the best people in the world—they have to be. But the inhabitants of the rich acres of rural England may not see them in that way in the first instance, so they will be on the alert to protect themselves by every available means.
I believe that modern coal mining, properly sited and well run, need not be unduly detrimental. I think that the balance on this was very wisely expressed in the report. I believe that anyone living in any such area which may look forward to development of a modern coal industry, should find the recommendations in this report extremely helpful, based as they are on careful investigation and rational judgment.
However, I return to the historic areas in the coalfields—particularly in my own country of South Wales—with their steep-sided hills and the valleys so narrow that there is little space or flat land of any sort to accommodate the modern factories and workshops needed to keep active, economic life viable. Spurred by the Aberfan disaster and the development of modern earth-moving equipment, there has been a revolution in the treatment of coal tips and waste heaps. As the report emphasises, the newer tips are
738
far less obtrusive, although this has the disadvantage of using up more of the less steep land. But I was so glad that the report so vividly describes in Chapter 10 how closely bound together in such areas are the treatment of former and current dereliction with the prospects of providing future work and happiness for the communities who live in these valleys. I quote from page 71 of the report—and I think that this was referred to by my noble friend Lady Birk—where it says:
"over half of factory space built by the WDA in the last five years has been on reclaimed land".
That is the measure of the importance of the new techniques which are now being adopted. In order to make the two policies of dealing with derelict land and with the provision of employment fruitful, there has, of course, as the report very much emphasises, to be the closest consultation and collaboration between the National Coal Board and its colleagues in the public sector, not least the local planning authorities.
On the whole, I think that this is very well carried out, but there are reasons of industrial relations—again referred to in the report—which make the National Coal Board understandably chary of announcing too long in advance the areas in which there may be closures of existing mines. This, of course, lessens the time and opportunity for those who have to take responsibility for new developments in those localities.
It is disquieting for us that at present the Welsh Development Agency's resources for land clearance are declining in real terms. I am not sure what effect the new Derelict Land Bill, recently introduced in another place, will have on their work, but, as the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that there will be no increase in public expenditure and that such money as is available will be defused by making grants to persons other than local authorities, it does not arouse great hopes. Fortunately, however, for us in Wales, some of the problems affecting local authorities in England are minimised by the use of the Welsh Development Agency as an intermediary. I am quite sure that the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and advocated in the report, that serious consideration should be given towards setting up a comparable development agency for the Yorkshire coalfield, should be taken very seriously indeed.
On the planning side, it is indeed true that there are differences of view between the National Coal Board and the planning authorities. I think that this is only to be expected. Again, there are some sensible suggestions in the report, and in particular one would draw attention to the suspicion felt by local authorities that the Minister for Energy is now regarded as being judge in his own cause. There are various minor points concerned with the general development orders which need attention. They are small in themselves, but they can make quite a considerable difference in local circumstances.
I should like to turn for a moment to opencast working. The report concludes that there should be no present increase in the total coal take by this method and that as more new deep mines are opened, the total of the opencast target should decline. It also suggests that the two sectors—deep-mining and opencast—should be financially separated. In South Wales

739
there would be considerable concern if this went anywhere beyond simple accounting practice. With the shattering experience in the mining sector which we have gone through in the past half century—and perhaps I might remind your Lordships that in the Rhondda where there were once 53 pits there is now only one fully working coalmine—there would be panic if the profitable Opencast Executive were to be hived off completely from the deep mine sector, because the one helps to sustain the other.
I think that it was right for the commisison to come down against anything so drastic. Nevertheless, having said how dependent we are on opencast workings in the South Wales coalfield, one must emphasise that only those who live near a long-term opencast site can appreciate the destruction and the loss of amenity that it can bring over a period which can extend to 20 years or longer. Obviously, it also gravely affects not only daily lives but property values for many families whose one major investment is likely to be their own home.
Hitherto, the common practice has been to receive authorisation for opencast working on a rolling programme basis, with renewal of permission after review, normally every five years or so. But more recently long-term, single authorisation sites have become accepted, with no provision for periodic review and hence no continuing incentive on the operator to keep all the conditions affecting noise, dust, visual encroachment and so on under stringent control. This can cause serious deterioration which may be accepted too readily in or near mining villages anxious to retain employment but regardless of the long-term future for the area. Once an area has become blighted, it can progressively deteriorate, and it is then very difficult to arrest the decline.
This point is all the more serious because there are apprehensions that, following a recent reference to the Monopolies Commission, there could be some possible privatisation—to use that ugly word, and it is ugly in all senses—of opencast coal working. For anyone who knows these areas, that could be disastrous. The National Coal Board has full responsibility as a public body to control the many private contractors who work on these sites. But to remove that dimension of public control on opencast working—something that affects people's lives so intimately over so many years—in my view would be a disgrace. I would hope that the Minister, to whom I have given notice of this point, can say here and now that such an idea in this context will never be entertained.
There are many other areas in the report to which one could refer with considerable interest and concern. I shall perhaps touch on only one, and that is the relations between the National Coal Board and the Welsh Water Authority. No doubt this applies in other areas to the regional water authorities as appropriate. The Welsh Water Authority has very considerable responsibility for some of the consequences of the activities of the National Coal Board. There are problems from washeries, from coal by-product plants, water from abandoned mines and run-off or leachates from spoil tips, tailings, large coal stocking areas and so on, all of which seriously affect water quality and fish life in our rivers.
740
Much of this surface drainage, run-off and overflow is not subject to any consent procedure under existing legislation. I am not suggesting that it should be made liable to legislative control, but it makes it all the more essential that there should be the closest co-operation and consultation between the National Coal Board and the water authorities. This used to be a matter of considerable discontent, but I think it is right to say that in the last few years relationships have very considerably improved. None the less there is still need for eternal vigilance.
There are so many other matters that one would like to discuss because this is a very full report and very closely argued, but we cannot deal with them all today. Nevertheless, this makes it all the more important that when the noble Earl, Lord Avon, replies he will give us some indication that the Government are not only actively considering all these suggestions but that they will make it their duty to give the public comments and replies as detailed and as authoritative as the proposals and recommendations made in this report; and perhaps we call also be assured that we shall not have to wait too long for the Government's considered response.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, as are all other noble Lords who have spoken, for giving us the first and last opportunity of considering a report from the Commission on Energy and the Environment. This report, for which we are so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and his colleagues in the commission, demonstrates the misfortune which the country suffers from the Government's decision to let the commission fall into abeyance. Among many others, I have been concerned over some eight to 10 years past that such a commission should exist for the very purposes which are emphasised in this admirable report, which perhaps I might summarise as educational of the public with a view to establishing the options open with regard to an energy policy within the field, of course, to which this report relates. There is no other body of equal, or like, authority of which I know other than this which could undertake such a task. I shall refer later in my remarks to the underlying theme of this report, which is precisely the purpose of the report, to educate, and stimulate consideration of these matters so that people may be better informed. It is a great disservice to the country that this commission should be put into abeyance.
At this hour I believe I should confine myself to three points which have struck me as of particular interest and significance, one of which seems on the face of it to be so simple. One of the most significant conclusions reached is that industrial coal burn can be positively encouraged in most circumstances. This is stated in Chapter 22.122 and follows from the discussion of industrial coal burn in paragraphs 19.20 to 19.34. The significance of this conclusion to the lay reader is that it displaces the widely-held view developed over many years, that the burning of coal in urban areas should in principle be eliminated and be replaced by the use of electricity as the ideal solution.
The directives of a prime energy source such as coal must be much more economical and better adapted to such purposes as space heating than electricity could

741
ever be. The directives for coal in industry, as compared with the use of electricity where the option exists, muct be advantageous. This is not the time to discuss electricity generation policy, on which I would claim no expertise at all, but in the light of this conclusion one is led to wonder whether the policy of constructing vast power stations on coastal sites or on coalfields with giant pylons striding across the countryside is the right exclusive policy.
One is led to wonder whether, whatever the fuel used, be it coal, nuclear or oil, the loss of around 70 per cent. of the energy consumed in such production can be justified when the greater part of that loss could be eliminated in suitable circumstances by using the waste heat created in the locality where the electricity is generated. In the light of the commission's conclusion, it would seem well worth reopening an inquiry as to the practicality of developing local coal burning power stations using heat which would otherwise be wasted, effectively.
In the report, emphasis is rightly laid upon the need for proper maintenance and supervision of the equipment used, which leads to the conclusion that those conditions can be more easily fulfilled in the industrial context than in the private home. I wonder, however, whether technology and inventiveness cannot produce some foolproof equipment which could enable coal to be used once again in the private home without causing pollution, and perhaps with the convenience of oil, by some kind of automatic feed.
Of course, the advantage of greater efficiency in the use of fuel is a reduction in the aggregate amount of fuel required. So far as the environment is concerned in all its aspects such efficiency must be advantageous. Greater efficiency must lead to lower pollution both locally and in these more obscure fields of the greenhouse effect and the problem with regard to acid rain. There is of course also the point now so much overlooked that the use of less fuel will conserve resources. It has only recently been less under consideration because of the oil glut. I suggest that this is a completely temporary phenomenon which will soon pass. This conclusion of the commission deserves therefore careful consideration not only for itself but also for its implications.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned earlier, the commission refers in paragraph 3·41 to the debate on the balance between investment in energy supplies and in energy efficiency. This is really another aspect of the point to which I have just referred. The commission have not embarked upon such a study, but say that they would have done so had they not been allowed to fall into abeyance. This is a crucial element in a proper study of energy policy and is just the sort of study which the commission could have done so well. I much hope that the Government will not allow the point to be ignored, but will see that such a study is undertaken by a suitably qualified body.
One of the curious omissions from most of the literature I have seen relating to energy is the absence of any proper consideration of the amount of energy used in an operation. Indeed, there is no commonly accepted measure of energy, although of course tons of coal or oil equivalent are used, kilowatts are used, and sometimes joules. The Watt Committee on Energy, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale,
742
referred, produced something in this field, and it would be wrong to omit to mention the work of Gerald Leach. With their pioneering work, however, there would be a lot to be said for incorporating in a study of energy supply and energy efficiency a study of this question which might be called "energy accounting". It is no use using money for this sort of accounting as it distorts the amount of energy used because of price fluctuations, taxation, and numerous irrelevant factors. It is the accounting of the energy used which is required, and I believe that this is a matter on which it would be most helpful if the Government gave some impetus.
Finally, may I refer for a moment to the underlying theme which runs through so much of the report relating to the need for progressive evolution of a national energy policy and the options open, and for wide public understanding of this. The implementation of major energy programmes inevitably involves all sorts of conflicting public interests. One only has to think of Windscale, Roskill, Belvoir, and the rest. Without a broad measure of public acceptance of the need for implementation of a particular energy policy there will be constant skirmishing between those other interests and the energy industries which can benefit neither side. We have seen it happen here, we have seen it happen in Germany, in Holland, in France, in the United States and elsewhere. This is a matter against which we want to guard not by protective measures but by the development of information and understanding.
I suggest that we can reach two conclusions from this. First, that there must be continual public awareness of the energy needs and of the options open, and secondly some adaptation of the present planning process is required. Whilst there is much flexibility, as the commission points out, in the present town and country planning system, the essential difficulty is that a planning application is quite specific whereas the question at issue may rather relate to national policy. As is stated somewhere in the report the benefit may be national but the burden will be local. This is the dilemma.
This is a matter of great and increasing public concern upon which there have been a number of conferences. Indeed one is to be held only next week under the auspices of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Town Planning Institute. This of course is not a matter which is related solely to coal and the environment, though chapter 21 of the report concerns itself with it. I much wonder whether the proposals made by the commission to alleviate the problem within the existing planning system will deal adequately with what the commission themselves regard as a key factor, and indeed perhaps the theme of their study. It is a matter on which I should be glad to know the Government view and what, if any, steps they have in mind to take by way of further study, changes in practice or in legislation.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I presume to ask the noble Lord a question, it being irresistible that I should ask a question of such a distinguished member of the profession of solicitors? He referred to accountability in regard to energy. With his great experience in the City of London, would be agree that the accounts of public companies should show not only accounts on

743
a financial basis but accounts in relation to energy accountability?
Lord Nathan: I would be frightened to accept that suggestion, my Lords, because the accounts of public companies are already over-long and so complicated as to be almost incomprehensible. I fear that if one had inflation accounting related to energy, we should all go mad, but the noble Lord raises an interesting point.
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, like those who preceded me, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for initiating this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for standing in for him, so effectively that I must warn him that if I am ever in need of a stand-in, his name may be on the danger list. My old friend and colleague Lord Flowers has produced another of those reports of his which are always hallmarked by that distinction and elegance which are peculiarly his own, and I associate myself with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and others, about what a pity it is that the commission has been wound up. I also agree with what she said about the document being priced out of the power of the average person to buy it.
After serving my stint on Sub-Committee F, during which I specialised on coalmining, coal processing and the problems of coal pollution, I served in attendance on the Royal Society's committee on coal and the environment, the evidence from which noble Lords will find under Topic No. 4 on page 23 in the summary which has been given us by the Printed Paper Office. For the last 12 years, until the first of this month, I was chairman of the Meteorological Committee, to whom many of these problems were referred for resolution of one kind or another. I would say, taking a general attitude to the matter, and remembering that when I was born we were producing well over 200 million tons of coal a year, that I cannot believe that reverting to what was common practice in those days will have any very spectacular results, unless one can point to some technological feature which has changed in the interim, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said in relation to dirt, one can indeed find such a difficulty.
I wish to deal with some of the items in the Royal Society's evidence from the standpoint of the relative urgency of different problems in relation to their time-scales, and we might take as the basis of our timescale the span of the Industrial Revolution, which, for my own part, I always date from the first blast furnace of Abraham Darby in Coalbrookdale in about 1750; so the industrial revolution can be taken as about 230 years old. How does one look at a span of 230 years? It is long in one sense, but not very long in another. It is 10 per cent. of the time lapse since the death of Socrates, but its last third is coterminous with the span of my own life. Its last two-thirds are coterminus with the span of my life and my grandfather's life.
Talking of the span of my life, it more than covers the period from the first flutterings of the Wright brothers to the first manned landing on the moon. The point I wish to make arising out of those considerations is
744
that anything other than the shorter-term problems will be faced with a technology that we cannot imagine, because technology is advancing so fast, and the sort of doomwatch attitudes which will arise at the end of the life of somebody now being born are really otiose because our power over nature, if it proceeds at the present pace, will be so enhanced by then that it would be a waste of time now to start saying how we should tackle those longer-term problems in the future.
Take, for example, the problem of the glasshouse effect and so on—the rise of carbon dioxide —when nothing we do in this country can make very much difference to the carbon dioxide content in the world, but of course what the world does can make quite a big difference to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over this country. But the latest and most refined mathematical calculations—these have reached me only in the last few weeks, so they are stop press news—indicate that the atmospheric effects are a good deal more sophisticated than was originally thought. We may be going to be faced, for example, with much more in the way of local, than global, effects; there will be droughts in places where we are no longer accustomed to having droughts, and there will be floods where we are not accustomed to having floods. But all that lies a long way in the future.
Plant photosynthesis is at an optimum when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is three times what it is. Maybe that is what the long-term historical average has always been and plants have adapted to it. Maybe we are merely living in a carbon dioxide world at the present time. The great storehouse of carbon dioxide is the sea, and the sea and the atmosphere interchange carbon dioxide—nobody knows the details. If the sea warms up, it emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if it cools down it absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Having absorbed it, it can fix some of it as coral, future limestone rocks and so on. If we want to know more about that we must study not the atmosphere but oceanography because the two interreact and we shall never understand the atmosphere until we understand the oceans or vice versa. It may be a rather strange conclusion to say that if you want to know about the glasshouse effect, do not bother about measuring the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere but study oceanography. It is an example of how one adjusts one's priorities if one thinks in the right timescale.
I am sure sulphur pollution is a matter of relative economics. We should all like to live in the Garden of Eden, but we may settle for an industrial slut's paradise instead of the other kind if the maintenance of the Garden of Eden costs too much, particularly by way of resisting temptation from apples and other things. Sulphur pollution is soluble in terms of the fluidised bed combustion of coal. It leaves us with the problem, of course, of disposing of dirty anhydrite, but I come to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, about the need to use some of these materials for reclaiming land and so on.
The fall-out of sulphur or acid rain over Scandinavia is nothing to do with the long-term effects; that is a problem of the here and now because it affects, among other things, good neighbourly relations with a nice friendly people across the other side of the North Sea. And in so far as a substantial proportion of the

