Sitting of 21 April 1983

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

  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 26 April.

  SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 April.

  EPSOM AND WALTON REGULATIONS
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I beg to move,
  That the Committee on the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [Lords] have leave to visit and inspect Walton Downs, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel, Agent or other representative.
  Hon. Members will be aware that in this House Private Bill Committees rarely make visits and cannot do so without the leave of the House.
  That leave has certainly not been given indiscriminately in the past but has been granted where the physical features of a site are an issue being considered by a Committee.
  The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), has represented to me that the Committee would indeed be greatly helped on this Bill by seeing the site for themselves, and I am happy to support him by moving this motion.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday 25 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the forecast expenditure under the common agricultural policy has increased since the date when he last answered oral questions on the subject; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): There has been no further change in the forecast expenditure for the United Kingdom compared with the answers I previously gave.
    400
    At the meeting of the Council of Ministers this week it has been indicated that the budget for the Community will require a supplementary budget later this year.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that only a few days ago the other Tory Commissioner Tugendhat, said that agricultural expenditure was getting out of control? Which Tory Minister or Commissioner must hon. Members believe?
    Mr. Walker: Unfortunately, there is only one Tory Commissioner, so there is no difficulty in deciding who to believe.
    Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a major switch that has taken place in common agricultural policy funding is from funding surpluses of more temperate products, such as milk and dairy produce, to more Mediterranean products such as olive oil and wine? Does he consider there is a case for more regional co-responsibility for financing the surpluses of Mediterranean produce, which are consuming a larger proportion of the CAP budget?
    Mr. Walker: The possibilities of that are interesting and important. There are two major reasons for the major increases. First, the 1982 growing year for virtually all products in the Community was outstandingly good. Production was much higher than anticipated. Secondly, the currency exchange rate agreements that took place in March, at which several countries demanded substantial revaluations and devaluations of their currencies, enabled them to make green currency changes that are costly to the Commission.
    Mr. Buchan: I do not wish to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He cannot just say that there will be an additional budget statement. The House must know how much. I trust that he will give the House that information this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to distinguish between a Tory Minister and a Tory Commissioner, can he distinguish between the Tory Commissioner and the Tory Daily Telegraph, which stated this morning that farm prices are 35 per cent. above last year's figure?
    Mr. Walker: I am quite certain the Daily Telegraph did not say that farm prices are 35 per cent. up——
    Mr. Buchan: Spending.
    Mr. Walker: One of the major reasons for the increase in farm spending is the revaluation of currencies. I would hate to be in any way politically biased, but several Socialist economies have demanded large revaluations.

    Aujeszky's Disease (Eradication)
    Mr. Mark Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs in how many herds have so far been slaughtered under the Aujeszky's disease eradication scheme.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Authority has been given to slaughter over 94,000 pigs in 92 herds.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that information. Will the Minister confirm that adequate arrangements have been made to prevent the importation of both classical

    401
    swine fever from Brabant and other parts of the Netherlands, and of African swine fever from Sardinia and Piedmont? Will the Minister accept that the burden of the levy for this level of slaughter on a hard-pressed pig industry is very considerable and that she should take steps to assist the pig industry by providing funds for the vet service or for other assistance?
    Mrs. Fenner: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, is that pigmeat does not represent any significant risk. The live pig trade is very small and bilateral arrangements cover that. There is another question on the Order Paper about the pig industry, which may answer some of the hon. Gentleman's other points.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the state of the pig industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Michael Shawasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now take further steps to improve the profitability of pig production.
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last had a meeting with the president of the National Farmers Union; and if they discussed the subject of profitability in the pig industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have been in close contact with all concerned with the situation in the pig industry.
    As my right hon. Friend informed the House on Monday, we have successfully negotiated in Brussels substantial increases in export refunds, amounting to 60 per cent. on whole carcases and main cuts. This, I know, will substantially improve the opportunities for pigmeat exports. I have also decided to relieve the meat industry of the cost of veterinary inspections in those plants which are eligible to produce meat for export, by meeting these from public funds, with offsetting savings in other areas of Government expenditure. Details of these arrangements will be announced shortly.
    We have therefore succeeded in making the two changes the industry told me were of most importance in helping it to improve its competitive position in overseas markets.
    Mr. Haselhurst: I thank my right hon. Friend for that announcement, which I am sure will be most welcome to the hard-pressed pig industry. To what extent will it relieve those pig farmers who have heen in the most difficulty at this low point of the cycle?
    Mr. Walker: I candidly admit that the pig industry faces a period of difficulty. Last year, production substantially increased and we have had to dispose of that increased production. At the request of the pig industry, slaughterings are taking place under the Aujeszky's disease eradication scheme. Therefore, I cannot say with any certainty that the pig industry will face easier times in the immediate future. However, I am sure that the crisis that the pig industry is now going through will ultimately result in its maintaining a more permanent and important export position. In the past that position has been enjoyed by the Dutch and the Danes and it would give much greater long-term stability to our pig industry.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Is my right Friend aware of the widespread pleasure that his statement will give? Is he further aware that there is widespread feeling in the industry, and certainly in my constituency, that the unfair burden placed on pig breeders because of the extra cost of feedstuffs in this country is to be deplored and that it must be put right before profitability can be restored?
    Mr. Walker: In my statement on the meeting of the Agriculture Council I shall refer to that in a way that might be helpful to the industry.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind two further points? Although I congratulate him on what he has dome, will he urge producers to show restraint? With 22·7 pigs per year per sow, it is ridiculous to overproduce. Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to ensure that curers do something about an improvement in British bacon standards?
    Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, there was a substantial increase in production last year. In the early part of 1982 our pig producers were enjoying good prices and very reasonable profits. The immediate result of that was a very speedy and substantial increase in production.
    I hope that the charter bacon scheme, which is getting under way and having considerable influence, will begin to improve the marketing performance of British bacon in our markets.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: I welcome the Minister's statement on veterinary and other matters, but will he accept that unless the incorporation of subsidised rates of feedstuffs is thought desirable and necessary in this corn year, pig producers in this country will still have major difficulties?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are considerable problems with the incorporation process. As I have said, I shall mention that later in my statement this afternoon.
    Mr. Hudson Davies: I welcome what the Minister has said. However, to revert to the rather cursorily treated question of Aujeszky's disease, does not the Minister feel in retrospect that the levy represents a substantial inposition on the industry? When it is quite clear that the disease can be eradicated, to the benefit of all, should not the Government contribute to this exercise?
    Mr. Walker: Anyone who occupied my office will know that a whole range of diseases affect British agriculture. If they were considered objectively, Aujeszky's disease would not be given top priority. The pig industry made a request to me that it would like to fund an eradication programme if I could provide the cost of the services for fulfilling that programme. I agreed to it on that basis. If more money were available and I were asked to put more Government money into disease eradication, I would consider a whole range of options apart from the one under debate.

    Potatoes
    Mr. W. E. Garrettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total consumption of potatoes for the months of January, February, March and April, 1982; and what percentage of the total was imported.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Approximately 2·1 million tonnes of potatoes moved into human consumption in the United Kingdom during the period January-April 1982. Imports accounted for about 19 per cent. of this total.
    Mr. Garrett: Does the Minister accept that those figures show that the much-maligned potato still plays a substantial part in our diet? Will the Minister monitor carefully the attempt to import inferior types of potato from our Common Market partners, and make every effort to ensure that the gap between the winter and summer crops in the United Kingdom is still filled by potatoes from our traditional sources? Those potatoes are of a high quality and often come from outside the Common Market.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The British potato is not maligned. It is an excellent food and is increasingly used as a base for other processed food products. I wish good fortune to all those who operate in that area. We have sought to encourage greater awareness on the part of producers in supplying to the processing industry as well as for direct human consumption. There is considerable scope for replacing imports there.

    North Sea Cod
    Mr. John Townendasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a United Kingdom quota for North sea cod has been agreed for 1983.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Proposals for catch quotas for 1983 have not yet been submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Until 1983 quotas are settled the Council has agreed that fishing activities should continue to be based on agreed 1982 quotas.
    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the livelihood of Bridlington fishermen largely depends on North sea cod? When negotiations are further advanced, will he ensure that the quota will be adequate to fish throughout the year, so that there is no danger of the boats having to tie up in December, when other species are not available, as has happened in the past?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of that stock. I am sure that he will welcome, as the House does, the fact that for 1982 we negotiated a 47 per cent. quota of that stock for the United Kingdom. I hope that my hon. Friend has noted that such quotas have staying power. Once we know what the total allowable catches are, we shall continue to negotiate for a big share of them.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister be good enough to tell us how the common fisheries policy has worked so far? To date, have there been any cases of poaching? What does the fishery protection squadron think about the behaviour of our partners in relation to the common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is too early to make a full assessment of exactly how a policy with such major implications is working. Without being in any way complacent, I would say that there have not been too many problems, particularly about poaching. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our protection forces have shown themselves to be thoroughly effective in several ways.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister accept that any cut in the North sea cod quota will be very badly received in Grimsby? Will he comment on the accuracy of reports that so many "paper" fish were created to up quotas to obtain a common fisheries settlement that draconian measures are now being considered to limit catches of North sea cod and other species? Will he accept that any restriction on catches, by limiting the period in the year during which British vessels can fish, would be a disastrous blow for a Grimsby and English fishing industry that is already crippled with debt, and very hard-pressed?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said a few minutes ago, I accept the importance of that stock to ports such as Grimsby. In return, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept and acknowledge that, in the negotiations on the common fisheries policy, we negotiated a staying power for those quotas and intend to see that it is observed.

    Food from Britain
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any measures are being taken by the Food from Britain organisation to help profitability in the pig industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The council of Food from Britain is well aware of the problems of the pigmeat industry. It must determine its priority areas of activity, but I know that it is actively considering projects to improve our marketing of pigmeat products at home and abroad.
    Mr. Griffiths: I congratulate Mr. David Samworth and my right hon. Friend on their vigorous efforts to help. May I ask for more assistance to reduce the red tape that interferes with British pigmeat exports, to reduce the cost of inspections of slaughterhouses and to assist the industry to get rid of Aujeszky's disease?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend had not arrived in the House when, in answer to an earlier question, I announced that we were taking on the veterinary costs of inspection of slaughterhouses involved in the export trade. That problem has been dealt with. The red tape, the detail and export problems have been examined by the industry and the Government and various actions have been taken to improve matters. Also in reply to an earlier question I made it clear that the proposals on Aujeszky's disease, which the industry asked for, were accepted by the Government only on the basis on which they were put forward.
    Mr. Buchan: Although I thank the Minister for what he has said so far, he will realise that it does not go nearly far enough to deal with the real problem of the pig industry, which is that of costs. I hope that he will say unequivocally in his statement that he has fought for and achieved an incorporation scheme of subsidised grain output from storage for pig farmers. He has talked too much about marketing and not enough about direct aid to that side of the industry or the processing industry.
    Mr. Walker: I note with joy the eager anticipation with which the hon. Gentleman awaits my statement.

    Winter Cereals
    Sir Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of winter cereals has been sown in the current year compared to the previous three years.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The only information so far available is the area of wheat and barley sown in Great Britain by 1 December 1982. That was 2·42 million hectares, compared with 2·10, 2·20 and 2·46 million hectares by the same date in 1979, 1980 and 1981 respectively.
    Sir Peter Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Do not those figures show a disturbing trend in British agriculture towards more and more cereals and less and less stock? Is not the imbalance in British agriculture serious? Will he bear in mind that that imbalance has a spin-off in terms of the preservation of the rural scene? Does he agree that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we get the balance right?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend knows that I share his anxiety about the balance of British agriculture. I am sure he will agree that recently we have succeeded in achieving lower price increases for cereals than for other products. I am delighted that that differential is to be continued, according to the proposals from the Commission on the price fixing. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to fight for that.
    Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that, since 1973, wheat acreage has increased by about 50 per cent. and that we now export about 1 million tonnes of wheat each year, whereas in 1973 we hardly exported any? How can the Minister hope to pursue the objectives that he has just mentioned when there is an open-ended subsidy from the CAP of £70 to £80 for every tonne of grain that is exported from Britain?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair and will acknowledge that one of the great successes of our cereal industry is the way in which it has adopted new techniques, varieties, chemicals and fertilisers. To a considerable extent, the increase in our production of cereals is related to much greater efficiency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.
    Sir Hector Monro: Although I appreciate the undoubted efforts of my right hon. Friend to improve the differentials between grain and livestock, does he agree that we have not moved fast enough? Can he now increase the incentives for livestock, even if we cannot do anything now about grain this season?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend represents an important livestock area, I know that he will welcome what we have achieved in the past few years with regard to the improvement of the beef premium, the considerable improvements in hill livestock compensatory amounts and the introduction of a sheepmeat regime, which is of enormous benefit to the consumer and producer. That catalogue does not demonstrate a lack of interest in our livestock industry.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the wise words of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), is the Minister aware that, in the past year, barley grown in Sussex has
    406
    been exported to the Soviet Union at about half the price that the British farmer or pig producer across the road has to pay? Is that sane economics?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the efforts that we have made in the Community to restrain price increases for products, such as cereals, which are in surplus. The Commission has set an objective, which we support, that cereals should be more closely aligned to world prices. I should like that objective to be achieved.
    Mr. Maclennan: I recognise the force of what the Minister said about increased productivity and improvement in techniques contributing to the increase in cereal growing. With respect to the period of time that he quoted, can he say to what extent grassland has been brought under the plough?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Some extra grassland has been brought under the plough as a result of the expansion of cereal production. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have as much right as any other cereal-producing country to export cereals as well as to produce them for our own consumption. One of the most encouraging developments of recent years has been the increase in exports by United Kingdom producers to countries outside the EC as well as to other EC countries.