745
acid rain on Scandinavia is suspected—only suspected, not proved; and only a proportion, not all of it—to come from this country, we should, as a matter of good relations, take the matter seriously, study it and put the requisite resources behind it.
So far as the oxides of nitrogen are concerned, not to worry; there are a thousand thunder storms at work in the atmosphere at any given moment, all of them enriching it with oxides of nitrogen which descend in the rain as nitrates and nitrites and interact with organic amines to give carcinogens. Do not be too worried about carcinogens. The late Sir Alexander Haddow, who was the last of the great men of whom it was said that he carried the whole of cancer research in his head, which nobody could do now, used to give as his opinion the remarkable fact that in his view cancer was a relatively rare disease in a world full of carcinogens. He said that was a most remarkable fact and he thought that 80 per cent. of cancer was environmental, though he always pointed out that most people did not die from cancer and that those who did were without it for the greater part of their lives. That was his dictum—the remarkable fact that, as he put it, it was a relatively rare disease in a world full of carcinogens. I am sure that we ought to avoid them whenever we can. But any kind of a crash programme to reduce carcinogens or to suppose that we ought to invest everything that we can in reducing oxides of nitrogen because they can be a step on the chain would again be a misuse of resources.
I come to the very serious problems of ash, dust, dirty anhydrite from fluidised bed combustion, and so on. These are immediate problems, and we ought to keep them under continual effort. They are the problems of the here and now and are therefore the high priority problems that we have to solve with our own technology. In this context I must say that I was rather impressed with some of the efforts being made by the National Coal Board—and here I am not entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, was saying—over the improvement of land following reclamation after opencast working. I have visited the Westfield opencast mine, which is the largest artificial hole in Europe. It is where the lowland coal seams come up against the Highland boundary fault, and the seams are twisted and imbricated, and involved with one another in all kinds of ways understandable only to geologists. One has only to look at what they are actually digging out to see that mining it in any ordinary way would be totally impossible. The surrounding countryside is barren moorland. Where it has been reclaimed it is beautiful green grass pastures, with a very much higher coverage of animals per acre than the original land ever had. I think that Westfield is a great credit to the National Coal Board from the standpoint of subsequent reclamation.
The reason that coal tips burn, emit nasty smells, and disfigure the countryside is that they are loosely packed aggregates which admit air, auto-combustion then takes place in masses which are too great for the heat to get out, and so they slowly become incandescent. The modern treatment is to take off the top soil, pack down the dust and dirt from the mine, ram it down hard with steamrollers, so as to pack it as tightly as possible, excluding the air, and then put the top soil hack again. I have seen that done in the Westfield
746
area, and there was no doubt that the quality of the grassland after it had been treated in that way was very much better from the standpoint of the coverage per acre of cattle that one would get than were the water meadows as they were originally.
However, the question of the disposal of the dirt will be with us for a very long time, even if we dismantle (as I have often said we ought) all the tips and rubbish of the last century. The problem of where to put them is with us, as is the problem of how to use the areas which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was talking about, such as Morecambe Bay, the Wash, the Thames estuary, and so on. The Dutch would never for one moment tolerate these enormous areas of shallow water—doing nothing about them while having to import food. They would be beautiful grass meadows, producing butter, breeding pigs, and put to other uses like that. We have to learn to do that.
Those are my conclusions from just putting the differential timescales on the factors on just one item in the evidence before the Committee. I believe that as the last Back-Bench speaker in what is intended to be a short debate that is about as much as your Lordships would care to hear from me this afternoon.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I seek your Lordships' indulgence in so far as my name is not on the list of speakers. However, I have read the report, and it seems to me, having been born in the valleys of South Wales—where we depended wholly upon providing the nation with coal, coke, steel and shipping—that its whole basis is that of coal. The wish of my parents, and their parents before them, was: God hasten the day when the last pit could be closed for ever. I found the report of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, admirable, and I was terribly touched by his speech and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. I say that because I only wish that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, had been discussed in Parliament in 1933 or 1934. Had it then been discussed there would not now be in the valleys of South Wales, in the homes of many people, including my family, photographs of young men who were killed instantly or who perhaps (lied from terrible diseases which in those days we called "consumption". When the, clever people came along they called it pneumoconiosis, but we discovered that changing the name made no difference at all. You still spat up your lungs, you still almost strangled in order to get a breath of fresh air, whether you were the barber in the village or you were the miner. Such things could have been avoided had we had in those days a report of the nature of that by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and a speech such as that by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, this afternoon.
I must say to the Government that it would be not only an insult to the members of the commission, but also a most callous act of indifference if action were not taken on what is proposed in this tremendous report on Coal and the Environment. What I say applies not only to South Wales or to Yorkshire, Scotland, or parts of Kent, but to the entire country. Coal—which is dealt with in the first part of the report—together with wool, ensured the richness of the nation. The British Navy could not have moved one tenth of the way

747
towards Argentina if it had not been provided with the anthracite coal of South Wales. The great industries of the industrial revolution could never have turned if they had not had the coal produced by the miners of Britain.
We must remember that when coal mining started our countryside was ravaged. I think of books such as Rape of the Fair Country, or some of the plays that have been written by some of our poets in South Wales. All these things are allied to this tremendous report. Perhaps they provide the emotional aspect of the subject, and this I believe is equally important. Not only was our countryside ravaged, but later on, right up to the 'thirties, (as the noble Earl Lord Halsbury, mentioned) there were the effects of the industrial revolution. I have experienced some of the evils of the industrial revolution. I believe that they could have been avoided if many years ago we had had a report of this character and eminent people such as the noble Lord, Lold Flowers, and his colleagues had examined what had to be done, not merely from a economic point of view, but of course from a humanitarian point of view, too.
I can remember as a small boy going to my grandmother's and there being a table cloth only on a Sunday. I recall getting my ears boxed—in the Rhondda Valley—for writing letters in the dust from the nearby pits which settled on the tablecloth. If the mining communities of Great Britain are to be expected to understand what is meant by the report, it must also be realised that the things that I have been talking about are common to people in Scotland, Northumberland, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and right down to Kent. In those communities we knew one another through our meetings, via our different federations and later (from 1945) the National Union of Mineworkers. At this stage I want to endorse what my noble friend Lady White has said. What a shame that there is not an adumbrated edition of this magnificent report, which ordinary people could obtain, read and understand.
I hope that perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who will be replying to this debate, will take that particular aspect on board, because what is the point of having a report of this character when the very people who are affected most cannot afford to buy it? It is at this intellectual level that we sometimes find the most crass stupidity. This should be available to every coalmining family in Great Britain, as well as to all those who are involved in the running of this great industry.
We speak of (as I think they are called) spoils. Of course, we always use the word "tips". People did not say, "There has been a disturbance of the spoils in Aberfan": they said, "The lousy tip has moved and it has slain our children—over a hundred of them in just a couple of minutes". So let us use the words "coal tips so that we shall never forget what happened at Aberfan. That is not a statistic—that was an emotional rape of our own people by the Coal Board's predecessors, the private owners of the tips. Yet the strange thing is—and this is also strictly relevant to this particular report—that the British coalminers have a better industrial record than almost any other industry in our nation or, indeed, throughout the world.
It was in 1974 that there was a collision. There had
748
never been a wholesale strike in the pits since 1926. It was bitterness and anguish which caused the first, when they were driven back for less than they came out on strike for; and the last time they thought they just did not count. The fact is that they do count; and that is why I agree so much with my noble friend Lady White. I would wish that the majority of our coal-miners could afford to buy this report, because what they would say to me is: "This is a great report; it puts us, the miners of Britain, on the agenda". I think that is the greatest tribute I can pay to Lord Flowers and his colleagues.
I have sometimes wondered, as I have read what they can do in the Soviet Union. I am no particular admirer of that appalling régime, but I do not blind myself to some of their technological achievements. They put up the first Sputnik, and they put the first human being into space. I am not going to blind myself, either, to the fact that they apparently are able to take the spoil, the waste that is produced at the same time as the coal, and put it back into the holes that it came from. This is a most remarkable thing. They have no tips. The great caverns which the machinery of coal-mining gouge out of our countryside they fill up again.
I would not have thought that that was beyond the ability of British technology, and there is nothing wrong in following something which is pretty good; because from that, I understand—and I have read this very deeply—they found that they were restoring agriculture. They found that there was something in the coal dust which enriched the soil. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, touched on this. Therefore, not only did they get rid of the tips, but they created a new form of agriculture; and surely that cannot be bad.
On page 212 of the report, in Chapter 12, the commission says:
"… the Board has a responsibility to ensure that the best environmental practices available are introduced … in the day-to-day management of its operations".
That, once again, I find truly remarkable. It is not leaving things, as at one time, always at the top, but in the day-to-day management. It is on issues like this that I should like to congratulate Lord Flowers and his colleagues, although I am bound to say that later in the recommendation they say that the responsibility should be at an appropriately senior level in the board. I would agree with that, with just one amendment. It is at the top level of the board that it has got to be, because then it will stand much more chance of becoming a reality.
We often used to say that if we had had to dig for bread, dig for butter and dig for bacon there would have been a much more humane attitude to this great industry. It fell into decline, there was a renaissance and then it declined again; and people have never been sure. This I have always found amazing because, it is still (as, for certain, it will be for the lifetimes of all of us here) a vital part of our British economy. I therefore believe that it commands all our technological and humanitarian endeavours to see that we have an efficient coal-mining industry that damages the environment to the absolute minimum.
I therefore appeal to the Government. I do not expect the noble Earl to give a complete answer to our

749
requests, but if there is no implementation of the vital sectors of this report—I do not mean overnight, but if there is not a programme of implementation of this report—if the Flowers Report is allowed to wither (if I may use that term), there will be very great anger, because despite its expense the National Union of Mineworkers will see to it (indeed, they have seen to it) that their members are aware of what is in here. Much of it they have been asking for. They now have their own technological experts and scientists advising them. It is not a case of having to depend wholly on the lads in cloth caps working in the pits. I therefore hope that these magnificent words (though I could quarrel with quite a lot of it) will not be allowed to turn sour. I sincerely hope that this report will not wither on the vine, because if it does then this great industry will be poorer and, what is much more important, our great nation will be poorer.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, I think that in your Lordships' House we have a great faculty for taking an extremely important subject and treating it in such a matter of fact way that it sounds as though it were not a very important subject. I think we regularly seem to do this in the field of energy. I myself have previously called attention in your Lordships' House to the fact that we do not have anyone of ministerial rank in your Lordships' House speaking for energy. In fact, this seems to be, not peculiar to this Government (although I am rather surprised that this Government, who have been talking as though they wanted to do something about energy, have fallen into the trap) but quite common. Indeed, it is a long time since we had someone of full ministerial rank speaking in your Lordships' House on the subject of energy.
In the debate that we have had today, which we are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for introducing, we have been exceptionally fortunate, as has been pointed out, in having the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, present and taking part. It has meant that we have had experts in the field of energy talking to us and have had the chairman of the committee responsible for the report. I must agree with my noble friend Lady White that the charge for this report is really excessive. It ought to be made widely available for it is an excellent and important report. To list it at £23 is really too high. I hope that the noble Earl will convey to the Government that we think that when reports of this importance come out they ought to be priced at a figure which makes them readily available throughout the country.
The great value of this report, simply called Coal and the Environment, is that it takes the whole field of coal, the possible uses of coal, the way in which it can be won, everything like that, and considers it in terms of the environment. We are accustomed now—and I think quite rightly—in the field of energy to have the problem of the environment raised all the time and it is right and proper that this should be so. It is quite wrong that we should undertake wilfully contamination of the environment without considering the advantages, disadvantages and the cost to the community; and therefore it is vital that this should be done.
We have had, particularly the last five to 10 years, a lot of criticism about the use of coal. We are in a very
750
difficult position because, if one looks at the matter today, despite all the talk about the availability of alternative sources of energy, the actual fact is that we are down to oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy for practically all our supplies of energy at the present time and in the foreseeable future. When one realises that gas, rightly, in my opinion, is treated in this country as a premium fuel and is not used in power stations (I think rightly), then I think it is quite wrong that on the Continent of Europe they have been using it when they need not have been using it for power-station work. If that is the case, and if at the same time we want oil for other purposes—and we do—then it is evident that for the generation of electricity, and for a great deal of the heating load, coal is one of the most important resources that we have.
Electricity can be generated from coal and electricity can be generated by nuclear power, but if there is to be environmental criticism of every nuclear station, every nuclear proposal that is put up, we fall back on coal. If there is to be an environmental embargo on coal, then we are in a very difficult position. Therefore, the importance of this report is that it examines in close detail the environmental factors which arise from the use of coal and it is very valuable to find that a lot of the (I think quite reasonable) feelings that people have had about the possible disadvantage environmentally of coal are shown by this report to be not as serious as was thought.
This, I think, is a highly important matter and the committee have gone through it extremely carefully. It starts with the winning of coal. There was a point at which I think the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said something with which I did not entirely agree. It was that if we had not started with coal we should not have wanted to use coal. The first time I met the noble Lord was years ago when we were both visitors from the old Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to the British Coal Tar Research Association. It was then that I learned what an acute mind he had and ever since I have had a healthy regard for his acuity and for his sense and wisdom in dealing with matters. But I would suggest that perhaps in this particular case he is a little biased by the industrial/chemical upbringing that he had. He was with a firm that later found that he was a doughty opponent. The firm was ICI.
ICI think—I am right—the first major chemical firm that moved over from the use of coal to the use of oil. They did it at Bellingham. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, was doing most of the work, but the man at least nominally responsible was Holroyd. I remember talking to Dr. Holroyd about this. I said, "If you had had the same chemical engineering techniques developed for using coal as the Americans had developed for you for using oil, would you really have switched to oil?" He said he was not certain. There is a transport problem involved—part from anything else; but one of the main troubles in the use of coal, he told me, was the enormous area that was required in Bellingham for storing the coal and for handling it. They were able to cut this area down to something like one-tenth by switching to oil.
But this does not apply when one is talking about power stations. The position is different. I have a strong suspicion that in the course of time we shall find our technology will allow us to use coal just as well as