    Malting Barley
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the likely level of demand for malting barley in the coming season.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not possible at this stage as it will depend on several factors, including the quality of the crop and export demand.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that British maltsters are fully aware of the excellent quality of the malting barley that is produced throughout Great Britain, especially in east Fife? Will he also ensure that they are fully aware of the excellent production levels that are being achieved? Does he agree that there ought to be no need for them to look abroad for their supplies?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. One of the greatest recent successes is the dramatic increase in exports of malt from the United Kingdom to other Community countries and countries outside the Community. That is the result of the high quality of the barley and the quality of the malting process.

    Forest Land
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total area and value of forest land being sold or in the process of being sold under the provision of the Forestry Act 1981.
    Mrs. Fenner: Between the passing of the Forestry Act 1981 and 31 March 1983, the Forestry Commission received £18·9 million from the sale of land and other real assets. The area involved included 9,433 hectares of forestry land and plantations.
    As at 31 March, a further 40,877 hectares of forestry land and plantations, with an estimated value of £29 million, were also in the process of being sold—that is, they were either on the market or had been approved for

    407
    sale and reserve prices had been fixed. Other real assets committed for sale at 31 March are expected to realise a further £3·6 million.
    Mr. Canavan: As the original sales programme seems to have escalated from £40 million over three years to £82 million over five years, when will this doctrinaire public asset-stripping stop? Why will the Minister not tell us the purchase price and who the purchaser or potential purchaser is in each sale? Is that official secrecy designed to stop the public finding out that thousands of acres of the best forest land, most of which is in Scotland, are being hived off by the Tories at give-away prices to their rich friends?
    Mrs. Fenner: I refute utterly the absurd allegations of the hon. Gentleman and point out to him that the original programme of disposals to a value of £40 million over the three years to 31 March 1984 has been revalued to take account of inflation, and a further two years added. That gives a revised disposals programme of about £82 million. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the absurdity of his exaggerated charges by telling him that just under 1 per cent. of forestry land has been disposed of.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that hon. Members of other Opposition parties regret the Government's decision to sell forestry land, which provides badly needed work in rural areas? Forestry land has been abandoned in my constituency. What are the future plans for sales? Will there be further sales during the next two or three years?
    Mrs. Fenner: I do not accept the allegations in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. All of those who have bought forestry land have done so as going concerns for forestry. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Forestry Commission has the authority to give licences for the felling of trees, and has the power to insist on replanting. That shows the absurdity of his comment that forests are being abandoned. The original disposals were planned to be carried out over three years. This matter is dealt with each year when we discuss public expenditure, and it would be impossible for me to forecast future sales.
    Mr. Bulmer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that where forests are to be sold in areas of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps adjacent to land owned by the National Trust, those concerned with protecting the integrity of the landscape are given the earliest possible warning by the Department?
    Mr. Canavan: Especially for apple trees.
    Mrs. Fenner: Notification of sales is given in the Estates Gazette. Neighbours of such plantations would be informed about sales.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a question from me on 30 March about the use of funds raised from the sale of forestry land, told the House:
    "All the money is ploughed back into the forestry industry?"—[Official Report, 30 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 336.]
    Will the Minister now set the record straight by telling us that all the money goes straight to the Treasury?
    Mrs. Fenner: It is reasonable for the Government to make the most efficient use of public assets in the context of restraining public expenditure generally. The hon. Gentleman should know that the commission receives
    408
    adequate sums of public money each year by way of grant-in-aid to fund its agreed programmes. The money that it receives is almost four times the amount retrieved by the disposal programme.
    Mr. Buchan: I am not sure whether that is a denial of the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland—
    Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, it is.
    Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the money was being ploughed back into the industry, but the hon. Lady says that there will be no such hypothecation in relation to the Treasury. Will she ensure that the two Departments liaise so that we no longer get such misinformation either from her Department or from the Scottish Office?
    Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman's comments will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in the common agricultural policy price negotiations.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieveasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage of agreement has been reached in the Council of Agricultural Ministers on the current year's agricultural price fixing.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I shall be reporting fully to the House on the progress of discussions on the price axing in the statement which I intend to make later this afternoon.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall call him early on the statement.

    Fat Cattle
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how many weeks in the current year the maximum premium has been paid on fat cattle.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The maximum rate of beef variable premium is estimated to have been payable in 14 weeks so far this year.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure shows the absolute necessity of having the beef premium scheme if we are to have a healthy and strong livestock industry in Britain? Will he confirm the Government's total commitment to its continuation?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. Last year we obtained almost a 50 per cent. increase in the maximum that we could apply under this scheme. It is of immense benefit to the industry and we shall continue to stand by it.
    Mr. Hicks: In view of the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and even by my right hon. Friend himself this afternoon, does he agree that it is essential that our livestock producers are assured that the scheme will continue, so as to prevent a greater imbalance developing between the livestock and cereal sectors?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The scheme must continue, because it is of immense benefit to the industry. Although

    409
    I am anxious about the numbers in our specialist breeding herd, it is significant that there has been an increase in availability from the dairy herd, which provides about two thirds of our beef supplies.
    Mr. Deakins: As we all agree that the scheme is of great benefit to the livestock industry, why cannot a similar scheme be introduced for pig producers?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience of agriculture, the speed with which numbers can increase in the pig industry and its cyclical nature are such that a similar scheme is not appropriate.
    Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall the correspondence that he had with me and others about the difficulty of getting clean cattle, especially black and white cattle, certified under this scheme? As he said that he would meet the National Farmers Union to consider the matter, will he inform the House of the latest state of play?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Anxiety about this matter has been expressed by farmers in many parts of the country. If there are complaints, I should be happy to investigate them. We monitor the way in which the grading classification is carried out, and I wish it to be done without unfairness.

    Wheat Growers
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that United Kingdom growers of wheat are securing equivalent advantage of intervention arrangements to those being utilised by other countries of the European Community.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The requirements for the acceptance of wheat into intervention are laid down in European Community regulations, which are applicable in all member states, and there is only very limited scope for national variations.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety within the British poultry industry that British-grown feed wheat is being exported to the Community to replace French feed wheat that has been placed in intervention at a higher price due to a differential standard of application of the test between hard and soft wheat? Can my right hon. Friend assure the poultry industry that there are adequate stocks of British-grown feed wheat for our poultry industry for the rest of this season, and that poultry farmers will not be financially disadvantaged by the curious anomaly that has arisen because of the different interpretation of standards?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the problems in relation to cereals, not only for pig producers, but for poultry producers, who are equally affected by the serious position. My hon. Friend is right to say that there appears to be a discrepancy in some of the results of the tests. We have discussed the matter with the Commission, as has the trade, but so far an appropriate test that could be introduced throughout the Community on an equal basis has not been identified. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to pursue the matter, because I am not satisfied with the present position.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why are the tests applied in Britain more strict than those applied in other countries of the Community?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that they are stricter, I should be grateful if he would show it to me. From my inquiries I have found that, although there appear to be some discrepancies in the results, the standard of the test is not always the reason.

    Agricultural Expenditure
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the current level of expenditure in the European Community on agriculture.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Between 1978 and 1982 the common agriculture policy's share of the Community budget fell progressively. I have, however, expressed my concern in the Council of Ministers about the increased rate of agricultural spending that has occurred this year and is forecast for next year.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of increasing expenditure under the common agricultural policy is not just a question of costs but of the increasing possibility of a trade war between the European Community and the United States of America on surplus food exports? I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement later this afternoon, but can he satisfy the House that our colleagues in the European Community have taken the matter on board?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I think that they have. As my hon. Friend knows, a few weeks ago I went to Washington and spoke to American Ministers about this problem. We have obviously discussed this with the Commission. I am glad to say that the last talks between the Commission and the American Government were considered by both sides to be constructive and to have moved in the right direction. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that this is a matter of real concern, which the Commission must tackle.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister spoke of forecasts of next year's expenditure. Is it not a fact that, because of the unknown level of world prices, it is impossible to forecast the expenditure, which could rise beyond the resources of the EC? Will the Minister confirm that those two facts are correct?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, it is difficult to forecast. I know how shocked the hon. Gentleman was last year when the expenditure for the CAP turned out to be 1·3 billion ecus less than was forecast.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister confirm that he is virtually the only Minister in the EC who wishes to see agricultural expenditure as a share of the Community budget reduced? Does that not show that there is no future for Britain in that organisation, because agriculture will always pre-empt the largest share of Community resources?
    Mr. Walker: As long as agriculture is the only marketing scheme in the European Community, it will have a major share of the total expenditure. It is not the case that we are the only country that takes this view. West Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom made a declaration to that effect.

    Heather and Grass Burning
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place between his officials and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the new heather and grass burning regulations.
    Mrs. Fenner: In reviewing the 1949 heather and grass burning regulations for England and Wales my officials sought and received comments from more than 30 individuals and organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales took all views and opinions carefully into account when deciding the form of the new regulations.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, gave special protection to various categories of birds, but that the Government seem to be undermining all the good that they did there by allowing the burning of grass and moorland at times when some protected birds could well be at risk and nests, eggs and fledglings could be destroyed? Would it not be far better to discuss with the RSPB specific ways in which such birds can generally be protected, and not destroyed by burning, under these regulations?
    Mrs. Fenner: As I understand it, the RSPB was not against the extension of the period. It had other views in response to the consultation paper, which we carefully took into consideration.
    Sir Hector Monro: I accept the necessity for the new regulations on muirburn, but will my hon. Friend assure me that there will in future be consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's advisers on wild life?
    Mrs. Fenner: There were consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that we consulted more than 30 organisations and he will know that it is difficult, with such disparate views, to satisfy everybody. However, I assure him that all the views that were put forward were carefully taken into consideration.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister reconsider her answer over the next few days? Is she aware that the RSPB was not consulted by her Department, despite being perhaps the major conservation body in the matter? Will the hon. Lady accept that the RSPB found out about the matter just before the period for consultation closed and that those consultations should have been taken rather more seriously?
    Mrs. Fenner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not so. It is true that, because of a regrettable oversight, the RSPB was not on the original circulation list for the consultation letter, and I regret that, but that was quickly noticed and corrected and the deadline date for receiving comments was extended to ensure that the RSPB had sufficient time to reply.

    Pesticides
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has plans to introduce further controls on the manufacture and use of pesticides.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Government keep the pesticide safety controls under continuous review, in consultation wih all interests concerned, and modify them whenever necessary.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that as the EC has ruled that the protection scheme that was run in Britain was against the EC free trade regulations, and given the tragic example of 2,4,5—T, there is now a need to introduce new, tougher regulations?
    Mrs. Fenner: No. In the light of the latest report from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Government are satisfied that there are no medical or scientific grounds for such action. The Commission's objections relate to the competition implications of our safety arrangements and I am discussing with the Commission how its objections might be met.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner for Chancellor Kohl.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House hopes that she has made a complete recovery from the hysterical outburst that we saw in the House on Tuesday? If she has, is she aware that no amount of smear or abuse against the leaders of the CND will deter the millions of people who see her policies as turning Britain into Reagan's European nuclear fortress? Will she take up the challenge to debate publicly with the CND why she will allow the siting of cruise missiles in Britain, yet refuse to seek any control for Britain over any possible use to which those weapons of mass destruction might be put?
    The Prime Minister: If one wishes to retain freedom and justice in this country, including that for the CND, we must have the will, the means and the courage to defend ourselves. Conservatives have. The place to negotiate on nuclear weapons is at the negotiating table in Geneva.
    Mr. Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend noticed this week that a constituent of mine—Mike Gratton—won the London marathon? In doing so he demonstrated that there is nothing wrong in cutting and running, provided that one wins. May I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that should she consider having a go in the near future, she would walk it?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on winning the marathon, which raised a tremendous amount for charity and was a successful occasion.
    We hope to cut the number of seats held by the Labour party and to continue to run the country.
    Mr. David Steel: As the electionitis that the Prime Minister has started can only be damaging to Britain, why does she not announce the date of the election?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I have ever done anything except answer questions that have been put