751
oil; so I beg my noble friend Lord Kearton not to be too influenced in the future by his industrial/chemical background, which I think tends to prejudice him against coal.
The real problem which arises all the time is the necessarily environmental difficulty about winning coal. It is not possible to leave all the spoil down in the pit. You have to bring it to the surface; it is the only cheap, economical thing to do. You may later get it down into the pit but it is virtually impossible under present conditions to do it. It is interesting to note that the amount of waste material, of non-coal, which is brought to the surface is much greater than it used to be. The reason is quite simple; it is mechanical mining. You have a 100-yd wall; you run the cutter along this wall, and the cutter goes 1 metre into the wall. It takes all the coal out, shoots it on to a conveyor and the coal comes up to the surface. That means that there is no sorting possible at the pit face or down the mine. That can only be done above ground. So there is that problem.
With opencast mining we have other problems which are well known. I have had a little experience of opencast mining. I went to live in Newcastle in 1947 and on the edge of the town moor, along Grandstand Road where the old pitmen's Derby used to be run, an opencast pit was started. This lasted for about 15 years. There was an awful outcry. When it finished that ground was indistinguishable from the ground round about it—except that it was no longer sodden and a marsh.
There was another bigger area about 20 miles to the north of Newcastle, Acorn Bank, where there was an enormous scheme which lasted about 20 years. Essentially what they did was to take off the topsoil, they took off the overburden, and these were put all round the site. Then they cut down and simply scooped the coal out. They had a 20-ton scoop which loaded straight on to vehicles. They had to build a special road because the public roads could not take this. The whole thing now is splendid, ordinary farming ground. It is indistinguishable from the ground round about it except that it may be more fertile. So it can be done.
The County of Durham used to be one of the biggest and most important mining counties. Some of the best coking coal was produced there. When I first went there there were spoil pits all round the county. One can go there today and scarcely see a spoil pit. At Ferry Hill, which is running north from Darlington before you come to Durham, there was a station and that was an appalling mess about 30 years ago. Today it is unrecognisable. So these improvements can be made, but of course they are expensive.
The point which has to be realised is that it is not playing fair with the coal industry to put the cost of all that restoration on it. In the first place, a great deal of that cost is the consequence of what was done many years ago, long before the present NCB existed. We are putting an unfair burden on the NCB in asking them to repair what the previous owners did not have to repair. It is now a national task and we ought to see that. I hope that the Department of the Environment will bear this in mind. We want to have a fair country; we want our country looking beautiful. We
752
do not want it despoiled, but it is something which becomes at this stage a national charge for recovering the effects of the past. I hope that the Government will take this seriously.
One important matter which arises from this report is that the coal industry is, within certain limits, given the opportunity to go ahead and do things, and it therefore will be able to maintain its production. This is important. I know that there has been an argument about this. About eight years ago there was a lot of play in the financial press in particular of estimates made by Dr. Gerald Manners, Reader in Geography at University College. He claimed by his method of calculation and extrapolation that by the mid-1980s the total consumption of coal in this country would be below 85 million tons a year. It is far above that—it is more like 140 million tons. This figure received a lot of credence.
Some two or three years later I was chairman of the sub-committee of your Lordships' House which was dealing with coal. We asked Dr. Manners to submit a report. I have the report in my hand. The figures that I have mentioned are taken from what he said at the time. The committee as a whole were not satisfied with the arguments that he used. We said that we thought that the figure of our production should not drop below 150 million tons a year, and that we ought to try and raise it to 170 million tons.
It is interesting that only today the CEGB issued a statement about the coalmining industry. This is from Mr. Fred Bonner, the acting chairman of the CEGB. Spelling out the opportunities for coal in the future generation of electricity, he says that the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board together would have the capacity to burn over 80 million tons of coal a year into the next century. This is the same tonnage that the two boards are burning at the present time and roughly a third of all the coal mined in Europe. That is very interesting and shows what an important part coal is playing now and, in the opinion of the acting chairman of the CEGB, what part it will play if prices remain reasonable over the rest of this century. I think we can say after this very important and interesting debate that most of the criticisms on environmental grounds against the use of coal are either not valid, or we can see how to get round them. We are therefore faced with the vital importance of maintaining a coal industry at least at its present level, and maintaining it in such a way that when the end of this century comes this country is well equipped for any changes in energy policy which may be necessary. I ask the Government to bear this in mind.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for introducing this debate and for enabling us to consider the future of the coal industry and its environmental consequences today. In fact I also thank him for initiating this lively and informative debate. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, by referring to gardens in my family name, has made me rather nervous in case I should find there has been some acid rain in my garden. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was kind enough to say that there were no Ministers of the Department of Energy. I do assure him that sitting on the Benches

753
behind me, there are Lords in Waiting who are worthy aspirants. It is just that there is no answering voice in another place. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, referred to the environment as a "religion". I am not absolutely certain that my right honourable friend would like to preside over a department of religion, but if it means, as I have a feeling it does, that you can have your cake and eat it, then perhaps it will be more attractive.
This afternoon we have had the particular advantage of the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, speaking as he does with the authority of having a long and distinguished service with the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and of course as chairman of the Commission on Energy and the Environment. Many tributes have been paid today to the excellence of the commission's work, and at the start I should like to underline that the Government are very grateful to the noble Lord and his fellow commissioners for their comprehensive and authoritative study. In particular I wish to stress that the decision announced last summer to put the Commission on Energy and the Environment into abeyance did not in any way reflect on the quality of the work they had undertaken. At the time my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear that we should continue to look for advice on specific related issues to fora such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation and, if it proved necessary, we should hope to reconstitute the commission.
The commission was established to advise on the interaction between energy policy and the environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, stressed the importance of this and I should like to underline it. The publication of their report last September has already served to encourage public debate on this issue, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on the importance of this. More recently, the Government's decision on proposals for coal mining in the Vale of Belvoir has also focused attention on this issue, and I shall return to the subject later. We are most grateful to the commission for its examination of the ways in which energy needs and environmental standards can be balanced.
Upon publication of their report, the Government initiated consultations with the National Coal Board, the local authorities and their associations and other environmental and industrial interests. Your Lordships, and in particular, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will be interested to hear that there was general praise for the report and a wide measure of agreement on its main conclusions. Following this consultation, the Government are formulating their response to many of the 70 or so detailed recommendations in the report. Your Lordships' views today are both a very timely and a very valuable contribution to the Government's views. It would be impossible, as I am sure your Lordships would agree, to deal with all these recommendations on this matter or with all the points raised this afternoon in my speech now. Rather, I propose, in answer to a number of the questions raised, to indicate the Government's general approach and their preliminary views on some of the main issues that have been raised today.
May I first set the environmental considerations against the background of the role of coal in energy
754
policy. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made clear in his speech the Government's commitment to the future of the coal industry. We welcome the commission's overall conclusion that there are no insuperable environmental obstacles to the future production and use of coal as currently envisaged in the United Kingdom. This is, of course, subject to important qualifications covering spoil disposal, opencast extraction and subsidence, to which I will refer in a minute. The Government also note the commission's view that modernisation in the industry affords the best prospect of striking an acceptable balance between energy and environmental interests.
It is the Government's aim that, as far as possible, the planning procedures and objectives which apply to mineral operators generally should apply to the National Coal Board, although it is recognised that the scale of their operations can cause unique problems. New developments will be expected to meet the highest practicable environmental standards, in all respects—the impact on the environment during working, the disposal of spoil and the eventual restoration and after-care of the site. We should pay tribute to the environmental standards now successfully pursued at new mines, of which Selby is an oft-quoted example. I am assured that the National Coal Board is committed to maintain and improve such standards. I should like, at this point, to add my marks of respect to the National Coal Board, to the miners and to those associated with the industry, as many noble Lords have done this evening.
But we must remember that most of the coal will continue to be produced and, to some extent, burnt in established mining areas. In the public's eye, the performance of the industry will be judged as much by what is achieved, for example, at Barnsley in South Yorkshire as by what is proposed and effected at Selby in North Yorkshire. This concern was strongly voiced in the recent debate in another place. The benefits from a modernised industry should be widely felt and higher environmental standards should be pursued as vigorously with major investments in rationalising older coalfields as in opening up new ones. And at existing sites we look to the National Coal Board to continue to improve their environmental standards in line with those adopted elsewhere in the minerals industry. In most cases, as the commission concluded, it is an extension of current good practice that is required.
I now turn to some particular issues in which, as I have already said, the commission expressed reservations and which, as today's debate has shown, are also of considerable concern to many noble Lords. The first of these is colliery spoil disposal, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. This is a major and growing problem, since mechanised mining has greatly increased the ratio of spoil to coal that is brought to the surface. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. In the past much of this has been tipped in bare, conical heaps neat the mine heads. I am certain that a high priority must, as the commission has said, be given to improved tipping and restoration techniques and to adopting new and more imaginative approaches to landscape design.
In the past decisions on disposal have often been taken in a too local and in a too short-term context. In the future, improved planning and co-ordination will

755
be needed to tackle the problem in a more imaginative way and this is what the Government seek. They are also considering the most appropriate arrangements to achieve this, particularly in the main Yorkshire-East Midlands coalfields. There are already regional groupings of local authorities and there are already examples of close working between local authorities and the National Coal Board. We must try to build on such established links rather than to create new machinery. The Government agree that spoil disposal must in future be tackled with greater imagination. This is as necessary in those areas like the Yorkshire coalfield, that have an existing legacy of spoil heaps, as it is in the case of new mining disposals like the vale of Belvoir where, as your Lordships know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has asked that this aspect of the National Coal Board's proposals should be further examined.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, asked me some specific questions on Belvoir. I know that my right honourable friend's decision on the NCB's planning application for development of the Belvoir coalfield has had a mixed reception, but it did recognise the desire in the national interest to exploit this new coalfield while insisting that high environmental standards, particularly for spoil disposal, should apply. These commitments to new investment in the industry and to using, wherever feasible and appropriate, alternatives to local spoil tipping are key conclusions in the commission's report. The Secretary of State took account of the economic consequences of his decision and of the impact it would have on the NCB's forward policy. He accepted that the NCB might wish to submit new planning applications relating to revised proposals to exploit the massive national resources at Belvoir. I cannot say to what extent the commission's report actually influenced the judgment. Since the decision was made, senior officials in the Department of the Environment have held discussions with those principally involved, including the NCB, the trade unions, local authorities and environmental interest groups.
There is no single, simple answer to spoil disposal; certainly, it cannot be assumed that disposal to local tips can continue to provide all of the answers in the longer term. The Government believe that a more imaginative approach is needed. The commission has identified the alternatives—backstowing, land reclamation, marine disposal, commercial use. Progressive restoration techniques can also reduce considerably the amount of agricultural or other land which is out of use at any one time.
We need now to establish more clearly the circumstances in which these different methods are financially, technically and organisationally feasible. The prime responsibility for spoil disposal must be for the National Coal Board. But the local authorities have an important role in land use and pollution control and have already taken some initiatives; in particular, the feasibility study of reclamation with colliery spoil at Pyewipe on the Humber estuary. The Government are considering how the search by the board and the local authorities for more satisfactory strategies for spoil disposal can be assisted.
Next I come to subsidence. Like spoil, it features
756
in the traditional image of the coal mining area. In practice, it is fortunately a problem which affects only a minority of property in such areas. Nevertheless, it deserves serious attention. The commission examined the question of subsidence in some detail. They concluded that there were severe practical limits to minimising the incidence of subsidence, and that for the foreseeable future the right approach was to provide for the repair of damage after it has occurred. The Government agree with this broad conclusion.
The commission then examined the way in which the compensation system operates, and the various arguments relating to its possible extension. They said that most complaints related to the operation of the National Coal Board's code of practice, rather than to its scope. This is certainly an area which the Government intend to keep under regular review, in consultation with the board and other interested parties. As regards the scope of the present arrangements, it has recommended that there should be an additional right to compensation in certain circumstances for long-term residual loss of value of property caused by subsidence damage. This is a complex area, but the Government are studying it urgently.
One beneficial effect of subsidence deserves special note. Land sterilised, especially once flooded, can be a valuable habitat for wildlife. The commission argued that, in such cases, nature conservation can be an appropriate and attractive use of land. Your Lordships may be pleased to know that talks are under way between the National Coal Board and the Nature Conservancy Council to explore such opportunities. I was particularly interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, about Northumberland, where the water has been so well covered.
I should now like to turn to opencast mining, which was mentioned by many noble Lords. The reason why the National Coal Board engages in opencast mining is to produce good quality coal with low production costs, and the commission recognised this. But it was also quite clear to them that opencast mining has a number of adverse environmental effects—the disfigurement of the landscape while operations are being carried out, the noise and dust which nearby residents sometimes suffer; sometimes, also, the increase of traffic on local roads. In addition, it is argued that there can be deleterious long-term consequences in the form of reduced agricultural yields and damage to the richness of landscape and ecology. But the very fact that opencast coal is a valuable national resource, which the nation neglects at its cost, makes it particularly important to make every effort to tackle and mitigate these environmental problems. The Government are conscious of this.
The commission examined opencast mining at some length. In particular, it recommended that applications for opencast coal working should be dealt with under the normal minerals planning machinery as for all other new mineral developments, and not directly by the Secretary of State for Energy as at present. This would, of course, be a major change in established procedures and the Government are carefully considering it.
But, wherever final authority for granting permission lies, the environmental problems of opencast working can be tackled more satisfactorily the earlier and more

757
fully local authorities and the National Coal Board's opencast executive work together. The Government welcome the efforts which the executive has made in recent years to develop forward programmes of opencast exploitation in close consultation with the local authorities in several areas, and also welcome the code of practice on the advance planning of opencast sites, which they and the local authority associations have agreed. In the light of the Commission's recommendations, the Government have the question of future opencast production under review.
In addition to these arrangements, the commission recommended that there should be guidelines to define preferred locations for opencast working. The Government view this as a positive proposal. Incidentally, I have taken careful note of the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady White, about the Principality in this matter. Spoil disposal, subsidence and opencast working are the three issues to which the commission gave particular attention. I have given your Lordships the Government's general view on them. But there are two other issues which I would like to touch upon—pollution and dereliction.
The commission's study was concerned with coal use, as well as coal production. In the context of a continuing switch back to coal, especially in industrial markets, they examined the environmental effects of coal combustion and conversion to synthetic fuels like substitute natural gas. In doing so, the commission were able to draw widely on the valuable work carried out by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in their report on air pollution. The commission concluded that there is no longer major cause of concern on health grounds over ambient levels of smoke and SO2 from coal combustion. The Government agree, but will take all necessary steps to cope with the problem in areas where concentrations are still too high.
The Government note the recommendation that, in view of the need to keep the level of smoke pollution in urban areas at the lowest practicable level, the performance of domestic smoke reducing appliances should be carefully monitored. We welcome the commission's view that industrial coal burn can be positively encouraged in most circumstances; and I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on this point. But we are also alive to the potential problems, and are considering very carefully the adequacy of existing controls.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the "acid rain" problem, which is of particular concern to Scandinavian countries. The Government take this issue seriously, as is witnessed by our participation in this summer's International Conference on Acidification in Stockholm. We are also playing a very full part in the Economic Commission for Europe, under the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Work is proceeding in a logical, sequential fashion from exchange of information, monitoring and research to development of policies, But before we consider remedial measures, we must be sure about the effects and their relative costs and benefits.
In considering pollution from coal use, there is a real concern to avoid recreating the problems of the past. But we also cannot ignore problems from the past that are still with us. The commission expressed the view
758
that land dereliction may be regarded as a form of environmental degradation which is just as unacceptable as other forms of pollution, and went on to make a number of specific recommendations. As noble Lords will be aware, for many years the emphasis in reclamation has been on helping local authorities to tackle historic dereliction in the major coalfields and industrial areas. The Government's derelict land programme for 1982–83 has been enlarged to £45 million—a considerable achievement at a time of continuing public expenditure restraint. Preferential treatment is to be given to joint schemes by local authorities and private developers for reclaiming land for immediate development.
If I may answer one or two points which were put to me, I should first like to refer to the cost of the report which was mentioned by quite a number of people. I must confess that it took me by surprise, because in my position it just arrives on my desk, and I was equally rather horrified when I saw that it cost £23. It is, I am afraid, the policy of Her Majesty's Stationery Office that the prices of publications should reflect the full costs of production. I shall, indeed, look into the idea suggested by a number of noble Lords that we might have an abridged version which would be more easily distributable. Incidentally, the Printed Paper Office's current price limit for free distribution of papers is £16. I believe that this may be of concern to the House, and I should like to bring this to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, raised the subject of mining in South Wales. I believe that the commission rightly noted that major investment opportunities for new coalfields lie in Yorkshire and the East Midlands. But I can assure the noble Baroness that there will also be continuing investment and modernisation of the industry in South Wales. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is committed to a continuing programme of restoration and clearance of dereliction resulting from coal working in South Wales, but I should like to endorse the commission's praise for the work of the Welsh Development Agency in improving and redeveloping land made derelict by coal mining. The Government intend their work to continue.
The noble Baroness also made some comments about the privatisation of opencast mining. Under Section 46 of the Open Cast Coal Act the NCB may also license private sector opencast mines, provided that each site is not expected to yield more than 25,000 tonnes of coal. In these cases, the licensee is responsible for obtaining planning permission from the local planning authority for operating the site. The Government have at present no plans to privatise the NCB's opencast mining.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned the proposed Yorkshire Development Agency. The Government recognise the unique scale of both past and future problems associated with coal mining in Yorkshire. Extraordinary effort is needed to tackle the problem. The commission, as the noble Lord said, recommended a special development agency with its own budget to deal with such problems as dereliction. The Government are considering their proposal. We certainly recognise, as did the commission, the con-

759
siderable achievements of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, but we believe it to be right to be wary of establishing such agencies unless existing institutions are clearly unequal to the task. We are not at the moment convinced; nor are the local authorities who have made strong representations to the Government on this proposal.
I should like to say something about land availability for energy development. The Government accept the commission's view that there is a need to get more consideration of the energy industry's land requirements into land use planning in advance of individual projects for developments like coalfields or power stations coming forward for approval. In that way, we might have a better informed debate about alternative locations, might enable local authorities to assess the impact of these developments on their policies and might provide more certainly for the energy industries that their land requirements are recognised. A pilot study in one region, to examine these issues further, as the commission proposed, is one possible next step in pursuit of this objective. We are examining it carefully in consultation with the industries and the local authority associations.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, mentioned planning control. The new Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 gives to county councils and other mineral planning authorities important new powers to protect the environment, and it applies to the NCB as well as to other mineral operators. In particular, the provisions of the Act will, when in force, make the reworking of old colliery spoil tips or other mineral waste tips a development requiring planning permission. The authorities will also have new powers to make it easier for them to impose up-to-date environmental conditions where the original permission was granted some time ago. In certain circumstances, the amount of compensation which authorities may be liable to pay when taking such action will be reduced. The Government are also looking at the provisions of the General Development Order 1977 in relation to the 1981 Act and, more generally, in relation to mining operations, including those of the coal industry. The general development order recommendations made by the commission in their coal study are being considered at the same time.
Where industries remain in the public sector, the Government are seeking to introduce the kind of disciplines to which the private sector is subjected. This is done, first, by imposing strict targets for financial performance designed to promote effective cost control within the industries and, secondly, by external scrutiny, including the use of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the powers of the Competition Act 1980.
In his opening remarks my noble friend mentioned these energy predictions. They are neither forecasts nor prescriptions for the future. Rather they seek to cover a wide range of possible outcomes to aid discussion of the energy options facing this country. The energy industries, too, can make an important contribution to this debate by indicating their intentions well in advance and putting their plans for new investment projects into a wider context. But the need for the industries to respond to market pressures means that
760
it is unrealistic to think in terms of an energy blueprint.
I realise that I have dealt only with some of the issues upon which the commission reached conclusions and, indeed, with some of the questions which have been raised today. The points made by your Lordships will, as I have said, be taken carefully into account in the Government's formulation of their full response to the commission's report. I should like to digress at this point. The full response will have to take a little time, but I hope I have indicated that action is already being taken on various sectors of this report, and will continue to be taken in advance of any full report.
I am grateful for all the contributions which have been made, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for initiating the debate. While I have been unable to indicate the Government's final views, I hope I have conveyed to your Lordships the Government's conviction that the publication of the commission's report provides an opportunity, which is even now being seized, to act positively in striking a necessary balance between energy and environmental considerations in the further development of the coal industry.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, in my closing remarks I hope to be brief. I should like to thank all those noble Lords, and particularly those noble Baronesses, who have spoken so eloquently in the debate. My noble friend Lord Flowers must feel gratified by the wide approbation his report has received. Everybody congratulates Lord Flowers. It is literally a report without price. It could be that arrangements should be made to price it at a much higher level than did the Stationery Office, and then to make arrangements for complimentary copies to be sent to the miners' unions and to all people who take a legitimate interest in this question—because the object of the commission, as has been stated, is to inform, to instruct, to guide and to put us generally on the right path.
In quoting from the report, I got the feeling that it had some of the characteristics of both Shakespeare and the Bible. Everybody found in it what they wanted to see. Some people found in it great encouragement for the coal industry in the future. In my opening remarks I seized upon some of the reservations and qualifications which the commission's report also included and which were touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in his closing remarks.
It was a great pleasure to hear that very sturdy champion of free enterprise, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, say that market forces alone were ridiculous as a motivation to get the best out of the coal industry and the best out of national resources. I thought his suggestions for the disposal of spoil by long distance pipe-line to estuarine and other sea areas opened up a rather interesting prospect, in which all the beauty spots I have been used to visiting for a great many years will, in the next few years, if Lord Lauderdale has his way, under Government control and Government spending be the scenes of extensive tipping of rather miserable spoil. So I hope the noble Earl's attitude regarding Government action is not necessarily followed.
In paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Flowers, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, put me slightly in mind

761
of the Secretary of State for Energy in another place paying tribute to Mr. Glyn England: that he loved Mr. Glyn England very much but he reserved the right to dispense with his services. I get the impression that the Government have taken the same line with Lord Flower's report. Utmost tributes have been paid, but in practice Lord Flower's commission is in abeyance. However, I got some comfort from the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that it could be resuscitated. It is obvious that the general opinion of everybody who has taken part in the debate is that the commission should be resuscitated. There are many very important topics upon which it can speak.
I was rather alarmed when the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, talked about living in an industrial slut's paradise. I certainly lived in an industrial slut's slum at one time. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, mentioned that at one time I had the pleasure and distinction of working for ICI at Billingham where we used a lot of coal. That was some 50 years ago. The use of that coal made one village nearby, Haverton Hill, literally uninhabitable. The village had to be abandoned because of grit fall-out, fume fall-out and so on. I do not think that sufficient tribute has been paid to the fantastic work of the generating board of this country in recent years in burning 75 to 80 million tonnes of coal so cleanly, efficiently and effectively. It has been one of the great reasons why the pollution of our atmosphere has been diminished. We have kept up the coal burn, but we have at the same time enormously ameliorated the atmosphere.
I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who was not down to speak, did in fact speak. I think my acquaintance with the coal industry is probably even longer than his. I am much older. I was brought up in the coal mining industry. I remember the conical tips in an area of North Staffordshire where pottery was made in the old days by the old-fashioned coal-fired bottle kiln. One of the chief exports of the Potteries, apart from the most beautiful chinaware in the world, were postcards saying "This is the filthiest town in England", because all the smoke coming from the bottom of the kilns made the conditions so bad that for about 300 days of the year one could not see one's hand in front of one's face. So I have experience of seeing the dereliction which coal mining causes, but it was also a fact that unless coal was used in combustion under proper conditions it made life pretty intolerable for people who lived in the place.
I believe that most noble Lords who have spoken have the impression that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, is being taken most seriously by the Government. I was particularly pleased at some of the opening remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he said that the report showed enormous balance and that the Government intend to keep this balance in mind—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also emphasised.
We must remember that the coal industry has a future so long as coal is produced economically. Coal had a major reprieve when the price of oil went up so abruptly in 1973–74. It had another reprieve when the price of oil went up in 1979–80. Until a year or so ago, everyone was forecasting that the price of oil would continue to rise in almost geometrical progression until the end of the century. This no longer looks so
762
certain, but I believe that those people who work in the industry have not perhaps thought beyond the fact that geometric increases in the price of energy may not come to pass.
If the coal industry is to be an industry in which people are proud to work, and in which they get proper wages and compensation, then coal must be produced at competitive prices. This means facing the closure of old, worn out collieries, which are a very high cost. The Coal Board has not disclosed the costs of coal from individual pits. We know that the cost of coal from various areas varies by a factor of more than 2:1, and so the cost of coal from various pits must vary by a much higher ratio. For the long-term prosperity of the coal industry, to keep inefficient, old and high cost pits working is a nonsense. Dealing with the human problems caused by the closure of these pits is a separate issue which all Governments must have very firmly in mind and do something about.
Going back to my childhood, I remember seeing miners in the streets with black faces and with clogs on their feet, getting up at unearthly hours and coming home at unearthly hours—and being pretty poorly paid. As a young man, I went down a number of mines all over the place—some deep pits, some mucky pits, some wet pits and so on—and it left me with an admiration for coal miners which I find difficult to express. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, made the point that 50 or 60 years ago it was commonplace for mining mothers to say, "It will be a good day for England when there are no more coalmines". We must have a modern coal-mining industry if we are to provide wealth from the natural resources of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was perhaps modest in not mentioning the fact that he started this whole ball rolling in 1973 with his report on energy and the environment, which was a seminal report and one which everyone in the energy field remembers with respect and admiration. The noble Lord picked out the idea of combined electricity generation and the provision of steam for district heating as something which the report touched upon and advocated. I myself thought the report was very cautious in that respect. The report felt that there were some specialised cases where there could be an application for this, but that because of the particular conditions in this country, it was unlikely to find very wide adoption.
The summing up by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was extremely constructive, thorough, detailed and most helpful. The noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, obviously took on board this very severe problem of spoil. As has been mentioned, the amounts of spoil which are going to be produced in the next 20 years look like being 50 per cent. more than the spoil produced in the previous 200 years. It is a major problem and it will not just go away.
I though that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was a little too complacent about subsidence. In the debate in another place some two months ago, there were graphic descriptions of the effect of subsidence in certain areas of Yorkshire. My own recollection is that one whole new estate of some 200 houses had to be virtually abandoned, and the general anguish, discomfort and worry due to subsidence caused to people living in such areas is something that both the coal industry and the Government have to take very

763
seriously. Having given that slight caveat, I must say that I am deeply grateful, as I am sure everyone is, to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for his most constructive and helpful summing up of what the Government intend to do. We all look forward with the greatest interest to the definitive proposals which we understand will be coming out of the Government quite soon. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Anglo-Chinese Relations
6.55 p.m.
Lord Rhodes Lord Rhodes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recognised importance of relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, they will support the maximum exchange of views between the two countries at all levels.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this Question with the object of airing how best we can help China to realise what she has set out to do, and to help ourselves at the same time. I hope that nobody in your Lordships' House imagines that I am setting myself up as an expert on China, because I am not. I am just a humble student of what is going on in China, having had the opportunity to establish links which otherwise might not have been established. During the past five years there have been four British parliamentary delegations to China. Three of them were organised by me and were financially supported by my friends—all because I once overheard a remark by the then Chinese Ambassador to Britain, when he said that Great Britain was ostentatiously absenting herself from China. My purpose in this connection is to try to remedy an omission.
No official funds were available because the Chinese were not members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Then the Chinese promised to join the Inter-Parliamentary Union, so it was possible to send a delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union this spring. The first delegation I took was at the time when Mr. Deng Xiaoping assumed power following the death of Chairman Mao. For 11 years Chairman Mao had fought an ideological and moral revival under cover of the Cultural Revolution. This was a failure. As an example of its barrenness, not one single medical doctor qualified in China during those 11 years. The situation now is not one of ideological and moral renewal; the question is, can a communist regime reform itself? Can they cut out the bureaucratic deadwood and corruption? Can they counter the mood of hopelessness among their young people? Can they reform the structure of their Government so that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing?
An attempt is being made to solve these and many other problems by a new constitution which will receive the sanction of Congress in the autumn. Let me just set the scene briefly. In 1977–78, after the Cultural Revolution ended, orders were placed for large, complete plants which were unrealistic. The Chinese then adopted more practical policies and, being cautious about involving themselves in too much international debt, and also conscious of their shortage of managers,
764
they naturally had to cut back. I am afraid that British industrialists over-reacted to China's readjustment compared with the French, Germans, the Americans and the Japanese. Experienced traders see in China better opportunities ahead for regular and profitable trade. Despite the fact that the number of complete plants China has ordered is reduced, there is wide scope for medium-sized and smaller deals in specialised equipment and in requirements for the modernisation of large numbers of China's 350,000 factories. Here surely there is an opportunity for our middle-sized companies searching for export business.
We have been debating coal today. China mines 600 million tonnes of coal a year, the United States 968 million tonnes, the USSR 670 million tonnes. Plans are going ahead in China for increasing that by 20 million tonnes a year and this should mean repeat business for our manufacturers of mining equipment. For a long time many of our telecommunications companies, aircraft components and systems companies have had good relations with Chinese operators, and although we are well down the list in the league table of countries trading with China there is no doubt that Chinese leaders are eager and keen to expand trade with us. And there is a need above everything else to keep a grip on the Chinese market.
My first point is a minor one, but important, British Government representation in China, While we are well represented by Sir Percy Cradock and his staff in our embassy in Peking, there is no consular service elsewhere and I am convinced that we need a consul-general in Shanghai. Of all the regions in China, Shanghai people are the toughest and most sophisticated. This arises from long experience as traders with the rest of the world. Many of the most successful Hong Kong managers originally hailed from Shanghai. Enormous trade is transacted there. The Peking administration admits these facts and handles Shanghai matters with their gloves on.
It would be helpful to traders in China and the North of England if a consul-general for China could be appointed with an office in Manchester. It could be staffed at its inception by a British national working on a voluntary basis, as many regional consuls do in this country. If this idea were to take root, I would help to establish it.
My next point is a big and important point and the Government would do well to take special notice of it. It is to do with COCOM, which is the co-ordinating committee for NATO which has to do with the licensing of strategic goods. It is an anachronism which calls for reform; misapplication of export controls to China, who for this purpose is treated as a member of the Eastern bloc. What are we doing in thinking about China being a member of the Eastern bloc any more when in point of fact 51 Russian divisions are held down on the borders. These are friends of ours. It may have been necessary in 1957 when it was first applied but surely it makes no sense today. Politically we have to regard China as a friendly nation. According to evidence given by John Holdridge, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, he corroborates my statement that 51 Soviet divisions are pinned down on the borders of China. Why cannot we give China the same treatment as we do to other friendly nations? Indeed, only this month the Reagan