    413
    to me, and I shall therefore answer this one now. Such questions were first put to me towards the end of last year. May I make it perfectly clear that when I decide to have an election it will be announced in the usual way? Until then, in spite of all provocation, I shall not cut out any options. I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Price: I congratulate the Prime Minister on being so frightened—or should I say frit?—of the bishops, doctors and journalists that she has decided to make an irresolute U-turn on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. What are the right hon. Lady's intentions on that Bill now that she has avoided bringing it back to the House for its Report stage for three consecutive weeks? Will she drop the whole thing now that there is no chance that the Bill will get through Parliament? Is giving way to the bishops and the doctors just a cosmetic act because she no longer intends to take the Bill through Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: May I receive the hon. Gentleman's congratulations in the spirit in which they were offered? We shall continue with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the normal way. It is an important Bill and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent in the usual way by completing its passage through both Houses. I wish to make it perfectly clear that we shall carry on with the Bill.
    Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent reduction in interest rates? Does she agree that interest rates, in both real and comparative terms, are still too high if industrial investment and the competitiveness of British industry are to flourish? Will she therefore confirm that further reductions in interest rates remain a prime objective of the Government's economic policy?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a believer in having interest rates as low as possible. I believe that the Government have done everything to try to bring down interest rates to ensure that the recovery gets well under way. What other nations do has an effect on interest rates, but I hope that they, too, will run their policies in such a way as to keep their deficits, as a percentage of GDP, as low as ours.
    Mr. Foot: May I please congratulate the right hon. Lady on the brilliant piece of Government planning whereby the next unemployment figures are to be published on the Friday after the local elections? That is a rather curious choice of date, because normally they are published on a Thursday. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the colossal rise in unemployment and the consequent doubling of those forced to apply for supplementary benefit puts an enormous additional strain on the local authorities, and in particular on their social services and housing policies? How will she help that situation, which she has helped to create, by restricting the resources going to those authorities?
    The Prime Minister: The dates on which the unemployment figures are due to be published are made
    414
    known weeks in advance. The date has nothing to do with the reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave—nothing whatsoever.
    The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second point is that one must set priorities for resources and to have regard to the total, particularly if one is to control the Budget deficit and to keep interest rates down.
    Mr. Foot: On the first point—just a minor matter, of course—did the right hon. Lady and the Government not know the date of the local elections when they selected the time to make the announcement? If the right hon. Lady examines the matter, I think she will find that that is the case. In view of the appalling burdens that have been placed on the local authorities, how much of the increase in rates since her Government came to office could have been avoided if they had not reduced Government grants?
    The Prime Minister: The most important thing is the total expenditure of local authorities. That is the most important matter if one is considering that part of the burden of taxation that is accounted for by the rate support grant and rates. It is always the burden of taxation on our people about which the right hon. Gentleman never hesitates to complain. But the most important thing is to keep the expenditure down.
    Mr. Foot: What is the extra burden that the right hon. Lady's Government have placed on local authorities?
    The Prime Minister: Local authorities determine their level of public expenditure, not, unfortunately, the Government. Under the present law there is no way in which the Government can determine the total expenditure of local authorities. Indeed, one reason why the public sector borrowing requirement is way above what one expected is the increasing amount of borrowing by local authorities.
    Sir Peter Emery: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend look at Forbes Magazine — the leading American business magazine—which states that the sick man of the industrial world, Britain, is likely to produce a minor miracle in the coming year? Will she, perhaps, refer that article to Opposition Members, because it is a very long and detailed analysis which shows that Britain's recovery is really under way?
    The Prime Minister: I saw reports of that magazine, which I know goes to top business men, particularly in America. I note that, having looked at the economy of Britain, the magazine is very optimistic about Britain's future. I am cautiously optimistic. Such news, of course, is not good news for Her Majesty's Opposition.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not time that the Prime Minister recognised that the BL workers have a real grievance in defending their six minutes' washing up and bathing time? If the Prime Minister supports the idea of the management of BL and of many other boards having two to three hour expense account lunches, if Members of the House of Lords can walk through and pick up £48 a day tax free for two minutes' nodding through the corridor, and if

    415
    Members of Parliament do not have to clock on at all, why is it not right that British Leyland workers should fight to defend that six minutes' washing up and bathing time?
    The Prime Minister: The management of British Leyland is a matter for British Leyland. The company has two excellent cars—the Metro and the Maestro. Both have been financed totally by the taxpayer. Taxpayers, therefore, have put a great deal of faith in those who work for British Leyland. I hope that those workers will not return that faith by striking themselves and many other people out of jobs.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Lathamasked the Prime Minister what recent progress has been made over rehabilitation and reconstruction in the Falkland Islands and in improving the arrangements for unloading ships delivering equipment and supplies there.
    The Prime Minister: There has been encouraging progress. For example, the islands' civil air service is now fully operational, the schools are functioning, new specialist staff are in post, and work is well in hand on road repair and new housing.
    I have already written to my hon. Friend about port facilities. The position is improving. The Government freight agent co-ordinates dispatch of the vessels, and a member of his staff is assisting the Queen's harbour master at Port Stanley. Increased lighterage facilities have recently been made available there.
    Mr. Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for her continuing close attention to these important matters. Will she confirm that urgent action is being taken to ensure that our armed forces are warmly and decently housed in the coming winter?
    The Prime Minister: The Chief of Defence Staff has just returned from a visit to the Falklands and has reported that things are progressing excellently. I understand that Portakabin-type camps around the islands are now all but complete, and three floating hotels have been obtained to provide both accommodation and recreational facilities. One has been in use since January, another will arrive by the end of this month, and the third will arrive shortly afterwards. I therefore hope that, very shortly, all service men will be warmly housed, except where operational circumstances dictate otherwise. The news is good and the Chief of Defence Staff is very pleased and very complimentary about the excellent work of the armed forces.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no backtracking on the issue of principle
    416
    that the relatives of Argentines who lost their lives in the Falklands will be able to visit the dead and pay their respects? Will she confirm that that is the British Government's position and that, provided satisfactory arrangements are made, she will allow those visits to be made and not put any untoward obstacle in their way?
    The Prime Minister: We stand by our statement that there is nothing against—indeed, we would be prepared to facilitate—a totally humanitarian visit to the graves of the Argentines on the Falkland Islands. We said that that visit should be organised and supervised by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued a statement saying that it cannot arrange the visit because it cannot secure compliance with the essential conditions for ensuring that the expedition will be of an humanitarian nature only, and that if it were to go ahead the neutrality of the International Committee of the Red Cross would be compromised. However, the principle remains the same.

    Engagements
    Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister's record on inflation—down from 22 to 4 per cent. and then rising to 6 to 7 per cent. — is almost identical with that of the Labour Government — down from 26 to 7 per cent. then rising to 9 to 10 per cent.? Is not the real difference between the right hon. Lady and the Labour Government the fact that for exactly the same record on inflation she has brought about a three times greater rise in unemployment plus an 8 per cent. fall in living standards since 1979, compared with a 13 per cent. rise in living standards under Labour? Is that not the true measure of her failure?
    The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot in any way challenge our record on inflation. The Labour Government did not get anywhere near a 5·3 per cent. rate of inflation, which is the present figure. New figures will come out tomorrow. The figure last month was 4·9, and at the moment it is 5·3. The hon. Gentleman cannot mention any figure in the last 12 years that came near to that. What is more, under his Government inflation went up to 26·9 per cent., far above our worst, which was 21·9 per cent. Thus, his worst was far worse than ours and his best was nowhere near as good as ours.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 APRIL — Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill. Motions relating to the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations.
TUESDAY 26 APRIL—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the Government attack on local government and community services. Motions relating to the National Health Service (Charge to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 27 APRIL—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill until about 7 o'clock. Afterwards, Second reading of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill.
THURSDAY 28 APRIL—Completion of consideration in Committee on the Finance Bill. Motions on the European Community documents 10657/82 on vocational training policies and 10235/82 on the European Social Fund.
FRIDAY 29 Amt.—Private Members' Bills.

[Debate of 28 April:

Vocational Training Policies

Doc. No. 10657/82

Commission opinion on the Review

of the European Social Fund

Doc. No. 10235/82

For relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee

see HC 34-vi (1982–83) para. 4

HC 34-iv (1982–83) para. 3]

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for some of the rearrangement he has made of next week's business in response to our request, but what he has proposed about the Finance Bill is not really a proper way of getting a Finance Bill through the House of Commons. He is bulldozing it through much too speedily. He should give more time for hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the country who wish to make representations to have a chance to put their case. Will he, even at this late stage, look at the possibility of postponing a part of the consideration of the Finance Bill until a later stage?
I have asked time and again that we should have a statement from the Government on steel to allay the widespread fears, particularly at Ravenscraig and elsewhere. I hope that we shall have some assurance on that.
On the question of the citizens advice bureaux, I do not know whether there has been any progress. What has happened to the inquiry, what has happened to the Minister, what has happened to the appalling mess that the Government have made of it and when shall we be given further information on the subject?
On the training of probation officers, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, particularly with the Home Secretary sitting next to him, will understand that there is widespread concern in the service about the pay cut that has been imposed. There is to be a lobby on the issue next week. A strike is threatened and I believe a strike has never before taken place in the history of the service. I trust that
418
the right hon. Gentleman will give a clear assurance that the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House at the beginning of next week.
With the Home Secretary on the Front Bench, I must say that we are glad that the Government have at last yielded to the representations that have been made throughout the country, and presented strongly from the Government Benches, about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. We are glad that they have made the concessions which a few days ago they were saying they would refuse to make. Nevertheless, would it not be better to take that mangy Bill away, screw its neck and never bring it back?
Mr. Biffen: Only the most partisan spirit could lead the right hon. Gentleman to describe the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill as mangy. It is a measure that we have been prepared to consider in the light of representations, and there is recent evidence of that. The House will have a full opportunity to consider all the points made in Committee in the reasonably near future.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions about the probation service, the Home Secretary, who is at my side, will have heard his request and doubtless will pay due regard to it.
I come to the question of the citizens advice bureaux and the felicitous inquiries which the Leader of the Opposition made about the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I assure him that tomorrow my hon. Friend will be in his place answering the Adjournment debate, and I should have thought that that was answer complete enough. There will be questions next week concerning the Department of Trade. I take note of the general concern on the subject. I know that my hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the inquiry into the CAB, and I take note of the concern that has been expressed on that.
As for a statement on steel, my right hon. Friend is considering the corporate plan. When he has completed those deliberations he will of course make a statement to the House.
I shall, naturally, pay regard to any anxieties that the Leader of the Opposition may express on the timing of the Finance Bill. I do not think a dispassionate observer would believe that what is now proposed bears the hallmark of bulldozing, but I take note of what he has said.
Mr. Foot: May we have an assurance that there will be a statement about the cut in pay of training probation officers?
Mr. Biffen: I am assured by the Home Secretary that there is no cut in their pay, but I shall convey to him what he has, of course, already heard —the anxiety of the Leader of the Opposition that a statement should be made on the matter.
Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the ill-fated Madrid CSE talks have now reopened. May we soon have a ministerial statement about them? Many of us are beginning to wonder how long the Russian troops will have to remain in Afghanistan and how long the people of Poland will have to go on being repressed before we all come to the conclusion that the relevant provisions of the Helsinki final act are not being observed.
Mr. Biffen: I shall at once draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to that point.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the Leader of the House seen the list of Queen's awards for export achievement, which includes an award to A. and P. Appledore International, a Newcastle firm? Its achievement involves the export of British management skills and expertise to start up two South Korean shipyards. That amounts to exporting British workers' jobs and will result in the dumping of Korean-made ships in Great Britain. Does this not debase the Queen's award, and will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement next week?
Mr. Biffen: It does not debase the Queen's award on exports, because once this country began to disparage the export of services and goods which were related to development overseas — and which had a consequence for British manufacturing in this country—rather than merely the export of goods from this country, we should be showing a very narrow concept of our historic trading role. I cannot guarantee that there will be a statement on the subject next week.
Mr. John Roper: Can the Leader of the House explain why, once again, there is no reference to the debate on arms control and disarmament which we have been promised? Are we likely to have the debate during the first four years of the present Administration's life?
Mr. Biffen: I very much hope so.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the controversy that has broken out throughout the country and elsewhere about the film "Ghandhi"? Will he therefore arrange for the Minister for Trade to come to the House next week to make a statement about how much British taxpayers' money was involved in the film and what the Indian Government's financial contribution was?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend should use his ingenuity during trade questions on Monday.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 451, signed by 91 hon. Members, about the report in The Guardian today alleging that there has been a Rayner proposal calling for savage cuts in the coastguard rescue service?
[That this House rejects any further cuts in H.M. Coastguard's rescue stations, equipment, telecommunications, manpower and responsibilities as recommended in the recent Rayner report commissioned by the Department Trade; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to abandon any intention to force a change upon those rescued or assisted by the Coastguard Service and to wind up the departmental committee now investigating its practicality.]
In view of the urgent need for vigilance to protect seafarers off our coasts, and in view of some of the alarming evidence coming to light in the Penlee inquiry, will he arrange for an urgent ministerial statement to be made on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that no decision has been taken by the Department of Trade on the Rayner proposals. In view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Trade. Meanwhile, I
420
suspect that the hon. Gentleman will use his imagination to raise the matter when trade questions are before the House on Monday.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for a debate on the third report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on the new Parliament building?
Mr. Biffen: Yes. I hope that it can be debated reasonably soon. I realise that there is general interest in the matter.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Is the Leader of the House aware that we have now had two major annual reports from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons both of which are highly critical of the appalling conditions in many of our prisons? We have had several other reports on individual establishments which point to the appalling conditions in which prisoners and staff have to live. May we have a debate on the report which was presented to Parliament and, if so, when?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the importance of the topic. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate in Government time, but I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Leader of the House will recall that in recent weeks I have sought an assurance from him that we would have an early opportunity to debate, first, the House of Lords report on engineering research and development and, secondly, the ALVI report on the fifth generation computer project. These subjects are important and, in the second case, urgent. Will it be possible in the near future to debate both under a common heading?
Mr. Biffen: While I have sympathy with my hon. Friend, harsh realism tells me that it is unlikely that Government time will be available for such topics. However, I am certain that the problems that give rise to the reports have a fiscal consequence and, therefore, I should have thought that, with just a little imagination, possibly they could be raised on one of the days on which we shall be discussing the Finance Bill in Committee.
Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Leader of the House comment upon the propriety of bringing forward on Wednesday next the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill when it has not even had its First Reading? Such a debate flouts all the conventions of the House about the proper time lag between First and Second Reading. Although he may have consulted through his usual channels, does not he think that it would have been courteous for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if he wanted to rush the Bill through, to consult the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which has already made recommendations on this issue to him? Rushing the Bill forward in this way without such consultation might be dangerously counter-productive.
Mr. Biffen: It is a matter of regret to me that the normal courtesies of allowing two weekends to elapse between the introduction of a Bill and Second Reading have not been observed in this instance. There was a desire to remove the uncertainty about the problem dealt with by the Bill by proceeding with it as speedily as possible. The Bill will be presented today after the statement and will be available

421
immediately thereafter. I should like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he was not informed and, more generally to the House, for the fact that the normal conventions have not been followed.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House ensure that a copy of the report on design cost in the PSA is placed in the Library as it has been on the desk of the Secretary of State for the Environment for three months and for a month before that on the desk of his predecessor? Is the reason for the delay the fact that the report shows that it is cheaper to do the work within the PSA than to go outside to the private sector?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that matter and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the unsatisfactory way in which the case of the Romanian was treated before he was sent back to Romania a few weeks ago, may we be promised a statement so that if that person, having been thrown out of Romania and now having left Austria, applies to come to this country and is refused entry by the Home Office we can hear from the Home Secretary the reasons for the refusal?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a hypothetical case but, none the less, one that I know commands the interest of the House. I shall certainly refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House consider making time available for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Caribbean and Central America?
Mr. Biffen: I know that it is an important subject, but I fear that I cannot promise an early debate upon it in Government time.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister seem incapable of presenting the case outside the House for massive expenditure on nuclear weapons of mass extermination, is it possible that a debate on disarmament will be held in the near future and that it will be spread over two days so that all those who want to participate may have an opportunity to do so?
Mr. Biffen: As I said to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), I hope that the debate will take place in the reasonably near future.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
3.47 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers held in Luxembourg on 18–20 April. I represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The meeting continued the negotiations for the 1983–84 price fixing. It started with a statement by the Commission on current trends in the 1983–84 expenditure.
The Commission informed the Council that an increase on the budgeted figure would be required in 1983. This contrasted with the position in 1982 when the outturn was less than budgeted, and resulted from a combination of factors including the monetary changes of 21 March, substantial increases in the production of major products, and trends in world prices.
The Commission also informed the Council that its previous estimate of the budget provision likely to be required for 1984 had to be revised upwards by 6 per cent. The Commission stated that its price proposals for 1983–84, which had been criticised by the majority of member states as being inadequate and substantially below current rates of inflation in Europe, would need to be adhered to. In discussion, seven of the 10 member states argued strongly that there was a need to improve upon the Commission's price proposals. Only one other member state argued with us that there should be no increases in the Commission's price proposals. The majority of member states strongly opposed the Commission proposal to reduce its original price increase for milk to an increase of only 2·3 per cent.
The meeting was adjourned to enable the Commission to consider its position. Following a meeting of the Commission held on Wednesday, it came forward with a revised package of measures upon which it hoped to complete the price fixing. The Commission reported that it had decided that it would not put forward any proposals for any further price increases on any of the major commodities. It further declared that it had unanimously decided that, irrespective of what the Council of Ministers itself should suggest, the Commission would not be making any proposals for further increases on the major commodities during this price fixing. I welcomed this statement.
In discussion of the package proposed by the Commission, while many member states still expressed a desire for further price increases, it was clear that the majority would, albeit reluctantly, come to a conclusion on the basis of the Commission's paper.
A major difficulty remained for Germany. The proposals made by the Commission for the revaluation of the German green currency would mean an increase in prices for Germany of the order of only 1 per cent. overall and no increase on the major commodities, milk and cereals. The German Minister could not accept this.
Primarily to allow further consideration to be given to this issue, the meeting of the Council was adjourned until next Wednesday, when an attempt will be made to conclude the price fixing on the basis of the Commission's current proposals.
The proposals, if accepted, would result in an increase of prices for the agricultural marketing year 1983–84 for

423
the United Kingdom of 2·3 per cent. on milk, 3 per cent. on cereals and 3·8 per cent. over all products. For the Community the overall increase would be 4 per cent., substantially below the anticipated inflation rate for the Community of 9 per cent.
In the United Kingdom, the effect on food prices would, over a full year, add 0·5 per cent. to the food price index and 0·1 per cent. to the retail price index.
We would retain the beef premium scheme and the sheep premium scheme. There would be a small improvement in the butter subsidy. These consumer subsidies would be worth between £200 and £300 million.
The school milk subsidy would be improved from 10·9p per pint to 12·4p per pint. The scheme would last for five years and the total benefit next year is likely to be of the order of £16 million. For Northern Ireland the various schemes assisting the beef producers would be extended and are anticipated to be of £11 to £12 million benefit to the Northern Ireland producers. The Commission has also proposed to move around 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland.
The proposals include a number of measures of benefit to our pig and poultry producers. First, these sectors would benefit from low cereals price increases. Secondly, the Commission would undertake to take account of regional difficulties in its management of the pigmeat market; this would mean, for example, that if market conditions warranted it the advantages of private storage facilities financed by the Community could be continued in the United Kingdom even if there were no need for such facilities in other parts of the Community. Thirdly, following the strong representations we have made, the Commission proposes to press ahead with a scheme to make available from intervention stocks cereals for use in animal feed. This would involve 2 to 3 million tonnes.
I hope that negotiations can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I must congratulate the Minister on, as always, producing the kind of bland statement that conceals the crisis that at present faces us and the Common Market in relation to the continuing escalating agricultural cost on the budget of the EC. That is best exemplified by two sentences on the last page of his statement, in which he says:
"The proposals include a number of measures of benefit to our pig and poultry producers. First, these sectors would benefit from low cereals price increases."
They would have benefited a great deal more if there had been no price increases.
This has been referred to as an interim statement. Is it an interim statement, or is it merely awaiting the German-French situation for clarification? May we take it that the prices referred to here are the final and complete prices?
Secondly, on the much-heralded argument on the incorporation scheme in order to help, at long last, our pig producers, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when this scheme will start? Is it, as Agra Europe has described it, a scheme mainly to benefit cereal producers or is it intended immediately, or at any rate quickly, to benefit our pig producers? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us at what rate the grain will be released from store for our pig producers? That is a glaring omission from the statement.
On the question of Northern Ireland, we welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about beef, but what is meant by the statement:
424
"The Commission has also proposed to move around 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland"?
Is this an incorporation scheme? Is it to help the livestock producers and, again, at what rate will it be released.?
The Minister will agree that expenditure is now running at 330 million ecus per month over last year's costs. That means that there is an increased annual rate of cost of about £2 billion. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cannot multiply 330 million ecus by 12, someone will do it for him. This is what the Commissioner meant, is it not, when he said that the budget was getting out of control and that EC expenditure was endangering the EC itself.
It is not just a question of the price increase; the massive increase in production and at the same time the drop in world prices have meant that the cost will escalate even further. So we need some clarification on how it is proposed to deal with that.
The Minister has accepted that the budget will go bust, that the forecast of the amount of money needed to be paid by British and other Common Market consumers and by British and other Common Market taxpayers will be exceeded, and that an additional budgetary amount of 6 per cent. will be put in. How does the 6 per cent. tie up with the escalation figure of £2 billion that I have mentioned? The 6 per cent. cannot meet that. Therefore, we are likely to have a deficit on the budget of about £1 to £1·2 billion by the end of the year. That in itself, in the cost to Britain, would make the much vaunted rebate pretty small beer.
The important point—and this should have been dealt with in the statement—is that, if we have this kind of deficit, or any major deficit, and if it is accepted, how will we pay for it?
The two methods of paying for it — and there are only two at the moment—are the 1 per cent. of VAT and the cost of import levies. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to increase VAT for the British taxpayer? Does he intend to increase import levies and therefore put up food prices for the British consumer? Is that perhaps why the Government are flirting with the idea of a June election—because of the double imposition on the already hard-pressed average British consumer, with a family of four, paying about £5 a week in additional food costs because of our presence in the EC?
Mr. Walker: How?
Mr. Buchan: If the right hon. Gentleman wants the references, I can easily give them to him, but I am supposed to be asking questions. Three years ago the permanent secretary in his own Ministry gave the extra cost as £2·25 billion in relation to world prices because we were in the EC; and Lloyds bank—one can refer to no purer Tory bible than that bank — said that it was £3 billion extra to the British consumer because of Common Market prices.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the figures that we have here stand in regard to the promises that he gave not only at the time of the election but only a month ago? He claims a victory for having stuck to the Commission's proposals and not allowed any increase, but in March of this year he told us:
"I still believe that a freeze on cereal prices this year would be far more sensible. We shall certainly press for that in the negotiations."— [Official Report, 3 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 388.]
Did he press for a freeze on cereal prices, because in this statement he has claimed that only one other member