765
Administration has been to Congress to alter its status in America. Well, we do not want to be behind. A change of heart has taken place there.
I have been told by British manufacturers that COCOM is used by United States representation to deny access for everybody else to the China market. COCOM is a bureaucrat's paradise and there is evidence available of its incompetence. Some of the most glaring examples stem from the scientific instrument exhibition where China ordered instruments which took over 12 months before they could get sanctioned through COCOM.
My next point is a small one, but important. We expect our Prime Minister to go to China in September She is highly regarded there and she need have no qualms whatever about being well received. But I think it would go down very well with China if she were accompanied by our Foreign Secretary. If this could be arranged, it would be regarded as a great compliment by his opposite number, Mr. Huang Hua, and it would go a long way towards establishing a basis for future discussions about Hong Kong.
My next point is another important one, and I hope that this will be enlarged upon by my noble friend Lord Bowden who I notice sitting on the Back Benches. Technical assistance has been going on for some years. Experts from British manufacturers, under the auspices of the 48 group, have built up a technical exchange programme which has incorporated universities and national research institutions. The companies who have taken part in all this naturally have benefited, but the Chinese, too, have a better appreciation of our technology as a result. But there are problems because money is short and private people have to cut back just like Governments have to cut back. The Royal Society has helped, but generally speaking there has been a cut-back from private sources, as I said before. Surely here is an urgent case for Government assistance.
Allied to this there is another important factor. Our competitors in the United States and Europe, and of course the Japanese, are doing more than we are in taking bright young Chinese into their factories for training, and this is another area that would do nothing but good. Here I want to pay a tribute to our new recruit to this House, Lord Kadoorie, because if it were not for him there would be another 2,000 unemployed in Manchester. We are fortunate in this House that we have him at hand to give us advice about the goings-on in the Far East because he is the doyen of men who have Far Eastern knowledge.
I want to say a word about credit facilities. At the end of 1978 seven British banks, with the backing of ECGD, put up a total of 1,220 million dollars to be made available for Chinese importing agencies. No more than half of that has been taken up. But it is interesting to know that during the last month the senior executives of the Bank of China have been advising Chinese departments and enterprises to make use of buyers' credits because the interest rates are lower than those in the market. This is a major change from what transpired only a few months ago. It would be well for our manufacturers to take note of this.
As we know, Japan has given, through its economic co-operation fund, massive long-term low interest
766
loans to China to fund the building of six ports and railway lines to haul coal to the coast. The Belgians in 1980 granted China a 30-year loan, interest free for the first 10 years with repayments and charges spread over the remaining 20 years. This was for a 240 million dollar contract for power station equipment. More recently the Government of Denmark and the West German Government have also entered into substantial contracts for container ships et cetera. Would it not make economic sense if we could possibly manage to see to it that there was a soft loan directed to specific parts of our engineering and telecommunications industry to keep people at work?
Some times I think that we are prisoners to the present, that we are so pushed around by day-to-day happenings that we do not have time to think about what will happen five, 10, 15 or 20 years hence. We are short of visionaries, we are short of people who can think about what is likely to happen. This short-term thinking will lead us into very serious trouble apart from the Falklands and all the disruption and violence that goes on. If we think anything about our country in the years ahead, we surely must be thinking in terms of China.
Finally, in a long life I have come to the very clear conclusion: never pull anything down until you know what you are going to put up in its place. That bit of advice would be well taken by China, too, in its dealings concerning what the British have done in Hong Kong. I leave it to others who know more about it than I do to discuss this subject. But let me say that getting on good terms with a 1,000 million people cannot be wrong.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I must start with an apology to the House in that I foolishly mistimed the start of this debate and I may have to leave before the end, in which case I shall read what the Minister says with enormous attention in the morning. However, first I should like to say how grateful we should be to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for initiating this debate which he has done with his usual skill, leaving the terms so wide that we can talk about anything. I would like also to express my personal great gratitude to him for taking me to China three times. I am not quite sure why he did so, but I think it was because I was an object of great amusement when we went to places, and little girls who were very neat and tidy would look at this figure and suddenly politely cover their mouths with their hands and giggle quietly, calling on others to look at this curious British specimen who had been brought over there by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes.
Lord Stone: You should have had your kilt on.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, even without my kilt they considered me extremely impressive.
Lord Bowden: You were an English peasant.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Indeed, my Lords, However, my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is really very deep because China—as it did to all of us—made an enormous impression upon me. The

767
first time that we crossed the famous bridge and got into a train and travelled throughout that country, my farmer's eye was wholly delighted. I have never in all my life seen stretches of country so well farmed. I have seen other tropical agricultures since, but they do not compare with the way in which that land is handled. It is handled with the dedication and hard work of generations past which had a profound effect on me and made a profound difference to my thinking about the Chinese people.
Something else that impressed me was, of course, the Chinese people themselves, from the very able young diplomats who took us around, to the managers we met, to the professors, to the people in the fields and to the squads who were threshing the grain with flails—they were most amused when I tried to flail, and I am sorry to say I did not make a very good job of it. They were tolerant and they were nice. I never heard any Chinese man or woman tell me the honest truth; they were civilised and people of high culture when my ancestors considered wood as the most advanced thing they had ever seen.
But the whole civilisation is extraordinarily impressive, and, without any doubt, when the noble Lord Lord Rhodes, says that it cannot be wrong to get on good terms with 1,000 million people, I would add that it cannot be wrong to get on good terms with 1,000 million nice people. It is very important for one to get on with and like the people with whom one is dealing, and in the case of the Chinese, having been to that country only three times with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, there is no doubt that that was the case for me.
If we are to help, perhaps we should individually talk about some aspect that we know. I have obviously studied agriculture. Quite apart from admiring it, I was also critical of many of the factors we saw. There are something like a 1,000 million people in the country and about 800 million of them live in the countryside and a very large number of them in the communes actually work on the land, the majority attending it with a garden-like care. Of course, they want to progress from that to producing more with fewer people. I do not think that they should progress too fast because it would be very difficult to match the intensity of the agriculture and the production of food per acre with any mechanised system.
They have vast areas of grazing land. The land is as different as chalk from cheese. They have land which is like our Scottish highlands, only subject to a much worse winter. They have land which is like the grazing land of Texas, where the strong sun after the rain preserves the vegetation in a form of hay. All of that is there to be developed. It is all there to be mechanised and to have water led to it. They can still extend further their amazing irrigation schemes, which are not confined to the river beds and the land alongside the rivers. They pump in water to the tops of hills. We saw a commune there right up on top of a hill with a marvellous view; the state had provided the machinery; the commune members had installed it; and right up on top of this hill they were growing fruit trees which were coming into fruit, and more and more fruit was being sold every year. All over China different developments of this kind are going on. This is an
768
enormous industry which is advancing and which needs a great deal of help. The Chinese are willing to accept help if it is of the right sort.
The criticism that I would make to Her Majesty's Government is that we are not going about this in the best way. I know that the British Agricultural Export Council has been to China and has taken people out there from different firms and different breed societies; I know that they have sold a number of machines, cattle and pigs and so on to China. But I suggest that we need a much more co-ordinated approach. I believe that this should be done by a body of people —not a very large one—based in Hong Kong. In the Department of Agriculture in Hong Kong you have an extraordinarily efficient body which has done the right thing for Hong Kong. It has been greatly assisted by the Kadoorie family, whose institute has produced the kind of pig that they need in Hong Kong, which is an open port trading freely with the world and cereals can be brought in to feed the pigs. The pigs that they have produced there live in a hot climate and thrive on the sort of food available.
In China, as near as we could guess, there must be at least 300 million pigs—I could not count them. These pigs eat a lot of food, but much of the food they eat in China at the present day is like weed, waste and so on, and this is why they are ugly looking pigs with large bellies. But, if they are replaced with a sophisticated pig which eats grain, China would need to import some 50 million tonnes of grain or some impossible figure like that. That is why I think we need a small institute, based in Hong Kong with branches in China, which could study the long-term needs of Chinese agriculture, which would come to be trusted by the different states and the different systems that need it, and which could advise and guide our manufacturers and our breed societies.
In my visits to the Hong Kong Department of Agriculture, they told me that hardly ever did a British exporter go near them. Americans frequently came to see them. Attached to the American Consul in Hong Kong the Americans have a Department of Agriculture Official who is there specially to advise on the needs of Chinese agriculture and to help their exporters. I cannot but think that it would be money well spent to set up a practical body like this in order to look at the long-term future and association with this enormous and vital industry of agriculture in China.
I could go on for hours, but I think that I might become slightly unpopular. This is a very important subject. I believe that the small part that I have played in this debate drawing attention to agriculture is important. Agriculture is certainly very important in China and I should very much like the Minister to take serious note and a serious view of the problem.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Kadoorie: My Lords, during my maiden speech last October, I spoke of Hong Kong's unique value as a neutral point of contact between East and West, of Hong Kong's value to China and of Hong Kong's importance to Britain. On this occasion I make no apology for speaking again of these matters, for they are vitally important to the United Kingdom, to China

769
and, of course, to all of us, the 5 million people living in Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong of today is, as I have said, a neutral point of contact between East and West: it is also a "service station" which enables China to regulate the flow of expertise required to fuel its Four Modernisations programme. The relations between China and Britain and China and Hong Kong are excellent—indeed, better than at any time I can recall. And it seems to me that full advantage should be taken of the present favourable climate.
Hong Kong's greatest strength lies in its economy and, to a considerable extent, in the facilities and expertise it can contribute to China's Four Modernisations. It is this mutuality of interest which must be encouraged, as upon this depends the confidence of local and international investors, so essential to good relations between Peking and London, and consequently to Hong Kong.
It must not be forgotten that the cultural revolution placed a virtual moratorium, lasting 10 years, on China's development, a time period which is all the more important in these days of rapid change. The determination of the People's Republic of China to make up for lost time creates an obligation and presents a unique opportunity both to Hong Kong and to the United Kingdom to participate in this endeavour.
Today, Great Britain, through Hong Kong, is being asked to provide management skills and the western technology necessary to assist China in its development programme. This is a grand opportunity which surely should not be missed; an opportunity for British industry and management to embark on joint ventures in China—to our mutual benefit.
Enterprises with China must be based on mutual trust rather than enforceable contracts, which made for difficulties for conscientious lawyers and accountants. And this "joint-venturism" unquestionably can best be carried out through Hong Kong, using local expertise and experience. Hong Kong is truly the gateway to China, as well as the gateway to South-East Asia.
In this connection, a new factor has arisen in that China has now established a number of special economic zones, by far the most important of which is that at Shum Chun, just cross the border from the New Territories. China's plans for this particular zone are ambitious. Basic facilities, including water, electricity, land and sea transport systems, as well as communications systems, will be completed shortly. Already some 1,000 joint venture deals have been concluded in the Shum Chun Special Economic Zone, of which three-quarters are being financed and managed by Hong Kong companies. Development is proceeding apace but this is only just the beginning: it is planned that by the end of the decade the population of the zone will number 350,000.
Adjacent Chi Wan Bay is to become a supply base for oil exploration in the South China Sea, with its first oil rig to arrive this year. To use a mechanical simile, one may compare this industrial zone to a machine where the gear wheels of industry have just started to turn. In the New Territories, the motors run faster and it is necessary for those in the industrial zone to be accelerated so that the transmission can mesh smoothly and avoid any crashing of gears.
In view of the importance of Hong Kong's unique
770
position as a neutral point of contact between East and West, great care must be taken in the United Kingdom not to underrate the need to maintain and encourage that friendship and goodwill—built up over so many years—which bind Hong Kong's citizens to Great Britain. There is good reason for saying this, for I believe there is too little recognition in this country of Hong Kong's value to Britain. During the past few years orders from Hong Kong have created or protected, thousands of jobs for British workers. The shipyards of Scotland and the North-East, the electrical engineering factories of Lancashire and the heavy engineering works in the Midlands have benefited substantially from Hong Kong's predisposition to "Buy British".
When we planned the biggest power station in Asia it was to Britain that we looked to provide the generating plant—orders which, over an eight-year period, will amount to £2 billion and will provide some 7,000 jobs in the Midlands and the North-West. In the last two years Hong Kong shipowners have ordered 19 ships from British shipyards. We have spent over £400 million on British-made underground trains, locomotive and electrical installations; and Hong Kong's airline, Cathay Pacific Airways, has bought over £100 million worth of Rolls-Royce engines for its aircraft. Indeed, Britain exports to Hong Kong more than it does to Japan, or to India. It exports about two and a half times as much as it does to China. In other words—and astonishingly perhaps—Hong Kong is already Britain's best market in Asia.
Hong Kong is also the world's biggest exporter of garments, of watches and of toys: it has the third busiest container terminal in the world, which is second to none for speed of turn around. And it is also the third most important financial centre in the world after New York and London. Little wonder that people sometimes talk of the "Hong Kong miracle". I state these facts today, not to boast, but to underline the fact that Hong Kong's industrial revolution is still less than 30 years old. And yet, a generation after it took the first halting steps to find a new economic role, it is still the people of Hong Kong who are the key to its success.
The younger generations have inherited from the pioneers of the 'fifties their willingness to work, their enthusiasm to get on, to succeed. But if this spirit is to continue to flourish there must be hope for this younger generation that there will be a future for them; a future in which their hopes and aspirations will be realised. It is Hong Kong which provides the interface between the Occident and a quarter of the world's population—that is, China; destined, perhaps, in the next few years to become the axis upon which the world's most powerful countries will balance. In particular, the United Kingdom should remember that the goodwill between Great Britain and Hong Kong must be encouraged and not be put to too severe a test. I have in mind, in particular, the EEC/Hong Kong textile discussions which will start soon in Brussels.
Last year Hong Kong people were much concerned over the passage of the Nationality Act: and the harm that that did to good relations must not be underrated. I hope now that Britain—as a member of the Community—will do all in its power to protect Hong

771
Kong's interest. After all, we must export before we can import: and so, if our importance as a market for Britain—indeed Europe—is to continue, we must retain access to our own major export markets.
Hong Kong believes in, and practices, free trade: it should not be regarded as a problem, but as an opportunity. If, then, Hong Kong is to continue to fulfil its present function as a neutral point of contact of benefit to both East and West, great care must be taken lest, due to a short-sighted policy, we create a situation where the liens of friendship, established over 150 years, are allowed to lapse and this British outpost in Asia to become a dead city buried in the pages of history.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, not only are we all in your Lordships' House extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for putting down this Unstarred Question but, really much more fundamentally, are we grateful for the untiring work that the noble Lord has put, and continues to put, into the whole subject of Anglo-Sino relations. Many noble Lords who have spoken, or indeed will speak tonight, took part, as I did, in what I think was the last debate on this subject instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in December 1978. On that occasion there were 18 speakers during a five and a half hour debate. Perhaps thankfully, there are slightly fewer noble Lords down to speak tonight, but their quality, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, is in no way diminished. That is surely right and proper on a topic that is certainly of as much importance today, if not more, as it was three and a half years ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, was kind enough to include me in his second delegation to the People's Republic of China in October 1979. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I benefited enormously from that experience. In fact, in total I personally have now paid five visits to the People's Republic since 1977, and each time my views are reinforced. China is vast, both geographically and in population. There can be no doubt therefore, as has already been said and I am sure will be said subsequently, that its potential is equally vast. But, with the greatest respect to my Chinese friends—and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, himself has already said—there can be no doubt that the 10-year period of the Cultural Revolution at the very least retarded China's progress; a situation now slowly but surely being rectified through her programme of the Four Modernisations.
I make no apology for saying again that the potential is vast, awesome in power, and it is latent. China shows every sign today of encouraging outside contacts, a trait that I think we should do well to remember is very new in her enormously long history. Surely then it is in all our interests, both Chinese and British, to give maximum possible scope to exchange of views, be they political, economic. sporting and/or cultural, between our two countries, which must, as the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, has just said, include Hong Kong, in that Hong Kong has a foot in both doors.
Certainly my noble friend Lord Belstead—who, if I may, since I have not had the chance to do so before, I should like to congratulate on his changed and elevated
772
status—will not, I think, be surprised at my making reference to Hong Kong, as Hong Kong is, if I may so describe it, a unique slice of salmon, surely the noblest of fish, in this delicately buttered sandwich.
The current excellent relationship between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China—and it is still excellent, despite recent reports of Beijing's adverse reaction to the Falklands situation—owes a great deal to the presence of Hong Kong, and particularly to the efforts of the recently retired governor, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, to whom we all wish a speedy recovery and whom we all equally very much look forward to welcoming to this House.
Despite Hong Kong's relative lack of progress in the Nationality Act, nevertheless Hong Kong is British. Like the Falklands, Hong Kong is a British dependent territory and its passport-holders surely have the status of British nationals—not citizens, which designates rights of entry and/or abode, but nationals—and I make no apologies for bringing that point again to your Lordships' attention, as the role of Hong Kong in Anglo-Sino relations is of extreme relevance and importance; 40 per cent. of the foreign earnings of China come through Hong Kong.
I have deliberately mentioned the Falklands in two instances—Anglo-Sino relations and the nationality of British dependent territories' citizens—and other than in those two instances, I do not consider (indeed, I go further and say I have no truck with the argument) that there is any parallel between the present Falklands situations and Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, described Hong Kong as a service station. It performs a role totally different in Anglo-Sino relations and is totally different from the position which the Falklands Act occupies. It must be a close run thing as to which, of the People's Republic and Hong Kong, with their existing status, benefits the other more.
The problem, if indeed it is a problem, is the termination of the New Territories Lease in 1997. Beijing has said it is not a problem and that Hong Kong need not be concerned. Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that that is, and will continue to be, a bona fide statement. However, much play has been made that in July of this year Hong Kong will be within the I5-year barrier. While I do not subscribe to the paramount importance of that 15-year period, nevertheless it must be in the interests of China, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom that there be a resolution of the future status before too long, thereby maintaining the essential confidence of, and within, Hong Kong, which, again I submit, is as much in Beijing's interest as it is in London's. The more exchange of views there can be through and around the triangle of the United Kingdom, the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, the better for all concerned. It is not easy to make good friends at the best of times. It is well nigh impossible if you have hardly met before.
Reference has been made in the past, and I am sure it will be tonight, to educational exchanges, and I warmly support any such concept. Indeed, artistically I will, if I may, use the forum of your Lordships' House to relay this evening an invitation from the Aldeburgh Festival to the Director of the Shanghai Conservatoire of Music to visit, and perhaps lecture or perform at, Aldeburgh. As I said in my part of the report following the October 1979 delegation to China, senior

773
management in the People's Republic knows that it has to combat the educational gap created by the Cultural Revolution, which has resulted in a serious middle void. As an over-simplification, its managers, technocrats and artists are either over or under age.
As to Hong Kong—continuing my triangular theme —I again make a strong plea to the Government regarding educational home status for British dependent territories' citizens. Your Lordships will be aware that a report has been commissioned from the Overseas Student Trust on this question. That report, headed by Professor Peter Williams of London University, is expected shortly. What its conclusions and recommendations will be of course I know not, but I hope my noble friend Lord Belstead will not mind my pointing out to him a potentially curious anomaly.
Negotiations are presently in hand with a view to Portugal's entry into the EEC. EEC students are, I understand, educationally, given home status in the United Kingdom. Macao, just across the Pearl River from Hong Kong, is an associate territory of metropolitan Portugal. Thus, unless students from Hong Kong are given United Kingdom educational home status, the situation could arise where, for an identical year's course in the United Kingdom, a Hong Kong student—a British dependent territories' citizen—would pay anywhere from £2,000 to £6,000, whereas his opposite number from Macao would pay only £400, surely a manifest absurdity.
Three and a half years ago, in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, I deliberately concentrated my remarks on China and referred to Hong Kong only in passing. On this Occasion, if only to redress that balance, I have equally deliberately concentrated on Hong Kong to emphasise the point that in any discussion on Anglo-Sino relations, Hong Kong is a vital link. Our relationships with the People's Republic becomes more important by the day, and the only way to build up a good relationship is to gain the crucial elements of trust and understanding between two great peoples of such differing political, cultural and educational backgrounds. I warmly applaud the tremendous efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in that context, and sincerely hope that my noble friends on the Government Front Bench will pay close heed to what he and other noble Lords are saying this evening.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Bowden: My Lords, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for initiating this debate and making it possible for us to discuss what is a remarkable and important subject. Particularly I wish to express my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of the whole House, to the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, for the wonderful account he gave us of the achievements of Hong Kong, of which he is such an important citizen. We in this House are privileged to have him among us. We welcome him whenever he cares to come to see us and we realise the enormous influence he has in his home country and the tremendous help he has given to the fostering of trade between Hong Kong and this country.
This is an important debate because of the enormous importance to the world, and particularly to ourselves, of our connections with China. When I was a student at Cambridge 50 years ago, I met a Chinese scholar, a
774
physicist, who was working in the labs with me and we talked together quite often. He said to me, "Throughout recorded history, for 3,000 or 4,000 years, China has led the world in science, the arts and manufacture. There have been a few periods in which other countries have temporarily taken the lead, and we are in one of them now. But", he said, "you will probably live to see the day when China reasserts her position as the leader of the world in many of the most important subjects in art, in science, and in manufacture". I have never forgotten that.
He went on to tell me that when the tea clippers used to go to buy tea and race home every year—as your Lordships might recall—they could not export goods for the tea. We had to pay in gold because there was nothing that England could then make which the Chinese could not themselves make as well or better. So if it is believed that Chinese industry is backward, it must be remembered that it is a very temporary situation and it is unlikely to persist for long. The Chinese have an immense tradition of very great technical skill, and those of their people whom I have met—I met them only once when I was with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes—seemed to me to be as competent, as intelligent, and as industrious as any men whom I have ever met in my life.
Since the subject of cultural contacts and in particular educational contacts have been mentioned, I should like in the brief time for which I think I should speak to concentrate on that. I am very glad that the absurd situation about the possible preferential treatment of students from Macao as compared with those from Hong Kong has already been raised. This seems to me to be outrageous. I should like to speak for a few moments about my own experiences when I was in the University of Peking with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. First of all it became obvious to me that the Chinese had, for the time being at least, an exaggerated impression of the importance of some of the work which was being done in England. They said to me, "We ought to have courses in industrial management, like yours, and like those at Harvard, for example". I said, "About a thousand years ago an emperor of China deployed a million men to take a canal over a range of mountains from the Yangtse to the Yellow River. These men had to be deployed, fed, housed and provided with tools, the site had to be surveyed, the work had to be organised, and this was", I said, "as great an exercise in large-scale management as the world has ever seen. What can we tell you? You have known it for a thousand years. You should", I said, "rediscover your own achievements, analyse them, and tell us".
Then we got on to the subject of inflation and it became obvious that they had managed to keep down inflation from 1951 to 1971 (the years for which they had the figures) to a total of 2 per cent.—2 per cent. altogether over 20 years. We have been averaging, 5, 10, 15 per cent. throughout that time. How have they done it? Well, they had in effect indexed the Yen to a very simple index based on only five commodities. They were, rice and millet (which are their principal grains), cooking oil, fuel and cotton cloth. No self-respecting economist in the West would dream of using so crude an index as that upon which to base the value of the currency; it is ridiculously inadequate. On

775
the other hand, no western economist has ever had to try to stabilise the value of money over an area, and for a population, as great as that of China where, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has already reminded us, there are more than 1,000 million people. They are doing a very complicated and very sophisticated job in an extremely simple way. I said to them, "You should study your achievements, and tell us more about them".
The question then arose of the future of Chinese industry. I said to them, "You have an example of the most sophisticated developments of manufacture in the whole wide world on your doorstep in Hong Kong. You can study that. There is very little that we can tell you. In fact we would like to learn ourselves how the people in Hong Kong have been so triumphantly successful and have outclassed us". I went on to say, "China has many examples of achievement on her doorstep which we would do well to emulate and which you yourselves can study and report on for us".
However, there was one thing which they wanted to study which obviously they did not have—computing and computers. They were using a very crude series of machines which we might have had 20 or 30 years ago. Soon after I returned home a friend of mine went out to give some lectures. He said that he had audiences of hundreds and hundreds of students, all anxiously trying to learn, and it was perfectly evident that they would like to study the subject, either with the help of western lecturers or by coming to England.
We then got on to the question of the extreme difficulty that the Chinese now have in paying the fees of students back home in England. The ordinary fee that is charged to a Chinaman is about equal to the sum of money which two or three familes would have to live on throughout a whole year. I think it is most important that we should try to help them in whatever ways we can, but that we should very humbly sit at their feet and learn from them the things that they can teach us because of their enormously long tradition and their experience of subjects so numerous and so different.
It turns out of course that it was the Chinese who first had printed money. It was they who discovered that if you print too much money, prices go up. It was they who discovered that if prices go up too much, it causes unrest and social catastrophe to such an extent that one of the worst periods of inflation that they experienced after having printed too much money was so awful that the peasants had to sell their children as slaves in order to keep body and soul together. That gave them a feeling that inflation must at all costs be cured, and that you must not print too much money. All of these things are deeply rooted in the Chinese tradition. They understand these things, and there is very much that they can teach us about things which concern us, and some of which we are still struggling to understand.
The noble Lord who spoke about farming did something like justice to the extraordinary beauty of the countryside. It is due to the fact that the Chinese are concerned not so much with the total product per man, but the total product per acre. They are prepared to use more people if the same land can thereby be made to yield more crops and in some parts of China
776
they get as many as three or four crops out of the same piece of soil in a year. They are fully aware of the fact that unless they maintain their tradition of farming, and if they were very greatly to mechanise their agriculture, the problem of coping with the then unemployable young would pass their capacity, since after all there might be several hundred millions of them. Their problems are on a scale that is enormously larger than anybody else's and they seem to me to show the most extraordinary good sense in the way in which they are tackling them.
In terms of their political alignment it is true to say that they fear the Russians and that they are very much more on our side than they are on the side of the Russians. They are, I believe, well disposed towards us. It has always been my experience, in speaking to the Chinese, that they have the same basic processes of thought that English people have. In other words, they are empirical. They are not philosophers, in the sense that we are not. They do not go in for any sophisticated abstract process of reason, but they do have the same empirical, sensible approach to long-term problems that we like to think we have. They are an enormously cultured, cultivated and sophisticated people.
They are a quarter of the population of the world. They have it in their power, I suspect, to become leaders of the world in many ways within the not too distant future. It would be most extraordinarily foolish of us if we did not seize all the opportunities that there are and make the most of the chances that we now have, thanks to the enterprise of, among many other people, the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and thanks also to the help which has been given through Hong Kong by the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie. To speak briefly about China is absurd. Nevertheless, one must be brief. But the hour is late and the opportunities are great. With that observation I think I had better finish.
8.1 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, with other noble Lords I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for putting down this Question for debate this evening. Whatever he may modestly say about himself, I think I am right in saying that apart from the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, he is as knowledgeable about China as any other noble Lord in this House. I liked what he had to say, particularly about longterm thinking. This seems to me to be essential, and it should be central to our economic policy vis-a-vis the People's Republic. I agreed with him, too, that surely 1,000 million good Chinese cannot all be wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has visited the People's Republic several times. I have not been there since I went there as a Member of the European Parliament and was in Peking at the very time of the return of Deng Xiaoping. That was an exciting time, and the enthusiastic celebrations in Peking, lasting for some days, had to be seen to be believed. I think that since the return of Deng Xiaoping the prospects of an understanding and of greater economic co-operation between the Western European countries and the People's Republic have been more promising, but it all takes time.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who

777
put his name down on the list of speakers for this afternoon, has not in fact spoken in this debate, since, with him, I took part in a debate in the European Parliament in March 1979, and I said then that I agreed very much with what he had said on the subject of the trade agreement which was signed by the European Community and the People's Republic on 3rd April 1978. I also agreed with what he said about buy-back projects, and about the prospects for further buy-back projects. It seemed to me at the time that this trade agreement was of great importance, and I know that it was welcomed by the People's Republic, whom I sometimes think are even more strongly in favour of a truly united Europe, economically as well as militarily, than perhaps we are ourselves. We can well appreciate the reasons for this; and the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has just indicated them.
I feel it is not inappropriate, since Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are members of the European Community, one of the very largest trading blocs in the world, for me to ask my noble friend Lord Belstead (whom I, too, should like to congratulate on his elevation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) what the position is in regard to this EEC-China agreement, as I think we should support not only a maximum exchange of views between this country and the People's Republic but also between all member states of the European Community and China.
I should particularly like to know whether the Joint Committee working parties in different industrial sectors have now been set up within the terms of Article 9, paragraph 3, of the EEC-China trade agreement; and in that connection I would not hesitate to refer your Lordships to what I said in my Motion on the European Communities and China in a debate on 30th November 1977. I would not vary one single word of what I said then. Lord Mackie of Benshie spoke of co-ordination on a national basis. I believe this should be extended, so far as is possible—and it will be within certain limitations—to the EEC in various industrial sectors, and not only in connection with the students, which my noble friend Lord Geddes mentioned.
I will not go into all the detailed points which I made in the debate in 1977 and on subsequent occasions, both in your Lordships' House and in the European Parliament, but I should be interested to know whether my noble friend Lord Belstead has anything he feels he can usefully say this evening on the progress which the Commission, and I think particularly Commissioner Haferkamp, may have made in implementing the terms of that agreement.
I should like to join with other noble Lords, I am sure, in saying how much we must all welcome the appointment of Sir Edward Youde as a most able successor to that admirable governor of Hong Kong, Sir Murray MacLehose. When I was in China Sir Edward was then the ambassador, and I know what an admirable job he and his staff did in our embassy. I had with them long discussions on industrial development in China, having visited the principal industrial areas in Heilungkiang and other parts of Northern China, as well as the famous Taching oilfields, which of course export oil to Japan.
Your Lordships will have seen that China has
778
now promulgated the oil exploration blocks she is intending to develop, and has called for tenders. It is very encouraging that the People's Republic has also given assurances about the settled nature of her policy towards foreign businesses. I understand that some British oil companies have put in bids; and, of course, I would add that British expertise in this area is very well known. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government will give all possible support to any British companies tendering, so that this country can play a major role, in co-operation with the Chinese, in the development of their resources, not only in oil but in other raw materials in which the country, as I know, is very rich? In view of successful developments in the field of aviation co-operation, I would be interested to know what steps the Government are taking to pursue further joint co-operative ventures in other areas of advanced technology.
As it is late, may I just say again how grateful I think we should all be to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for raising this matter this evening. I certainly agree with him that there should be a maximum exchange of views between our two countries and Western Europe as a whole at all levels.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, two months ago I had the great good fortune of being selected as a member of the delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union which visited China at the invitation of the National People's Congress. Let me say at once that I am always wary of those who, on the basis of a two weeks' visit, become experts in a country's affairs. I do not wish to fall into that trap. My noble friend Lord Rhodes, with his great experience to which a number of noble Lords referred, himself said that he was no expert. All that I can say is that his knowledge and experience in these matters completely dwarfs my own. Nevertheless, the experience that I gained during that visit to China was so meaningful, and so contributed to my own understanding of the situation in China, that I am persuaded that at least a brief contribution from me to this discussion may be worthwhile.
My noble friend's Unstarred Question refers to the need for, "the maximum exchange of views between the two countries at all levels". The delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union was in itself a very considerable step forward in this respect because China has not hitherto been a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is in my view highly desirable that she should be, and I hope that our visit will have brought nearer the day when she will be joining that organisation. I believe it true to say that such membership simply awaits a decision by the National People's Congress in the autumn. Certainly I am sure that from the point of view of noble Lords such an application will be warmly received.
Moreover, I believe that other exchanges and membership by China of other international institutions will become increasingly possible in the near future and increasingly desirable. These exchanges will not be simply on the educational and cultural level, with which my noble friend Lord Bowden has been dealing so effectively, but, I believe, on the level of exchanges between businessmen, scientists, trade unionists and,