425
argued with us that there should be no increase on the Commission's price proposals. The Commission's price proposals, however, were 4 per cent. above his "no increase". He had better come clean with the House in relation to that.
It is some victory that the right hon. Gentleman has had — like a boxer getting hammered all over the ring, getting beaten on points and claiming a victory because he was not knocked out. The right hon. Gentleman must do better by us.
The Government have had the benefit of an Opposition who did not continually sell the pass as the Conservative party did throughout our long fight to protect the British consumer and taxpayer from the worst excesses of the Common Market.
Mr. Walker: May I say how flattered I am that I have the one Shadow Minister who always asks questions that are longer than my statements.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's general remarks about the effect on food prices, just as an interesting throw-away comment, may I point out that the total food price increase of these proposals over a year is almost identical to the average increase in food prices per week during the period of office of the last Labour Government. As the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) made clear about two weeks before the last general election, nearly all those price increases were due to the Labour Government and not to the Common Market.
I dispute quite a few of the budget figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted. He knows full well that the upturn this year follows the reduction by 1·3 billion ecus from what was estimated under the budget in 1982. As a result last year there was a substantial reduction in the budgetary expenditure. This year there has been a change in world prices and also a considerable range of devaluations of green currencies, which are costly to the budget. They were in a number of countries that hold political views similar to those of the hon. Gentleman.
Of course, one is concerned about the present estimates, but they are being affected by a number of events — partly by revaluations of currencies and substantially by the outstanding production throughout the whole of western Europe last year.
Mr. J. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the division betwen the pig farmers on good land and the smaller farmers in less favourable circumstances is growing more apparent? The difficulty for my farmers and many others is that they are heavily in debt. The only hope for them is to increase their net income either by reducing costs or by increasing their gross income. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea—I suppose that it can be only a general idea—of the effect on farm incomes if the proposals, which are still to be negotiated, are put into effect?
Mr. Walker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the major improvements that has taken place during the lifetime of the Government in farming in the part of the country in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested is the considerable success of the sheep scheme. The price increases on the sheep scheme this year are substantially above those for cereals and milk.
426
Likewise, during the lifetime of the Government, we have increased the hill farm subsidies more than ever in the past, and we have also assisted that form of farming.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of the likely net financial effect on the hard-pressed pig producers of the measures that he announced today? Does he envisage that there will be a release of dyed grain or grain in some way made unsuitable for human consumption? Would not that help to solve both the problem of excess grain in store and the high cost of food for our pig producers?
Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend will recognise, there are considerable difficulties in releasing grain on to a market at a lower price than the general price. The details of the scheme are now being worked out by the management committee of the Commission. It has assured me that it will complete the work as quickly as possible. I guess that the 2 million to 3 million tonnes of cereals available to the Community through intervention will be available during the summer. I cannot say what the financial impact will be until I know the details of the scheme. The combination in the past few months of providing subsidised private storage, substantial export restitutions, eradicating the veterinary costs on exports and the schemes that I have announced has had a considerable impact.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: How can the Minister claim today that he was making strong representations to the Commission for the incorporation scheme when only a few weeks ago he told the House that it would be too costly to pursue it? Does not that mean either that the scheme that has been agreed will not make the difference to the pig producers that they need or that his earlier statement was wrong? The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the sheep premium scheme but has not mentioned whether he has attempted to negotiate the most disadvantageous aspects of it — the clawback arrangements. Does he believe that the measures that he has outlined will do anything to arrest the decline in the beef breeding herd?
Mr. Walker: In the comments that we made on the incorporation scheme, we made it clear that there was immense difficulty in providing feed for a specific type of livestock producer at subsidised costs without affecting the costs in the whole market. We have always made it clear that we were endeavouring to negotiate with the Commission a method by which that could be done.
The hon. Gentleman's comments on the effect on the farmers and the provision of feed come ill from someone who taunted me only a few weeks ago, saying that what I was seeking in the price fixing was way below what the farmers required — the 7 per cent. proposed by the farmers in the Community, which included substantial increases in cereal prices.
Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the firm stand that he has taken. If he had not taken it, the prices would be considerably higher. Does he agree that surpluses will still continue and that it is the disposal of those surpluses that is so worrying? Is it not sad that a trade war could develop between the Community and America to the disadvantage of all? Will he turn his attention to that, because it would be sad and unprofitable?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir; that is an important aspect. As my hon. Friend knows, recently I went to Washington to speak to the American Administration about it. I am glad to say that the talks that have taken place more recently between the Commission and the American Government have not only been welcomed by both sides but both sides consider that important progress has been made. I hope that there will be a final agreement.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that there will be a warm welcome in Northern Ireland for the movement of 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention? Will he do all in his power to ensure that it is made available at all possible speed to assist the hard-pressed pig and poultry sectors in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that we shall fully support him in his efforts to press for an early implementation of the larger scheme to which he referred at the end of his statement?
Mr. Walker: When the 75,000 tonnes is released out of intervention, the problem is that the transport costs are so burdensome to Northern Ireland producers. We shall urge that it is made available as quickly as possible. It is important that it is being made available not only to pig producers but to poultry producers. It involves barley as well as wheat, which is important for Northern Ireland. We strongly resisted proposals that there should be a clawback on the beef premium scheme, which the Government of the Irish Republic were demanding throughout the negotiations.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the growing hostility in Britain to the Common Market has nothing to do with the excellent principle of European union but has everything to do with the shambles of the common agricultural policy and the fact that annually the British people have to witness the spectacle of greedy agriculture Ministers in Europe going for higher and higher prices for their agricultural producers? Will he say to his colleagues in Europe that if they persist in those ludicrous and greedy demands for higher prices all that will happen is that the CAP will be bankrupted and the whole of European public opinion will turn against the institutions of the European Community?
Mr. Walker: Those were extraordinary remarks from the hon. Gentleman after a year in which, for example, food prices in this country have increased by only 1·6 per cent., which is the lowest increase for years. They were extraordinary remarks to make to a Minister under whom the price increases this year are basically half the average price increases during the period of office of the Labour Government. It will be interesting if the Labour party goes into the election saying that farm prices in Britain should be substantially slashed.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many hon. Members on the fact that he has nearly achieved the impossible, in providing something that is immensely acceptable to the farmers at the same time as protecting domestic prices? It is a major achievement. Will he turn again to the subject of pigs? Can he tell me—it is not clear to me from the statement—whether the grain that is released will be for use in the whole Community? If that is the case, how much would be available in Britain? Secondly, would he still be able to negotiate an open-ended arrangement so that if the
428
problems of feedstuffs for pig producers continue and a proper case could be made to agriculture Ministers, a greater release could be made?
Mr. Walker: The 2 to 3 million tonnes is for the Community as a whole. The allocation of that to various countries will be related to the requirements of each country and to the proportion of the total European livestock industry that it possesses.
In regard to future negotiations, obviously we will watch the details of the scheme to see how it operates and how effective it is, and to consider whether it is required in future. One of the most important parts of the agreement on pigs was that we obtained a declaration from the Commission that in future, instead of applying a policy on pig marketing over the whole Community, it would consider regional problems, for example, the problems of the United Kingdom, in isolation to find ways of helping.
Mr. Douglas Jay: In general, is it not clear that, because of low world food prices, far from there being any genuine reform of the common agricultural policy, the total costs of the policy and the economic burden on the United Kingdom are bound to increase still further?
Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, what he refers to as the world price is the price of the volume that is available at that time. If agricultural production in Europe is eradicated, world prices would become very high. I for one rejoice that Europe has stability and security of food supplies.
Mr. John Townend: As I have made clear to my right hon. Friend, a number of specialist pig producers in my constituency are in a desperate financial position. Does he think that the measures he has announced, which are much welcomed, will be sufficient and that they will become effective in time to prevent a large number of imminent bankruptcies?
Mr. Walker: One of the problems of the immediate future is the substantial increase that has taken place during the past year in pig production. As my hon. Friend knows, with his knowledge of the pig industry, at the beginning of 1982 pig producers were doing exceedingly well. There was then a massive increase in production which has affected current market conditions, added to which there has not been a tradition of exporting. I hope that the range of measures that we have taken in the past few weeks will ensure that in future not only a national but an international market is available to pig producers.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the poultry industry is under every bit as much pressure because of the cost of feedstuffs? Do I understand correctly that the feed incorporation scheme is designed to help the poultry industry as well as the pig industry, on the lines he has referred to for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Walker: Yes.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his strong stand on behalf of the British consumer? Can my right hon. Friend confirm the statements in the press today that he effectively has a veto over any further increases in food prices and that he will apply that veto if necessary? What proportion of the EC budget will the common agricultural

429
policy take up this year? Will he confirm that, whatever may happen to the common agricultural policy, we will get any refund that is negotiated for the United Kingdom?
Mr. Walker: On the veto, the most important declaration of the Commission was that it had decided unanimously that, irrespective of any representations made by the Council of Ministers, it would make no further proposals for price increases in this price fixing. Other than on a Commission proposal, the only way that there could be a price increase under the rules of the Community would be by a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers.
Mr. John Silkin: Just the same as before.
Mr. Walker: No, that is not the same as before. This is an important difference. What the right hon. Gentleman has said refers to the majority voting last year. The difference is that on a Commission proposal, majority voting can, under the rules of the Community, apply. In the absence of a Commission proposal, there has to be a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, with the declaration that in this price fixing the Commission would refuse to make any further price proposals, the only way there could be an increase would be by a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. Obviously that would not take place, because I would veto it.
Mr. Robert Hicks: In view of the anxiety that has been expressed about the growing imbalance between the livestock and cereal sectors, does my right hon. Friend take the view that the tentative arrangements he has announced show a sufficiently favourable price differential for the livestock sector which will reverse the trend?
Mr. Walker: Taking the livestock sector in this country as opposed to the Community as a whole, during the period of this Government the position of the sheep producer has improved substantially. Dairy farming is in a healthy condition and is expanding. The decline in the beef industry has virtually halted. The improvements in the hill farm subsidy, the introduction of the sheep meat regime and the substantial improvement in the beef premium have helped the success of the livestock industry. The pig industry has had considerable difficulties. The measures that the Government have provided in the last few weeks should assist.
Mr. Eric Deakins: In regard to the record of the Labour Government, is the Minister aware that a large part of the food price increases in those years resulted from the transitional steps towards the common agricultural policy which were introduced and supported by him and the Government of whom he was a member? Further, is he aware that between 1974 and 1977 every
430
price review reported to the House by my right hon. Friends as Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were supported by him and his hon. Friends? Does he agree that on the one occasion in 1978 when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) opposed the price increase, the difference between the two sides was 0·35 per cent? The right hon. Gentleman made some earlier bold statements in the House and outside about price freezes on products in structural surplus. He has obviously made no attempt to argue in Brussels for nil price increases. Has he not retreated from Brussels, bought off with a share of the booty?
Is it not the case that what the right hon. Gentleman has given the pig industry on the one hand he has taken away with the other? Is the right hon. Gentleman not emerging as an exponent of a new type of Tory economics: that an extra cost to pig producers is a benefit to them? [HON. MEMBERS: "No".]
I invite hon. Members to read the Minister's statement. Can he tell us why the Common Market has not followed the example of the United States which for the past two years has put a price freeze on dairy products and in the past year has announced a 10 per cent. reduction in cereal acreage? The United States is doing its best to avoid a trade war. What is the Common Market doing to avoid a trade war, which in the opinion of many people has already begun?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the settlement means still higher surpluses for cereals, sugar and milk products? Does it not mean a still larger burden for the Community budget and for the United Kingdom taxpayer?
Mr. Walker: Before the hon. Gentleman makes such remarks, he should check the figures. If he would like the Community to come into line with the policy of the United States Government on dairy products, we would have to increase the price of Community dairy products by 20 per. cent. to reach current levels in the United States. He should not ask us to do as the Americans are doing on dairy products when their dairy prices are higher than ours.
As for cereals, before the hon. Gentleman uses that example, he should consider what the Americans are doing. They are providing their farmers with a handout of cereals from stores on exceedingly advantageous financial terms for one year only. The result will be that at the end of that year American cereal farmers will be in a better financial position and will be able the year after to increase substantially the production of American cereals. Again, before he makes such remarks, he should examine what is happening.
As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I can only refer to a parliamentary reply given by the then Minister of Agriculture who, when asked how much of the 110 or 120 per cent. increase in food prices during the period of the Labour Government had been the responsibility of the common agricultural policy, said 10 or 11 per cent.

Strangers Gallery (Admission Tickets)
Mr. Michael Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that I raised with you yesterday the question of collaboration between hon. Members and demonstrators in the Strangers Gallery. You were good enough to say that you would make a careful study of the tickets issued. I rise to ask whether you are now in a position to identify the hon. Members responsible for yesterday 's disorder.
Mr. Speaker: As I told the House yesterday, I always look at the admission tickets when there has been a disturbance in the Gallery, as I like to know on which names people have been admitted. Sometimes they come through the ordinary Admission Order Office procedure. I have, however, looked at the names of hon. Members in relation to some of the people admitted to the Gallery, but not for all, because it is not possible to trace them all. I do not pass judgment on whether hon. Members were in knowledge. That is beyond me, because I have no evidence that they were. I know that the House will not expect me to give names, because that matter must be left to the Speaker himself. It would put me in a very invidious position if I had to stand up and recite names of hon. Members on suspicion. It would not be on evidence.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is a great matter for the House itself. If it were seen as a new procedure that anyone with any objection could get a Member to provide five or six tickets so that a party could be brought into the House of Commons to demonstrate here, the whole House would surely condemn such a procedure.
Are you, Mr. Speaker, therefore able to tell the House whether it appears that a large number of persons who created a disturbance received tickets from perhaps just one or two Members who may have provided more than the usual one or two tickets? If that is indeed the case, surely there is a responsibility on Members to consider carefully to whom they issue tickets and to find out whether there is any likelihood of disturbance. That has always been the case. I believe that, as a matter of order, Back Benchers have the right to look to Mr. Speaker to defend their rights in this matter.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, I should state that this is a matter for the House of Commons, not for me. If the House wishes to change its rules and to require me to give names, the House must do so and give me instructions. Until that is so, I do not propose to put myself in the position of standing here and naming anyone from either side of the House.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I in no way wish to put the Chair or the Speaker in an invidious position, but if the Speaker has reason to believe that a Member or a number of Members issued tickets to people who then carried out a disturbance, is it not incumbent upon the Speaker, without necessarily giving names, to inform the House so that it does not happen again?
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but I hope that we can then move on, as this is not a very profitable exercise.
Mr. Heffer: On one occasion I went outside with two tickets. When a lady asked whether she could have one of them, I said that she could. Shortly afterwards I looked up and saw her being thrown out of the Gallery for shouting "Down with British imperialism". Any Member could have a similar experience to mine.
Later——
Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it is the wilt of the House that we now leave that matter, but I shall take the point of order if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it will help the House.
Mr. Greenway: I simply wished to say that the honesty and integrity of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should be commended to those other hon. Members who have been guilty of what he admitted.
Mr. Speaker: Well, at least one hon. Member is happy.

Members' Telephones
Mr. John Townend: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a matter that you may feel it appropriate to refer to the Committee of Privileges? For the past 24 hours——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the way to raise a matter of privilege. The House has changed its rules. If an hon. Member wishes me to look at a question of privilege, he should write to me and give me a chance to consider it.
Mr. Townend: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In the past 24 hours the telephone in my office in the Palace of Westminster has been out of order. When I requested that it be repaired, I was told that the engineers would not repair telephones because they were protesting about the Telecommunications Bill. Is that not an attempt improperly to influence a Member of Parliament, and should not steps be taken to ensure that Members of Parliament can carry our their duties without hindrance?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for authorities other than myself.

BILLS PRESENTED
  PETROLEUM ROYALTIES (RELIEF) BILL
  Mr. Secretary Lawson, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. John Wakeham, Mr. Hamish Gray, and Mr. John Moore, presented a Bill to confer on holders of petroleum production licences an exemption from royalties (including royalties in kind) in respect of petroleum from certain new fields off the coast of Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
  EDUCATION (FEES AND AWARDS) BILL
  Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Pym, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Mr. William Shelton, and Mr. William Waldegrave, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the fees charged by universities and other institutions to students not having the requisite connection with the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and the exclusion of such students from eligibility for certain discretionary awards: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Foreign Affairs Committee (Chairman's Draft Report)
4.28 pm
Sir Anthony Kershaw: I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
The motion stems from the report in The Times newspaper of 18 April concerning the draft report of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the future of British foreign policy in relation to the Falkland Islands.
On Thursday last, the draft report was issued to the 11 members of the Committee and to six Clerks and advisers. Each copy bore the name and initials of the person to whom it was issued.
On Monday, an accurate summary of the draft appeared as the lead story on the front page and on another page of The Times. The story was clearly based on a close reading of the draft. No one reading both could doubt their consanguinity. Although phrases such as
"members are understood to have concluded"
and
"The Committee … apparently found"
are used, the story contains more than one unacknowledged but easily recognisable quotation from the draft and follows closely the sequence of paragraphs in the draft.
Furthermore, Philip Webster, The Times reporter whose name is given in the story, was able to reveal what no other member of the press could have known—that the draft was to be considered by the Committee on Wednesday. It had originally been intended to consider it on Monday, our usual day of meeting, and a press announcement to that effect had been made. We heard in last Thursday's business statement, however, that the House would be debating the Brandt report on Monday. As I knew that some members of the Committee wished to speak in that debate, I caused a slip of paper to be inserted with the draft report saying that we would not meet on Monday. No other announcement was made, and Philip Webster could have obtained his information from no other source.
It often happens that well-informed and diligent journalists, expert in their subject, can and do—with the aid, perhaps, of one or two friendly conversations in the Corridors of the House — piece together stories, the accuracy of which surprises hon. Members who thought that they were in possession of exclusive information. No, or hardly any, breach of our rules is involved and we turn a blind eye. In other instances, if the information improperly obtained is not of great moment to the outside world, again we sensibly take little notice.
I submit that this case is different. There has not been an indiscreet conversation in the Lobby or in one of the Bars about a minor matter. A report of a major political controversy, both at home and abroad and inside and outside the House, has been written up from a complete document which the Committee has not even considered, and which some members of the Committee had not, in the circumstances, had time to read before the report appeared.
I do not think that ignorance of our rules can be pleaded. Philip Webster is an experienced Lobby man, and his source can be presumed to know the rules. In any event, on the front page of the draft appeared these words:

435
"The circulation of this draft report is strictly limited to members and staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The premature disclosure of contents of a draft report has in the past been regarded as a prima facie breach of privilege."
If the private deliberations of our Committees are to be revealed in this way, it will destroy the trust and confidence that have been established between hon. Members who work together on the Committees and make it impossible for the Committees to receive evidence, which may he considered confidential from a witness's point of view or in the area of public affairs, and generally diminish the value of the work of Select Committees.
On those grounds, I hope that the House will agree that the matter needs further consideration and that my complaint should be considered by the Privileges Committee.
4.32 pm
Mr. J. W. Rooker: I rise briefly to oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir. A. Kershaw). I do so not in the light of his speech—it would not have mattered to me what case he advanced, how he presented it, whether it was important or minor politically or otherwise—but because in 1975 I was responsible for raising a complaint against The Economist, which had reported a draft report of the Select Committee on the wealth tax. At the conclusion of the inquiry, when the report of the Privileges Committee was before the House, I repented and said that I regretted having raised the complaint in the first place. I repeated that expression of regret on 13 march 1978 as reported in column 31 of Hansard, when I again opposed the sending of journalists before the Privileges Committee—in that case from The Guardian and the Daily Mail—for revealing the draft report of the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.
What purpose will be served in taking Mr. Philip Webster before the Privileges Committee? That journalist, if he is worthy of his trade, will not divulge his source. His source, as the hon. Member for Stroud has clearly implied, is a member of the Select Committee or one of the staff. One of the members of the Committee or one of the staff has dishonoured the rules of the House, not the journalist who obtained a copy of the report.
Why has The Times been singled out for this treatment? Similar reports, virtually word for word, appeared in The Scotsman last Saturday and in The Guardian on Monday, the same day as the article appeared in The Times. What did The Times do that the other newspapers did not do? It made the report the front page lead. In other words, the crime of The Times was prominence.
Bearing in mind what has happened in the past in respect of journalists and the Privileges Committee—I admitted my mistake in bringing a case before the House seven or eight years ago—I submit that there is no case to be made for hauling before the Committee of Privileges journalists who have carried out their trade, because we never find the source of their information. In any event, there is no justification for singling out The Times when other newspapers carried the same story.
4.35 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Less on account of my interest in the Falklands and more on account of an experience that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—we have
436
shared the painful experience of being arraigned before the Committee of Privileges, in my case in the House before Mr. Speaker King on a matter relating to a problem in the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) relating to Porton and chemical and biological weapons—I ask the House to be careful, to pause and to reflect before going headlong into a referral to the Privileges Committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, we are in danger of shooting the wrong fox if we proceed. We could make ourselves as ridiculous as the Tory candidate in Cambridgeshire who, when faced with selection problems over blood sports, tried to ingratiate himself with the selection committee by telling Lady Crossley that he shot a thousand starlings every weekend. If we are not careful, we shall find ourselves in that situation.
The truth is that Mr. Philip Webster obtained the story a bit late. Even I did not bother to read it properly — and I read everything that is said on the Falklands — because it was a bit stale. I shall not read the entire article that appeared on the front page of The Scotsman on Saturday, but part of it states:
"There are likely to be at least three weeks of intensive discussion in the committee before the report is finalised, and it may be that Sir Anthony Kershaw, the Conservative chairman, and his colleagues will alter the draft significantly, but there are clear indications that their report — which is being eagerly awaited by MPs of all parties — will be unwelcome in Downing Street.
It is understood that the officials' draft, prepared after months of interviews and public and private hearings in London and in the Falklands, comes down strongly in favour of a more positive diplomatic approach from the Government.
None of the MPs on the committee—which includes two Scots, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. George Foulkes—would discuss the matter yesterday. The committee are determined to keep their thoughts private until they reach final conclusions.
But it is reliably understood"—
Members can read the rest of the article that appeared in The Scotsman if they wish. The article gives a full and clear indication of what is in the report.
Over 20 years, I have had a genuine regard for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw). I put it to him that his instinct, if one can judge character, should have been to sort the matter out where it should be sorted out—in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I should like to refer to my own experience 14 years ago. The late Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, for whom many of us had great personal affection although we had different political views, told me some years later that Ministry of Defence officials had prompted him to prompt others to raise the matter and to move that it should be taken before the Committee of Privileges.
The hon. Member for Stroud is an honourable man. I think that one is entitled to ask him to tell the House whether he or any of his Conservative colleagues was subjected to pressure from sources within his party or elsewhere before deciding to move that the matter be taken before the Committee of Privileges.
The new rules properly require a letter to be written, because clearly we should not rush into these matters, but some time has elapsed. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman why it has taken so long to bring the matter before the House following the report on Saturday.
Political operations are conducted in the House. There is often a political operation by Downing street — perhaps as some form of pre-emptive strike to stymie an

437
embarrassing report. Anyone who has closely examined the way in which Mr. Bernard Ingham operated on the release of the Franks report must conclude that Downing street is at least capable of conducting such an operation. Do we detect the hand of Downing street on this issue? Furthermore, is it not grotesque to instigate the whole rigmarole of the Committee of Privileges on this matter when the Franks report—which, heaven knows, was a far more sensitive document — was leaked to The Scotsman 36 hours before it was published? Under the byline by its excellent diplomatic correspondent, Mr. Alexander MacLeod, I read not only much of the meat of the Franks report, but the somewhat idiosyncratic conclusion to which it came. It would take a positive genius to perceive not only the meat of the report but to reach a conclusion that was itself a non-sequitur.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that I was subjected to pressure and that I was late in coming to the House. I assure him, and I know that he will accept my word, that I was not subjected to any pressure. I decided — the House must decide whether I was right—that the article had been written from the report and that therefore a prima facie breach of the rules had been committed. As Chairman, I thought that I was obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the House.
I did not read the The Scotsman, so I do not know about that. When I saw the article in The Times on Monday I compared it with the draft report, and I wrote to Mr. Speaker on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling yesterday and the House is now debating the issue. I cannot see it would have been possible to proceed more quickly.
Mr. Dalyell: I accept that the hon. Gentleman was not subjected to pressure. I shall assume also that none of his colleagues was in any way subjected to pressure by Downing street or from elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman cannot complain too much, because there is a bit of a mote in the Committee's eye. As many hon. Members were interested in the subject, the Committee took a long time over its deliberations on what many people considered to be an important matter that needed to be dealt with urgently. The old gibe that Committees are like a broody hen sitting on china eggs may apply to the Select Committee, as it has taken a long time to report. If it has not been dilatory, why has it taken so long?
There is much talk about consultations with Government Departments, which may be proper. Britain has a problem—which it does not share with the United States—in that it has a pool of talent from which the Executive is chosen. The relations between Ministers and members of Select Committees are totally unlike anything that goes on in Washington, where the Executive is chosen on a different basis. Therefore, the House is in deep water on the matter of privilege.
If we are to make comparisons, what about the leaking that has gone on from Cabinet Committees? I did not complain when the Chancellor of the Exchequer did all sorts of things which 10 years ago—let alone 20 years ago — would have been regarded as leaks about the Budget. However, since previous cases involving privilege things have changed rather. I think that the
438
Chancellor was quite right and totally justified in preparing the ground. Is there such a difference between being open about Budget secrets and dealing with the report?
I realise that there is a question of personal relationships in the Committee. I do not defend anybody who has leaked a report, but the argument is that it is better to deal with such an issue in the Committee rather than institute the elephantine and often disagreeable procedure of referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
The issue of misinformation must be taken into account. This was dealt with by the Select Committee on Defence. In the paper that is complained of today there is a statement on page 6 that the rear-admiral in charge of Hermes—at the moment in New York—said that there had been a decoy between Hermes and the Atlantic Conveyor—[Interruption.] I wish to give a current and topical example. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"No such assessment is known to have been made. The `Atlantic Conveyor' was one of a number of large vessels supporting the task force and was in no way treated as unique. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is `No".—[Official Report, 23 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 618.]
That is in direct conflict with the statement by the admiral and is an example of misinformation.
It is wrong that there should be one law for the House of Commons and a different law for the operation of No. 10 Downing street. What is right for No. Downing street is surely right for the House. It is the old question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Against that background, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr in opposing a reference to the Committee of Privileges.
4.46 pm
Mr. Christopher Price: I hope that this House has higher standards than Downing street on this issue.
I declare an interest as both the Chairman of a Select Committee from which leaks have occurred and as a member of the National Union of Journalists. I believe that I can take a balanced view. This is supremely a matter for the House of Commons. On previous occasions when the House has divided on whether to send a matter to the Committee of Privileges, it has not necessarily divided on party lines. If we are to divide, I trust that we shall not divide on party lines, because this is an issue of principle for the House of Commons.
I oppose the motion, although I totally deplore the leaks from Select Committees. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), that the only solution to this problem is a proper relationship within the Select Committee. The proper way to sort out the problem lies with the members of the Select Committee. To send the problem now to the Committee of Privileges is a supreme example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The words have been printed, it is yesterday's journalism and another edition of The Times is being printed. The Committee of Privileges should not get mixed up with this matter.
I am one of the few hon. Members who have been on trial before the Committee. That happened in 1978. I make no complaint about that. Anyone who reads the final report might say that I was acquitted. Along with several of my

439
colleagues, I was arraigned before the Committee of Privileges. I gave evidence to it and it pronounced at the end of the day.
The job of the Committee of Privileges is to discipline Members of Parliament. That is the first job it ought to do. I do not think that any hon. Member should complain if the House votes, as it did on the ABC affair, for referring the conduct of certain hon. Members to the Committee of Privileges.
The other job of the Committee of Privileges is to implement the very important resolutions that we pass every Parliament before getting on with our business about giving false evidence to a Committee and other such serious offences. If I was told that someone other than a Member of Parliament had deliberately given evidence that he knew to be untrue, I would vote for sending him to the Committee of Privileges. However, to send a journalist to the Committee of Privileges when one knows perfectly well that his job is to obtain information, and that he could have obtained it only by a degree of collusion with a Member of Parliament, would be a fruitless operation.
The Committee of Privileges is a fearsome sight. To be wheeled into that room, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) in the Chair and with very senior Members of Parliament sitting round, was the most frightening experience of my life.
What is the point of sending a journalist to the Committee? When asked his source, he would very properly refuse to give it. I say "very properly", because only yesterday the Government acknowledged by changing the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that the police would not be able to chase journalists' sources. Therefore, is it sensible to try to put right an acknowledged mischief by sending the matter to 16 or so of our most senior right hon. and hon. Members? If I thought for one moment that those right hon. and hon. Members could do or say something, could produce a report that would make a recurrence less likely, or could do something useful to the journalist, I would vote for the motion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend has hit at least one nail on the head. Privy Councillors are among those who serve on the Committee of Privileges. I shall never forget until the day I die the way in which that Committee dealt with Alan Grimshaw. He had given evidence to a Select Committee about certain matters affecting the National Coal Board's purchasing powers. Lord Robens and all the rest rolled in, and Alan Grimshaw got the sack for giving that evidence against the NCB. We have never been able to obtain some of that evidence. I pleaded with the then Labour Government to send the matter to the Committee of Privileges, thinking that Alan Grimshaw would at least have half a chance. The matter went to the Committee of Privileges. The present Prime Minister sat on it, together with one or two other so-called "notables"—my hon. Friend knows the sort of people I refer to—and Alan Grimshaw was sold down the river.
Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is quite right, and he has pursued that case with commendable perseverance. The job of the Committee of Privileges is to discipline hon. Members and those who give false evidence to our Committees. Its task should not go beyond that, because it simply does not have a suitable remedy in its hands.
4.53 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I shall try to be brief, but two important points must be made in favour of referring this issue to the Committee of Privileges.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said that by referring the matter to the Committee we would be closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. However, unless we refer it to the Committee of Privileges, every horse will be able to escape and a draft report of any Committee will be nothing other than fair game for publication. If we do not stand firm on this point, people will know that the House will do nothing about it if they get hold of a draft report and reveal its contents.
If that were to happen, the work of Select Committees would become untenable. If we cannot circulate papers between hon. Members and use their staff in the belief that those papers will be confidential until they are published, Committee work will be totally undermined. Therefore, the motion seeks not only to rectify this situation, but to ensure that it is clear beyond peradventure that the practice will not continue. It does not matter if leaks occur in other places, wherever they may be. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West has said, we can control only our own procedures and that is what we should do.
The second important point refers again to the arguments made against referring the issue to the Committee. It is said that we shall be arrainging only the journalist. However, I hope that the Committee of Privileges will see every member of the Select Committee and every member of staff to try to discern w ho was responsible for being so lax with the documentation that it could get into the hands of journalists. I shall be charitable in saying "lax". If an answer can be found, it should be published. I accept that it is hon. Members who should be looked at. However, unless this matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges, that will not happen. In the interests of the House, this issue should be referred immediately to the Committee of Privileges.
4.55 pm
Mr. Michael English: It is traditional that this motion should be approved. I shall vote for it, but with all the qualms that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not believe that an Officer of the House leaked the information to anyone. Officers of the House do not frequently talk to journalists unless, as sometimes happens, they are asked to do so by Committees. However, I believe, strangely enough, that some hon. Member — not necessarily a member of the Select Committee — may have related Smoking Room gossip or something like that.
Two assumptions are held. The first is that a member of the Select Committee spoke directly to one of the journalists involved, or to all three of them. That is most unlikely. A journalist who 'will not reveal his source is sometimes concealing the fact that that source was merely another journalist. If somebody told me that a story appeared in two particular newspapers, the thought would spring into my mind that the two journalists were close friends who frequently pooled their information, and that since the newspapers were not competing against each other it would assist them both. That sort of thing is not unusual or uncommon. Thus, one of the sources may riot have been anyone other than another journalist.
Another possibility is that some journalist heard something. It is assumed automatically that the report was

441
leaked. However, just about every hon. Member is capable of giving a story to a journalist without showing him the text of the report. Many hon. Members can relate the precise words of a report's recommendations without having the report in front of them. The House does not consist entirely of Members of Parliament with slack memories. Indeed, I freely admit that I often have an inkling of the contents of Select Committee reports before they are published. That is due to the normal practice of one hon. Member talking to another. It is not my job to leak someone else's Committee report to the press, but there is no doubt that hon. Members, in the normal course of their business, talk to each other in the Smoking Room or elsewhere and say, "We are considering A" or, "We are considering B in our Committee. What is your view?". That is a perfectly normal and sensible practice. There is no doubt, therefore, that a leak does not necessarily come from a member of a Select Committee.
However, let us suppose for the moment that the leak came from a member of the Select Committee. It has been said that the Select Committee should look after its own house. That is true. I can think of a Chairman who rather skilfully organised the removal of an hon. Member from his Committee by making sure that someone offered the hon. Member something that the hon. Member preferred to being on the Select Committee and which was incompatible with his being on the Select Committee. Therefore, the hon. Member left the Select Committee and, by a mysterious coincidence, all leaks from that Committee ceased. The Chairman knew his Committee and took an appropriate course of action. That is one solution. Another, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) touched on, is to meet more often when considering a report.
There is almost a tradition that Select Committees can meet only once a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that not all Select Committees do, but there is such a tradition. If a Select Committee wants to get through a report without its being leaked, the simple solution is to get it out straight away. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has sometimes done that. We have gone on until after the House has risen, perhaps to midnight, to finish a report.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Why is my hon. Friend filibustering?
Mr. English: If my hon. Friend prefers to talk about silly feminists, that is fair enough.
If we refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, the only approach, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, is to tell the Committee to consider the matter properly and start by asking members of the Committee who they spoke to and trace the leak from there. We used to have a spate of privilege cases about leaks and we do not want them to recur. When I first became a Member of Parliament, every ex-journalist raised a story by one of his colleagues as a breach of privilege. I am sure that the Committee of Privileges should examine the matter, but from the right end. It should say that it is worried about the case and that the Select Committee may have leaked its own information. If it cannot prove that, it should not bother to report back to the House.
5.2 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The rule of the House is clear. The publication of a Select Committee report before it has been authorised by the Committee is a breach of our privileges and, therefore, prima facie, there is a breach which is acknowledged by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. However, the House must judge whether to send a case to the Committee of Privileges. That is what we are discussing, not whether there has been a breach of privilege.
I strongly argue that we should not send this case to the Committee of Privileges. The issue is clear. A journalist, as with all other journalists, has been looking for something that will give him a story earlier than other journalists and before the report is published.
Mr. Skinner: Free market forces.
Mr. Lyon: That is inevitable. Just as journalists have argued strongly for the confidentiality of their records in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, we argue the same type of case for the confidentiality of our discussions. One day the House must consider seriously what the point of all this is.
Mr. Skinner: That is right—stop the lot.
Mr. Lyon: In Select Committee, we usually discuss evidence that we have taken in public. Frequently, the questions that we ask point to the nature of the subsequent report. Anyone who has listened to the questions can guess what the report will be. Even if they cannot, and what is leaked is the discussion of the report in Committee, where is the public danger in the report being discussed? I can think of only two possibilities.
In the four years during which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has discussed these issues, we once heard in private evidence from the head of Operation Countryman. It would have been wrong for any member of the Committee to have released the information that was subsequently sidelined by the chief constable of Surrey because such a release of information might have disadvantaged the public.
There have been other occasions when some of our reports have been leaked and the leakage has been partial in both senses of the word. It may have been leaked by a member of the Committee who was defeated over some aspect of the discussion and who wanted to make his stance clearer to the public than that of the Committee. That is unfortunate with regard to the trust between members of the Committee, but it does not do any harm to the public good and there is no reason why it should not happen. I cannot speak with the criminal convictions of some of my hon. Friends whose release of information has been divulged, as a result of which they have been called before the Committee of Privileges.
I should think that most hon. Members who serve on Select Committees will understand that I have occasionally broken that rule because I have discussed with colleagues or journalists what has been said in Select Committees. I cannot think that the public good has been damaged by that.
What can we say about this case? It is not as if the leak was partial. Someone got hold of the entire report and assessed it all. Moreover, it was printed in The Times, or whatever newspaper it was, in full. No one has been damaged and no part of the Committee feels that it has

443
been disadvantaged. The only disadvantage is that which the Government might feel—that the report is critical of them and they must face that criticism a little earlier than expected. That is not a serious justification for calling people before the Committee of Privileges and treating them as possible criminals. Nor is it a justification for the Committee calling every member of the Select Committee before it and asking, "Did you or did you not leak this report?". That would be absurd and make this place into a farce.
We should be careful about what we do with our power. We have exceptional powers and can do something about those people and about the press. Once, we sent the editor of a newspaper to prison for a little while. We have that power, but it would be absurd to use it unless it was absolutely clear that it was in the public interest to do so. We should serve no public interest by sending this case to the Committee of Privileges, and I hope that we shall not.
5.7 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like to base my comments on what the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) said. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was here to listen to what he said.
If the House embarks on a grand inquisition, it will not serve the public interest one jot. Moreover, it would not be fair to do so. The hon. Member for Stroud said that he had to pick on The Times because he happened to read it but that the story had appeared in several other newspapers. Because the hon. Gentleman did not read The Scotsman, for example, and does not, the journalist who wrote the report for The Scotsman will avoid the grand inquisition upon which the hon. Gentleman proposes to embark.
We are not discussing an exaggerated, malicious or false report. On the contrary, we are dealing with an apparently accurate report, in a serious journal, written by a serious journalist. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, no one has been injured. Indeed, the public have been enlightened. The only anxiety is the fluttering among members of the Select Committee about who provided the information. That is a slender basis on which to start the apparatus of the grand inquisition of the Committee of Privileges.
If the House is really concerned about the standards of conduct of the press in matters of public interest and it passes this resolution, it will show two different standards. A report has been published that is rather critical of the Government, and that has caused members of the Select Committee to look askance at each other, but no one has been injured. All that has been injured is the pride of some Committee members.
What happened when the Press Council produced a searing report on the conduct of the press in the Sutcliffe case, the chequebook journalism, and the deception by editors and reporters? That harmed the general public and individual members of it who were deeply involved in the tragedies, but the House and the Government did not allocate an iota of time to discuss that report. No Select Committee was established to examine the conduct of the press in a matter of major public importance that was the focus of attention in the entire country.
Here we have a report that has been leaked prematurely and we are discussing a motion to send it to the Select Committee of Privileges. It is not worth it. We must make a judgment on the merits of the case, and on the merits
444
advanced by the hon. Member for Stroud there is no point in putting this to the Committee for an inquisition into a serious article in a serious journal.
As my hon. Friends have said, the journalist will not reveal his source, so the inquisition will turn its attention to members of the Committee, Officers of the House and even the printers of the report. It would be unfair to exclude them. However, according to the motion, the inquisition will not include other journalists who published the scoop earlier in any case. It is complete nonsense for us to spend time on this matter, and I hope that the motion will be defeated.
I hope—the hopes of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) are rather higher than mine —that this case will be treated on its merits. I suspect that the voting will be on a political basis, because some of the anxiety about this report is caused by the fact that it criticised the Government and undermined their long-held position on the Falklands. We shall examine the voting figures with interest.
5.12 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) to withdraw the motion without the House voting upon it? I am one of the old lags who have been before the Privileges Committee, and I can confirm what my hon. Friends have said. Very little evidence is taken in Hansard form. Nothing is published at the end of the inquiry. The journalist will not reveal his source of information, and the report will not come back to the House for debate.
Perhaps the House recalls the case in 1963 with Mr. Harold Macmillan, when a journalist who was involved in the Vassall inquiry eventually went to prison, which alienated the whole of Fleet street from the Conservative party just before the 1964 election — [Interruption.] Conservative Members would be well advised to consider the intense interest of all those gentleman in the Press Gallery who are waiting to pounce. I advise the hon. Member for Stroud to withdraw the motion if it is possible to do so.
5.14 pm
Mr. John Silkin: I should like to make clear my position as shadow Leader of the House. There have been some misconceptions in this debate. The issue is not whether we should persecute press men, and the Committee of Privileges does not exist simply to discipline Members of Parliament. The House is the arbiter of discipline— it always was and I hope that it always will be—but for convenience it appointed a Privileges Committee. As a member of that Committee, I can understand those who regard its members as not being entirely suitable, but it is a Committee of the House——
Mr. Skinner: Parliamentary snobs.
Mr. Silkin: That may be so, but the House has the power to appoint its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who is a distinguished member of that Committee, is one of the least snobbish people I know.
The question is whether the House should concern itself with this matter. What do we mean by "privilege"? It is the right of Parliament to conduct its operations without fear or favour, and that is why such a Committee has

445
always been part of our procedure. Of course it must change from time to time because it becomes stupid, pompous or silly. Times change, but the House has the power to change those rules. That is why we have the Procedure Committee and debates and we can reconsider the position each year. I hope that we shall do so from time to time.
Perhaps my hon. Friends are right to say that it is time for the House to reconsider the Committee, but the present position is clear. One minute before the report appeared in the press, both the givers and the takers of information were perfectly aware of our procedure. They knew that it would be a breach of privilege and that it was likely to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: They might also have been aware of what happened on an almost identical previous occasion when a leaked Select Committee draft report was published in The Economist and was referred to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee tried hard to find out who had leaked the report, and predictably failed, and then recommended that the offending journalist should be disbarred from this building for six months. That recommendation was rejected by the House. Perhaps the journalist in this case was conscious of that precedent and believed that he had nothing to fear.
Mr. Silkin: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that I may drive home in complete safety at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone is proof not that there should not be a 30 mph limit, but that I believe that I can get away with it. This has nothing to do with whether we should institute our own procedures.
There is no alternative in this matter, and the Committee of parliamentary snobs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and the Leader of the House, who is leaning forward anxiously as though he wishes to be included, should be credited with some common sense. If we do not have that common sense, if and when we report to the House, I have no doubt that it will exercise the common sense that is necessary in this case.
For those reasons, because of precedent and because whoever did it knew perfectly well that this was likely to happen, I recommend that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.
5.17 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Perhaps the House will think it appropriate that the debate should not be concluded without the last rites from me, although I do not wish to make a long speech, to reply to the debate or to give guidance on how the House should vote. However, we must realise, as has been argued frequently, that the question is whether the Committee of Privileges should have the opportunity to comment upon an undoubtedly serious allegation, or whether, in the judgment of experience, it is believed that that Committee is neither appropriate nor competent to consider such matters. I note with great interest that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) believes that the matter should go to the Committee, but he makes that judgment in the face of
446
several hon. Members who might claim that their experience before the Committee entitles them to a different view.
The other point that I am sure the House will wish to weigh is that we are concerned about the developing authority of Select Committees. If the Chairman of a Select Committee believes that the work of his Committee is impeded by what has happened and wishes the matter to be considered by the Committee of Privileges, the House might believe it appropriate to the developing status of Select Committees that at least sympathetic consideration be given to that view.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) to withdraw the motion if he so wished?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) has not said that he wishes to do so.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 48.

Division No. 127]

[5.20 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Fookes, Miss Janet

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Forman, Nigel

Ancram, Michael

Forrester, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Marcus

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

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

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Ginsburg, David

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Gorst, John

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Gow, Ian

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Graham, Ted

Berry, Hon Anthony

Grant, Sir Anthony

Best, Keith

Greenway, Harry

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Blackburn, John

Hamilton, Hon A.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Heddle, John

Bowden, Andrew

Hicks, Robert

Braine, Sir Bernard

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Brinton, Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hooson, Tom

Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Howells, Geraint

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Buck, Antony

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

John, Brynmor

Cartwright, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

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

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Cope, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Corrie, John

Lang, Ian

Costain, Sir Albert

Lawrence, Ivan

Crouch, David

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Dorrell, Stephen

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Macfarlane, Neil

Durant, Tony

MacGregor, John

Eggar, Tim

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Maclennan, Robert

Emery, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

English, Michael

Major, John

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Marlow, Antony

Field, Frank

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

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

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

447

Monro, Sir Hector

Stainton, Keith

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Stradling Thomas, J.

Needham, Richard

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Newton, Tony

Thompson, Donald

Osborn, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Patten, John (Oxford)

Viggers, Peter

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

Waddington, David

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Roper, John

Ward, John

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Watkins, David

Rossi, Hugh

Watson, John

Rost, Peter

Wells, Bowen

Royle, Sir Anthony

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Wheeler, John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wickenden, Keith

Sandelson, Neville

Wilkinson, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Winterton, Nicholas

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Wolfson, Mark

Silvester, Fred

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Sims, Roger

Younger, Rt Hon George

Skeet, T. H. H.

Smith, Sir Dudley

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Christopher Murphy and

Speed, Keith

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.

Speller, Tony

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

Mikardo, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Bidwell, Sydney

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Morton, George

Campbell-Savours, Dale

O'Neill, Martin

Carmichael, Neil

Parker, John

Cook, Robin F.

Race, Reg

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

Richardson, Jo

Dalyell, Tam

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Dobson, Frank

Rooker, J. W.

Dubs, Alfred

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Dunnett, Jack

Short, Mrs Renée

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

Silverman, Julius

Fitt, Gerard

Skinner, Dennis

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Soley, Clive

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

Stallard, A. W.

Haynes, Frank

Stoddart, David

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

Tilley, John

Home Robertson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Hoyle, Douglas

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

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Kinnock, Neil

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Tellers for the Noes:

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Mr. Bob Cryer and

McWilliam, John

Mr. Christopher Price.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Conduct of Members (Threats)
5.31 pm
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I beg to move,
That this House reaffirms that to attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is a serious contempt of the House.
The purpose of my motion is to call attention to threats reported to have been uttered by Miss Ruth Hall at a meeting held at the House in connection with the Marital Rape Bill. It is not my intention today to make value judgments on the advantages or disadvantages of the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) or that my complaint should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
According to a report by the distinguished chief political correspondent to the Press Association, Mr. Chris Moncrieff, on the morning of Thursday 14 April Miss Hall, a founder member of WAR — Women Against Rape—gave a warning at a press conference held in the House to mark the publication of the Marital Rape Bill.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: She is not even married.
Mr. Proctor: She is reported to have said:
"It takes only the objection of one Member to block a Bill. We will be taking note of any Members of Parliament who block it and we will make sure they live to regret it."
When questioned, she apparently did not elaborate, saying only that it would depend on circumstances such as who the Member of Parliament was and what his weak points were.
So far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, since this matter was raised with you, Miss Hall has not sought to deny these statements or to apologise for them. Indeed, she is reported as saying:
"We find it rather disturbing that these Members of Parliament seem to be more concerned about their privileges than the safety of women."
It is not our sensitivities which are of concern, but the clear threat to the conduct of our work in this place. We should not have to carry out our duties under threats of this nature. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair for the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to conduct a running commentary. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) must be allowed to make out his case to the House.
Mr. Proctor: On balance, I think the House would be wise not to take the gravest view of this matter. Miss Hall may not have realised the import of what she was saying. Therefore, I have not moved that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. However, I do not believe that we can allow such threats to pass unnoticed or unchallenged. By supporting the motion, I believe that we might remind ourselves and others outside that to threaten or to attempt to influence Members in their conduct is a serious contempt of the House and contrary to our parliamentary democracy, which we all cherish.
5.35 pm
Mr. John Tilley: I rise to oppose the motion because I was the only Member present when the alleged breach of privilege took place. I consider that I am under attack from the motion—certainly the first part of it—because I was responsible for booking the

449
room and for calling the press conference, which I was chairing, at which the words in question were uttered. If a breach of privilege were to be proved, I would have to take some of the blame for conniving at or, at the very least, colluding in that breach. Therefore, it is a serious matter, and I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House in defending myself and Ruth Hall and asking the House to reject the motion.
I do not question the fact that Ruth Hall said that her organisation — Women Against Rape — would try to ensure that Members who blocked the Marital Rape Bill would "live to regret it." I am not questioning the integrity or, indeed, the shorthand skill of Mr. Chris Moncrieff of the Press Association whose report led to the complaint by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), but those remarks are not even technically a contempt of the House.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, "Erskine May", in page 150, lists examples of contempt which come under attempted intimidation of Members. All the examples relate to the publication of letters or posters or the summoning of a Member to a trade union meeting. An off-the-cuff remark of the type we are discussing now is not covered by those rules.
There was no threat of a specific nature in Ruth Hall's remarks. An article in the Daily Mail—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept what the Daily Mail says—said:
"Miss Hall declined to elaborate."
She did not say whether she intended merely to induce a sense of remorse among Members to encourage people to vote against them, which is allowable or some form of physical assault. Clearly, the private fantasies of the hon. Member for Basildon have supplied his imagination with some terrible retribution that he may suffer, but that is his problem, not Ruth Hall's.
Technically, we have a non-existent threat, not addressed to a specific Member or Members. On the face of it, this appears to be a frivolous complaint, lodged perhaps to gain a little publicity, but there are wider and, I believe, more sinister implications in the motion. It appears to be part of a growing trend—we have seen more of it this afternoon—to use, or rather to abuse, our privileges to stifle the right of free speech of those who sent us here. To raise the issue of contempt over such a vague remark is not to protect the independence of the House or Members, but to bring the procedures of the House into contempt in the eyes of the public.
It is no coincidence that the Marital Rape Bill is a matter of great controversy. Many women are deeply disturbed about the law of rape and the way it is administered. They have for a long time claimed that their views did not receive a fair hearing in this male-dominated House. Their fears will be confirmed if the House votes today to pursue this vindictive attack on a woman who was invited by me to use the proper democratic channels to give her views on an issue that is currently before the House.
We must not allow the House even to appear to be using its powers to suppress views that it finds uncomfortable or disturbing. I believe that what leads to demonstrations in the Strangers Gallery is when women who have a valid case find that they are hindered in using the normal
450
democratic channels of free speech and the House, the fountainhead of so much empty rhetoric, uses its full panoply of powers to crush one outspoken woman.
I hope that hon. Members have noticed how this motion differs from the previous one. That asked for a possible breach of privilege to be examined and investigated by the Committee of Privileges so that a considered judgment could be formed. The hon. Member for Basildon does not call for any such procedure. In fact, he has used a form of words that has not appeared in a privilege motion, I am told, for more than 30 years. He does not ask for the matter to be sent to the Committee of Privileges. He makes an unfounded and serious allegation against Ruth Hall and me and then merely affirms in the second half of the motion the known views of the House.
Ruth Hall would have no chance to defend herself against the allegation and I have only the limited opportunity of this debate. The hon. Member for Basildon is seeking to dodge the usual procedure of reference to the Committee of Privileges because he knows that it would toss it out as a frivolous, malicious and unfounded smear. As you said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the House cannot proceed on mere suspicion. It must have evidence, and it has had none. I suggest that the Committee on Procedure should consider whether such motions should be allowed in future.
I must refer to the irony of the claim of intimidation that is being made by the hon. Member for Basildon. In his public utterances recently he has repeatedly intimidated my black constituents——
Mr. Tony Marlow: Sit down.
Mr. Tilley: —and all black Britons by threatening them with repatriation. Therefore, we have an extra reason for electing black British Members to this House. Then every racist remark of the hon. Gentleman will be a breach of parliamentary privilege, and the House will make sure he lives to regret it.
5.42 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We are getting very silly now. I cannot conceive how this matter can be even prima facie a breach of privilege. What the lady is supposed to have said is capable of being hyperbole, of indicating that at some stage in future hon. Members may feel sorry that they voted against the Bill, or of indicating that some kind of pressure, which would be improper, would be put on them at a subsequent date. Until there is improper pressure, there cannot conceivably be a breach of privilege, because the words are not capable of indicating such a breach. If we were to take the motion seriously, we should really be making a farce of ourselves. Therefore, I hope that the House will throw it out.
I say that with complete conviction because when my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) introduced the Bill nobody voted against it, though one hon. Member from the Back Benches shouted out that it was rubbish; and that I am afraid was me. I oppose the Bill. I hope that the lady will not look for my weakest parts to abuse me. I suggest that the issue has not been properly thought through in relation to the Bill and, even less, the motion.
5.44 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: We should be congratulating rather than abusing the lady in question in

451
view of the important point she made about what happens on a Friday afternoon when the Front Bench ventriloquists from the Government Whips' Office shout "Object" to everything, usually with their hands in front of their mouths so that nobody knows where the cry has come from. Anybody who really wants to put pressure on such hon. Members cannot discover who shouted "Object" because the names are not recorded in Hansard.
What the lady said was only a form of lobbying. It may have been over-enthusiastic lobbying to say, "If somebody shouts 'Object' to the Bill, we will see that they live to regret it." However, as has been said, we have lived to regret many decisions that we have taken in this House, not because of threats or promises from our wives, but because we stand on our own feet.
Women are outnumbered in this place by perhaps 30 to one. Surely they should be allowed to make threatening noises outside about what they would do if we do not support a Bill designed to help women. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) should not be so sensitive. He does not need any support, being 6ft 2in and built like a storm trooper. He complains because a woman has offered a threat to him. It is ludicrous. The motion should be rejected.
5.46 pm
Miss Jo Richardson: I agree with my hon. Friends that this is a ludicrous charge to make. I had determined — as with other private Members' Bills to which I object—to be sure to be here to see who would object to the Bill when it came to be reported on a Friday afternoon, and I might have been accused of using the same words as Miss Hall.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) seems to be suggesting that Ruth Hall is liable to come after him with an axe or a knife. That is ridiculous. There must have been many occasions when most hon. Members have said, "You will live to regret that." I recall during the last general election meeting people who had decided to vote Conservative. I told them, "You will live to regret it." Goodness me, several have since told me that they have.
We regret all sorts of things, and "You will live to regret it" is a common phrase to use. Many people have said to me in personal and political terms, regarding something I have done that they have not liked, that I would live to regret whatever it might have been. On the subject of capital punishment, for example, constituents and others have said that I would live to regret it if I did not support its return. Also, on the question of abortion I have been subjected to some particularly nasty threats, but I have not taken them seriously in the sense that they might result in a hostile action.
In my view, Miss Hall and her colleagues are simply striking a blow for women's freedom in society. For that I applaud them. I hope that the House will throw out this ludicrous and stupid charge.
5.47 pm
Mr. Michael English: The only serious point here is one which I hope you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House will look at. This procedure is relatively new. We have before us an extraordinary motion which, by its wording, is quite unexceptional. It is tied, however, to a speech about an issue to which it does not in itself relate. I hope therefore that in future, when you are giving permission for these debates to take
452
place