779
if I can refer to my own special interest, co-operators within the international co-operative movement. All, I believe, will increasingly find opportunities of mutual understanding and association with their opposite numbers in the great country of China.
If I may give an illustration of a favourable development in this respect, a few years ago a number of us both in another place and in your Lordships' House formed the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. We knew then that China not only had an enormous problem in relation to population growth but had a most important experience in dealing with that problem. It was not easy for those of us who were then forming this parliamentary group to make sufficient direct contact with the Chinese in this matter, but since then there has been a most welcome development in this respect.
Last autumn in Beijing the Chinese were hosts to one of the most important international conferences on the subject. Arising out of that conference, there has now been formed an Asian parliamentary group concerned with methods of reducing the birth rate in the continent of Asia; and the Chinese have taken a leading part in forming that group. So there are, as I have suggested, in many areas increasing opportunities of mutual exchange and mutual understanding.
These changes in China's international position are paralleled by changes that are going on internally as well. I suggest that it behoves all of us who are interested in a closer international association with China to try to understand the nature of that internal change. I will give just one example. During our visit I was able to put certain questions in an interview we had with deputy Prime Minister Yao Yilin. Incidentally, I have been interested to read since our return that there has been a structural change in the government set-up, and whereas previously there were some 12 or more deputy Prime Ministers there are now only 2; and I was glad to see that Mr. Yao Yilin is one of those two. So we were talking to a man of considerable significance.
I had asked him during our interview about the significance of the so-called new policy of personal responsibility in economic affairs. During the various visits that we made to industrial and agricultural enterprises we were given evidence of how this new policy is working, and successfully working, in terms of productivity. In discussing this, I was particularly interested to hear how the deputy Prime Minister, when referring to the Chinese system of agriculture in the communes, stressed that the new developments, significant though they were, would not lead to an abandonment of collective ownership of land. Changes are taking place in the role of the communes and in the freedom of the peasants within the communes to make decisions about their work patterns and the general running of the enterprise, but this should not be seen as putting the clock back. It should be seen in the context of a continuing reliance upon collective ownership throughout China.
There is another economic development that is going on in China, about which I was able to make some inquiries because it was of particular interest to me. We in Britain are these days faced with the problem of young unemployed in the cities. One method of
780
tackling this problem, with which I have been involved in this country, is the encouragement of workers' co-operatives to provide jobs for groups of young people. I found that there was an almost exactly similar situation in the Chinese cities. They did not refer to unemployed youth; they rather used the euphemism of "youth awaiting employment"—but I think it came to much the same thing.
There was evidence of a growing movement in the cities of workers' collectives, which is very familiar to the incipient changes here. I feel certain, therefore, that this is one area where mutual exchange of experience would be useful in this particular case in the service industries, in handicraft and in retailing. Particularly in relation to the problem of young unemployed there would be a great deal of value in sharing experience between our two countries. Those are two of the lines of inquiry that I was able to pursue and which I thought would be of some interest to your Lordships.
In conclusion, may I—as others have done—thank my noble friend Lord Rhodes for the opportunity that he has given us of having this brief discussion. I should like to assure him that in our many discussions that we had in China during our two weeks' visit his name was often mentioned. He can be quite sure that his work for British-Chinese understanding is very greatly appreciated among the Chinese, as it is in your Lordships' House.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Fulton: My Lords, in the three decades since 1949 China has been through a time of upheaval and struggle, the world has watched a human drama that has engaged a quarter of the human race in which the heroes of one act became the villains of the next with extreme dogmas fighting bitterly against one another, sometimes Left against Right; sometimes the high command against the rank and file. Yesterday's top people humbled and brought to justice; high hopes and idealism alternating with deep frustration and earthy pragmatism.
Through it all it is possible to see a main thread. One percipient onlooker has described it thus:
"A persistent search for a Chinese road to economic development, nation-building and social reconstruction. The path proves to be lengthy and tortuous: every corner it turns reveals conflicts of ideology, clashes of personality, struggles for power and massive social upheavals".
Those of us who were privileged to join the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in his pioneering bridge-building between Peking and Members of your Lordships' House and the other House found in him an ideal leader. He was full enough of years not to be misled by romantic illusions that progress in relations between East and West would be instantaneous, miraculous and uninterrupted.
He had seen enough of men and affairs to read the less obvious signs on the road that escaped the notice of others. His down-to-earth empirical English common sense clearly won the hearts of his hosts. Ever since that first visit the conviction has stayed with me that the outcome of China's decades of stress was of the first importance for us, far away at the other end of the earth. Not only because it engages a quarter of the entire human family, with all that that implies—with all that the outcome of that stress

781
implies—and inevitably means for the world's security and for the hope of striking a satisfactory global balance in the years to come between the claims of food, raw materials and industrial development. Not only because of the weight of the vast numbers involved, but also because China's future course will be that of a people proudly looking back beyond a recent century and more of invasion and humiliation at the hands of the West and latterly Japan, looking back upon the thousands of years of the longest continuous civilisation in human history.
This perspective and time-scale must be emphasised. It may be tempting but surely superficial to see in today's China only a new emergent super-power interested primarily in catching up a quarter of a century's time lag in technology. What model of human association will she offer the 21st century? The world has watched, and in different degrees admired and emulated, the model of a good society first glimpsed by the Pilgrim Fathers and set forth in the American Declaration of Independence and given flesh and bones during the subsequent 200 years while the US has harnessed science to the tasks of providing its own people, and others often with open-handed generosity, with food in plenty and a growing stock of the material goods of life.
Have they any cause to quarrel with or question the fulfilment of the promise of liberty and opportunity? Other models have been up for appraisal. The model of the Russian revolution, now over 60 years on; and Europe with its composite kaleidoscopic culture buried deep in the long and buried history of its national components. What patterns will a more extrovert China offer to a world divided between North and South, rich and poor and all the variations of those themes?
To return to China as our delegations found it, I leave the great and pressing issues of economics, industrail and agricultural development in the experienced hands of the noble Lords, Lord Rhodes, Lord Kadoorie—whom I should like to join in welcoming back to his seat tonight and for giving us the opportunity to share in his wisdom—and also Lord Mackie of Benshie.
For my part, I was most fortunate that two years after the first Rhodes delegation in 1978 I received an official invitation to go with my wife to China again as the guests of the University of Peking. I believe that that invitation was given chiefly because of my longstanding connection with the Chinese University of Hong Kong. I must say a few words to the House about that interesting institution, assuring noble Lords that it is closely relevant to the subject of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. Hong Kong has now two universities, one on which time does not permit me to dwell which was founded 70 years ago on the model of contemporary civic universities of the United Kingdom, sharing many of their characteristics and all of their virtues. Its medium of instruction was, however, English.
The second university, the other university, was founded nearly 20 years ago with two main objects in view: first, by teaching through the medium of Chinese it was intended to redress the balance of disadvantage suffered by the many young men and women of Chinese parentage whose education had been gained through
782
the medium of Chinese in the Chinese middle schools of Hong Kong, and whose natural abilities, however high, could not ensure them a university education in the existing university.
Sir Robert Black, the then governor, in an inspired moment of vision, and with the backing of the Colonial Office (whose education service was vastly experienced in the provision of higher education in the British colonies and dependencies against the coming of their independence) and of the Inter-University Council, the foster parent of some 40 universities in Africa, the Caribbean and in South Asia, was convinced that the second university was overdue.
The second objective which lay behind its foundation was that it should provide a meeting ground for the Chinese traditions of scholarship in Hong Kong, South East Asia and mainland China, together with the traditions of Western Europe, and also with the American university tradition, enriched as it had been at the highest level by the contributions in both science and the arts from numerous Chinese scholars who had settled in the United States. Thus, the Chinese University of Hong Kong had bred in its bones, as it were, the aim of promoting understanding between East and West.
I had the great privilege of being chairman of the commission which was set up by the Government of Hong Kong to report on the prospect of bringing together three post-secondary colleges—refugee institutions from mainland China which had set up centres of study in Hong Kong. They represented a wide range of university traditions from the classical Chinese scholarship to Christian colleges. We recommended that the union should take place and that the university so created should preserve its collegiate character and that its teaching should meet the needs of children of Chinese birth. Our report, of course, dealt with the range of academic issues normal in the institution of a new university, which do not concern us tonight.
I have been privileged from the start to be a member of the Chinese University's governing body and the university is fully conscious of its debt to my fellow member, Lord Todd, for his help and advice from the eminence of his position in the world of science. It is perhaps sufficient to say that the new university has filled its first 18 years with splendid achievements and is living up to the high hopes of its founders. It has had two vice-chancellors—both Chinese by birth—in the one case with strong links with the United States and, in the other case, to the United Kingdom. It has manifestly strong support in Hong Kong, not only from the Hong Kong Government but also from the Chinese community.
During more than half its life it has had as chancellor, Sir Murray MacLehose, who has even-handedly been chancellor of both universities. He will be greatly missed in his retirement from an illustrious term of office, during which he has guided Hong Kong through massive changes of scale with high political and administrative skills, his deep understanding of the complex cross-currents of Hong Kong's teeming life and an unassuming natural dignity. Hong Kong's loss, however, will be your Lordships' gain as he joins our deliberations in this House in the near future.
It was against this background of higher education in Hong Kong that I went for a second visit to China.

783
I will not take up the time of the House by describing their interest in academic affairs, but I would wish to describe the kindness of academic hosts in Peking and other university centres. They, too, have problems of access to universities which we share—problems of teaching, research, libraries and relations with students.
Over and above these, two impressions stand out in the memory. There was the impact upon the senses and imagination of the excavations of Sian, the old capital of China—the army, thousands in number, of terra cotta horses and riders, each individual soldier and animal individual in its features, entombed at the approaches to the tomb of the Emperor who first unified China, contemporary with the classical age of Greece and Rome in the Mediterranean, facing the direction from which an enemy might threaten. The tomb itself awaits excavation in due course. Already the discovery must rank among the greatest of nineteenth-century discoveries in the Mediterranean and the Valley of the Nile. The meticulous care and the strictness of the control to ensure orderly access are a witness to the national pride in the artistic achievements and the superb craftsmanship of a bygone China.
Nearby the oldest known human settlement has been excavated and it bears witness to the inherent inventiveness and aesthetic propensities of the remotest Chinese ancestors. Everywhere there are museums, beautifully organised and laid out, illustrating the history of Chinese society and its art. Their effectiveness may be read in the signs of eagerness on the faces of country-folk, old and young, who quickly gather round at the approach of visitors to the numerous lesser imperial tombs. They catch the words of guides before the interpreter passes on their content to the fortunate spectator from overseas.
Inevitably there broods over the scene the question of how the gigantic states can manage themselves if they are to succeed in meeting the challenges of nature or even those arising from man's own inventiveness. Men must act together or they may perish together, but the scale by which they are organised becomes one of the great problems of human government. There are signs that give ground for hope, but that is for another day.
In the meantime there was one significant straw in the wind. I was naturally interested, when in Peking, in finding out what would be the official response to overtures for academic collaboration between the universities of China and those of Hong Kong or, for that matter, of the United Kingdom. The Minister of Education responded by putting aside the question in its most general form but stating that there would be a welcome for academic exchanges between Hong Kong and the universities in the province of Canton, including the university founded by Sun Yat-sen. This seemed to be a most encouraging and hopeful reply, and I have since been glad to hear from the vice-chancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong that various exchanges have now been arranged.
There are now indications that the recent decision of the Chinese National People's Congress to establish special administrative regions will allow a promising measure of co-operation in industrial and other relationships. I hope I am not thought to be naïvely
784
suggesting that mutual understanding between peoples and cultures long cut off from one another can be turned on by a mere declaration of intent.
I end with a plea in support of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and his endeavours, because I believe that wider understanding between nations and other groups is best promoted by bringing together people who already have interests in common—politicians with politicians, yes; doctors with doctors; musicians with musicians; scientists with scientists; engineers with engineers; and, above all, students with students—
Lord Davies of Leek: And teachers with teachers.
Lord Fulton: My Lords, universities by their nature and organisation, are naturally equipped to perform such a function. I have referred before in this House to the example of one of the great experiments of this century—the foundation by another Rhodes of the Rhodes scholarships, which brought together young men from all over the Commonwealth and the United States to study in Oxford, not in order to love one another but to understand one another, by doing something in which they had already engaged their activities and minds. I believe that after three-quarters of a century the numbers of those people occupying positions of responsibility all over the world have done a great deal, and, in particular, I am certain they have narrowed the Atlantic as much as has Concorde itself. It was working together with others from a different part of the world, and with a different upbringing, at subjects or jobs in which they were already interested, that led, if not to a growth in mutual affection, at least to an understanding of what made the other parties to the arrangement what they were.
It is not far-fetched to claim that that single inspiration is one with which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, agrees, because, if I remember rightly, the first thing he did when he arrived back in England from his first pioneering bridge-building, was to arrange for a very promising girl musician, whom we had heard at one of our stops, to come and continue her education in company with English girls in Manchester, as a renowned centre of musical studies. Therefore, I think that he agrees with this, if not with the way in which I have said it. He himself had the knack—amounting to a kind of genius—to sense what the various hosts in China would be interested in. Once that was in the open, what might have been merely a formal exchange of courtesies became an animate human relationship and we need more of it.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, I did not put down my name to speak tonight, but as a couple of speakers have dropped out I am tempted to tell, in a very brief manner, a very short story which is dear to my heart as an artist and a member of the Artists' Union. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for giving me this opportunity. He said that he knows little of Chinese matters, but leading four delegations to China is certainly four times more than I have been to China.
I should like to add to the list of the noble Lord who has just spoken, artist to artist. Last year, I had

785
occasion to meet an associate professor in the oil-painting department of the Central Institute of Fine Arts in Peking, who was over in London to copy some European paintings in the Tate. This is no mean feat. I arranged for him to visit the schools at the Royal Academy of Arts and the Royal College of Art. In conversation at the Royal College of Art, I learned of one area of China's treatment of artists from which we should surely learn. In the institute of which he was an associate professor, there were equal numbers of artists and teachers. The teachers were employed full-time from year to year, and every other year they would take a sabbatical to carry out their own art work. This, at a time of cuts in this country which affect very greatly indeed artists who rely on part-time art teaching to continue their work and to have close co-operation with their students, is a lesson well learned.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, I think that every speaker tonight has said how very grateful the House is to my noble friend Lord Rhodes for having initiated this debate, for making so powerful a speech himself and for giving us the opportunity of hearing such highly qualified experts as the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie. China's importance in the world context is immense and it is curious that our debates about her are so infrequent. China has had a cultural and philosophical influence on the world for thousands of years, and trade with China has been of historical importance for almost as long. She has an infinite variety of peoples, whose ingenuity and skills have been legendary for centuries and yet modern China, until very recently, has loomed only like a kind of mysterious question mark in the minds of most of the British people.
That is one of the reasons why I think that Parliament, and indeed the country, owe so much to the generosity and the determination of my noble friend to forge links not only with the Chinese Government, but with the Chinese people. Friendships, constancy and trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, told us, are particularly valued by the Chinese people, and anyone who has been there with my noble friend Lord Rhodes knows the depth of the trust and admiration in which he is held there.
I learned from my visit that, apart from the fascination of its culture, the beauty of the country, the vigour and originality of its people, China is in no sense, as some people imagine, a closed society. It is, for instance, nothing like Russia. People come up to talk to you in the street quite spontaneously, if they hear you speaking English, and then join in the conversation vigorously, whatever their particular skill, because they love to try to speak and understand our language. Students everywhere flock to you at once when they know that you are a foreigner, and ask questions about our schools and universities. They long to know the most intricate details about British political life.
I remember with some discomfort a rather rough plane journey that I had between Peking and Hangzhou. I was cross-examined by one of our young interpreters about exactly what were the details and functions of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, and exactly what the decisions at that year's
786
Labour Party's Conference meant. It was rather difficult, as your Lordships can imagine! Later on, one of the Conservative members of our delegation was collared about the 1922 Committee, and asked in detail what was its significance and position in the Conservative Party. In China, there is a passionate interest in the world outside, and I shall come back later with some questions for the noble Lord who is to reply.
For our part, I wonder how many—even Members of Parliament—know that the Chinese have just unveiled a new draft state constitution, which is their fourth since 1949. At this stage, most interestingly, it has been issued for discussion and comments by the people. This means that now Chinese political thinking will be concentrating on some very basic issues. This is not the time to go into details. Noble Lords will know that the constitution contains a master-plan radically to reform the structure of the Chinese Government and the Communist Party. It proposes to establish a state presidency and a Central Military Council responsible to the National People's Congress, rather than to the Communist Party, and there are radical new proposals for the people's communes.
Constitutional changes may well come from the strengthening of legislative bodies at all levels, including the National People's Congress. Furthering Deng Xaio Ping's general approach over the last years, the Constitutional Revision Commission is reported to have recommended a general devolution of political power, so that "grass-roots levels" have far greater power over both administrative and economic affairs than they have now. There has been very little discussion in the British press about so important a development, yet we here ought to be able to follow the discussions in China about a new constitution which will be as important to the world outside as to China herself. We do not know enough, in general, about the workings of state, the People's Congress and the pattern of internal Chinese political life to assess what will be the impact of these proposals. This is why my noble friend's approach to a constant exchange of views,of personnel, of technical expertise and of mutual dialogue is so important. We can only interpret such views if we have far more information, not only at Government level but at all levels.
Apart from the human understanding which is so necessary, it is of real importance to our practical relations with China. The members of the Chinese Government—and very high ranking members of the Government—who met us on our various delegations, with great frankness told us that they knew there were difficulties. In trade matters, for instance, they knew that, as in all countries—but particularly, perhaps, in China because of its recent rather tragic history—there are often almost inexplicable delays and confusion even when both parties are anxious to get agreement on projects and joint ventures. Again, what is needed here is familiarity with each country's methods and problems, and that can only he achieved with deliberate efforts on both sides and with assistance from Governments.
As my noble friend Lord Rhodes has said, it is essential that our mutual trade interests prosper. In this connection, each time I have visited China I have been made aware from all sides of the almost desperate

787
need for the exchange of technical know-how and training. Like other noble Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether we can make any new efforts in this direction? Is there any hope, for instance, of help for young Chinese men and women to come to this country to be trained? When we were there three years ago that splendid old warrior of the Long March, Vice-Premier Wang Zhen, asked us if it would be possible for them to come to this country and work, perhaps, with technicians in the North Sea Oil Field, or to work and study dairy farming—of which they need much experience—on British farms. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us any indication of hope in that direction.
Another question of real importance which has been raised many times in the House, and of which I have given the noble Lord notice, is the need for the transmission of the BBC World Service to be stepped up so that it is properly audible in China. We know that this requires a new transmitter because the one at Singapore is inadequate, and we know that the Government have some intentions in this direction. But, my Lords, it has taken a very long time. Every time I have visited China our interpreters have pleaded with us to get this service improved. They listen to the Voice of America every morning because it is audible, but they would much prefer the BBC both because of the programmes and because of the quality of the English. I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made in this direction.
Another subject which has been discussed over and over again, and which I am very glad the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, raised, is the tragic results of Government policy on overseas students. As a small example of this, on our last visit we met a highly intelligent young man, the son of a distinguished Chinese writer who had lived in England years ago and who had brought his family up to love the British way of life. More than anything else in the world they wanted that young man to come to a university in the United Kingdom. But, of course, we found that he could go to any one of the leading American universities for half the sum it would cost him to come here, and to his infinite disappointment that is what he had to do. Could we plead with the noble Lord to try to influence his colleagues in Government and in his department to mitigate this absurd situation which applies to students all over the world and which is so damaging to this country.
This is not an appropriate occasion to consider wider political issues, but naturally western countries speculate about China's relations with Russia and with America. Noble Lords will know that Japan and the NATO countries have been urging the United States to try to resolve the difficulties created by their arms policy towards Taiwan. We also know that the sale of grain from the United States is essential to China, and we welcome Vice-President Bush's statement that he "felt good" after his three-day visit. It is essential that we draw China more and more into the community of nations. We naturally wonder, too, what Mr. Brezhnev's recent olive branch to China really means.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, would my noble friend consider it to be wrong of me to interrupt her?
788
I wish to support her just for one minute. Travelling by train from Peking to Hanoi on one famous occasion, a nice old gentleman spoke to me in very good English. I asked him where he was going. He said that he was going to Wu-an where they were building a new bridge over the Yangtse when they were friendly with the Russians. He said that he was an engineer, that Mao had called him back and that he was 70-odd years of age. I asked him where he studied engineering. He said, "In the best place in the world—Imperial College of Science, London, in 1910". We have thrown all that away. Therefore, I want to enhance and back up the point which has been made by my noble friend.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, I agree entirely that it is a very good example which my noble friend has given us. I shall not go too far into the question of the olive branch, but perhaps the Chinese might be forgiven for being a little cynical about the timing of the olive branch just when there were strains appearing between America and China over the Taiwan policies. At this moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, mentioned, we are naturally sad that the Chinese Government could not support Resolution 502 at the Security Council, but we understand their loyalty to the views of the non-aligned countries and we share their strong wish for a peaceful settlement of the Falklands dispute. But our debate tonight is taking place under the deep shadow of crisis. These are questions which we must leave for a different occasion, but what we want to convey tonight is our tremendous goodwill towards the People's Republic and our strong wish for friendship and for further exchanges of views and interest at all levels.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, this is a terrible impertinence but I must rise for a few moments to support the point she made regarding the External Service of the BBC. When I was in China only last January it was astonishing to me—although I did know, in fact, that this was so—that the Russians had been broadcasting for many years to the Chinese in English, with an astonishing audibility and very close to the frequency upon which the British broadcasts are transmitted. It is absolutely essential that the valid point which the noble Baroness has made should be supported by Her Majesty's Government.
8.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, because we attach the highest importance to relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China. May I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, in also recognising the really splendid speech which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, made from the considerable amount of experience which he now has of this subject.
Despite the great geographical distance between our two countries, our historic ties have been close. In 1950, Britain was one of the first countries to recognise the People's Republic of China. Ten years ago we agreed to exchange ambassadors, and particularly since then our relations have developed rapidly. Our

789
social and political systems are quite different. Nevertheless, on a number of major political issues which divide the world today we and the Chinese share the same fundamental outlook. The Government believe that continuing to develop the exchange of views with China can promote mutual understanding, which will be in the interests of both countries and in the interests of world peace.
In the last few years there has been a great expansion in the contacts between Britain and China at all levels. It is a sign of the closeness of our present relations that for the first time since the foundation of the People's Republic members of the Royal Family—the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester—have recently visited China. There have been a good many ministerial visits in both directions and by Members of both Houses of Parliament, and the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has also paid visits to China. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, told us about these in his speech and, indeed, no one has been more enterprising in this respect than he has. The noble Lord has organised and led three successful delegations—to which he referred with evident pride—and he went to Peking again in the spring.
As well as ministerial and parliamentary visits there has been a wide range of official and unofficial exchanges. They have covered the field of trade, science and technology, defence, agriculture, medicine, education, sport and culture. The British Council has been re-established in China since 1979 as part of our embassy in Peking, and the contacts they sponsor and the cultural agreement they operate are of great value. I should also like to pay tribute to the important contributions by the Great Britain-China Centre, the Sino-British Trade Council, the Royal Society, the universities and private organisations. There are now several hundred Chinese students and researchers in Britain, mainly in scientific subjects. There are a number of British teachers working in China, and most British students reading Chinese at our universities now spend a year in China, either during or after their courses.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, also mentioned the desirability of visits by high-ranking officials. A number of senior civil servants have visited China in the past few years. Others will certainly do so as opportunities present themselves and when useful purposes can be served. One example of regular exchanges at official level is the periodic consultation between the Department of Transport and the Chinese Ministry of Railways within the framework of the Railway Co-operation Arrangement. Another example is a series of exchanges at working level between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Chinese health authorities.
Much of our business with China is done, naturally, at diplomatic level. The Chinese ambassador in London is one of his country's most distinguished representatives; so too is our own representation in China of the highest calibre. We have every confidence in Sir Percy Cradock and his staff at the embassy in Peking—and perhaps I ought to add that almost all the diplomatic members of our embassy there speak Chinese.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, referred to our representation in Peking and recognised, I believe, that
790
we have in recent years already added to the commercial and cultural sections of our embassy. We have also arranged for the accreditation in Peking of members of the China Trade Unit in the British Trade Commission in Hong Kong, so as to increase our support for British exporters—particularly exporters in the southern provinces of China. The question of opening a small consulate in Shanghai mainly for commercial work—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, specifically referred—has been kept under review. I would like to give your Lordships an assurance this evening that we have been keeping very much in mind the views expressed by British businessmen and by Members of both Houses of Parliament on this matter. We shall certainly discuss this with the Chinese during the coming months.
At present there is no direct United Kingdom Government aid programme for China. However, we have been taking a serious look at this recently. In practice, since 1980 some aid has already been flowing into China. Funds have been channelled through the British Council to help finance their educational aid programme to China. We have also, through the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, supported the development of a pesticides research and development centre in China. The aid programme is not exempt from current budgetary constraints and is already tightly stretched, but I am glad to be able to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, that consideration is at present being given to the possibility of initiating a modest programme of technical co-operation with China.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Geddes specifically raised the question of overseas student fees. This decision was taken with reluctance for economic reasons. I accept that there is a difference of view about this in your Lordships' House. We are doing what we can to help Chinese students who come to Britain under the cultural programme. Besides British Council scholarships, a limited number of bursaries are also being made available under a new scheme operated by the Department of Education and Science. We would like to do more but the current financial climate is difficult.
I should like just to say to my noble friend Lord Geddes—for whose kind remarks, as well as those of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, I was most grateful—that the Government have co-operated with the Overseas Students' Trust, which my noble friend mentioned, in further work on what options might be open for giving further help to overseas students, but within the general context of the Government's present policy. We look forward to publication of their study, which I understand will be early next month. I am sure my noble friend will understand if, in the context of foreign students, I comment that I cannot say more than that.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of the proposed Far East BBC relay station. Provision is made in plans which the Government announced last year to improve the worldwide audibility of the BBC External Services with the construction of a new relay station to cover China, Korea and Japan. A suitable site has been identified by the BBC in Hong Kong and in consultation with the Government of the

791
territory, construction is planned to start in the financial year 1985–86.
We do, of course, offer financial support of various kinds to British businessmen exporting to China. Besides normal commercial credit facilities a number of British banks have extended to China a 1·2 billion dollar deposit facility that is subsidised by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I very much welcome the news which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, had to give in his speech about Chinese encouragement of the use of this facility. Beyond this, under a British Overseas Trade Board scheme, financial assistance may be offered also to groups of British exporters who wish to invite groups of overseas businessmen to visit Britain. In this way, over the past two years, the BOTB has supporting inward missions, the BOTB also supports further five missions are already in prospect during the remainder of 1982. In general we believe that the scheme provides a very effective means of helping British companies to bring their products and services to the attention of prospective Chinese purchasers.
The noble Baroness, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked specifically about co-operation in the field of high technology and technology generally. There is also support for inward visits of Chinese scientists and technologists under both the Cultural and the Science and Technology agreements. Besides supporting inward missions, the BOTB also supports outward missions to China and contributes to the costs of British companies exhibiting at trade fairs. It was not until 1981 that China first began accepting international trade fairs and when that happened the BOTB began supporting British participation. We have had five exhibitions and a further two are now planned.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, at this point may I interrupt the noble Lord? I gave prior notice of this. Would the noble Lord deal with my very strong appeal to do something about COCOM?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if may, I will come to that in just a moment. The industries covered at exhibitions which have received assistance from the BOTB include marine equipment, electronics, plastics, coal mining and construction, petroleum, education equipment and mechanical handling.
If I may come to the noble Lord's point, I realise from his speech that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, with the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, does not approve of China trade coming within the scope of the limitations of COCOM. But within this framework we are seeking to speed up the procedures for dealing with COCOM cases, to keep the list of embargoed items to the minimum necessary to safeguard our strategic interests, and to give due weight to Chinese relations with other countries. British views on these interests have been put forcefully to our COCOM partners and I am glad to say we believe they have had some effect. Any British firms wishing to sell their products to China which have any doubts about the prospects of securing export licences should seek advice from the Department of Trade in their export licensing branch at Millbank Tower.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and the noble Lord,
792
Lord Kadoorie, whose speech we so much enjoyed, mentioned the subject of textiles, and the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, referred to negotiations with the European Community. The present arrangements are in fact set out in the 1979 agreement, which provides for the European Community to maintain a rather less restrictive import regime than was previously in force, while retaining the right to protect domestic industry against disruptive surges of imports in particular product categories. I think it is fair to say that this is consistent with the Community's established policy on low cost imports from all sources, not just China. In the case of China 30 categories of products out of 114 covered by the agreement are currently subject to restraint under the 1979 agreement. The Government believe that these measures represent a package which is fair to the parties concerned. However, a certain degree of flexibility is available for the management of these arrangements. Primary responsibility for this rests, if any further details are needed, with the Department of Industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, particularly raised the question of China-US relations, and indeed I wonder whether I might refer for a moment also to China-Soviet relations. So far as China-US relations are concerned, I really would not add very much to what the noble Baroness said, except that it is the earnest hope of Her Majesty's Government that a settlement of any outstanding issues in this area of international relations can be reached. Good relations between China and the United States are in the interests of us all, and we hope that both sides will continue their efforts to avoid any lessening of relations.
So far as China-USSR relations are concerned, of course we all in this House know that President Brezhnev has called recently for better relations the Soviet Union and China, and the Chinese reply is that they will judge the Soviet Union by their actions and not their words. No doubt they had in mind Soviet actions in Afghanistan and Vietnamese actions in Cambodia. I am bound to say that I do not think the Chinese have changed their mind about Soviet foreign policy at the present time.
Having said that, of course tonight the subject which we are discussing is exchanges. The expansion of tourism to China in the last few years has meant that many British people have had a chance themselves to see something of the country about which your Lordships have spoken with such interest. Do not let us neglect the energetic work of television, radio, the press and the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in enabling more people to understand more about China.
Her Majesty's Government would certainly support further exchanges of views of all kinds and at all levels. In the light of the recent reshuffle of the Chinese Government we shall certainly be considering extending new invitations to Ministers to come to Britain to meet their counterparts and to see for themselves what Britain has to offer. No doubt there may be further opportunities in the other direction.
One of the features of our relationship with China is, of course, our mutual interest in Hong Kong. I should like to recognise the great service which the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, has given for the development of Hong Kong. It is due to men like the noble

793
Lord that it forms such an important part of the discussion which we are having this evening. It is, indeed, one of the key subjects which, as your Lordships know, Ministers have discussed on a number of occasions with Chinese leaders. I was very glad that the noble Lord placed on record that practical cooperation between the United Kingdom and China on Hong Kong questions, and directly between Hong Kong and China, has never been more extensive or more cordial. These good relations will enable us to maintain confidence while taking the interests of the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong into account.
Both we and the Chinese Government are studying the question of the future of the territory and are agreed on the vital importance of its continued prosperity and stability. In this the United Kingdom places particular importance on maintaining the strength and the independence of the Hong Kong dollar. I believe that these objectives can be achieved. I see no cause for any lack of confidence in the future of Hong Kong. Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the territory and the interests of its people remains undiminished.
Before I conclude, I should like to answer two questions which my noble friend Lord Bessborough asked me. My noble friend first asked me about the trade agreement of April 1978 and how it was being developed, and in particular whether the joint committees provided for under the agreement have yet been set up. China/European Community relations are good and have developed well since the signing of the trade agreement in that year. Although I have to admit to my noble friend that, as I understand it, the joint committees have not been set up yet, there have none the less been useful exchanges of visits and a European Community/China Business Week was held in Brussels in March of last year. The most recent annual meeting of the joint commission was in Peking only last November.
My noble friend also referred to the evident desire of the Chinese to develop their oil supplies in a way most advantageous both to themselves and to companies from overseas, and asked about the Government's attitude to that. As I understand it, bids are now being invited by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. British firms have been taking an active interest and there are good prospects for co-operation. British experience and expertise in this area is well known and we believe can make a valuable contribution both in exploration and production and also in the service sector. We are fortunate that discussions are taking place at a time of excellent political relations between Britain and China. My noble friend specifically asked whether the Government would give all possible support to any British companies putting in tenders. I reply that the Government departments in Britain and the embassy in Peking will do all that they can to help British companies make their contribution.
As has been mentioned this evening, the relations between this country and China have become infinitely closer over the last years and, of course, in September my right honourable friend the Prime Minister hopes to visit China. The composition of the party—if I may reply finally to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes—has not yet been decided, but I assure the
794
noble Lord that the view which he expressed about this will be taken seriously into account in reaching final decisions. No British Prime Minister has hitherto visited China while in office, and both the British and Chinese Governments regard this as an occasion of especial significance. I am confident that it will contribute greatly to the further strenghtening of the relations between China and the United Kingdom.

Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Opposed Provisions, with amendments.
  NAPHILL BUNKER: COST OF CONSTRUCTION
  NAPHILL BUNKER: COST OF CONSTRUCTION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS
  SECURITY PROCEDURES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE
  SECURITY PROCEDURES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE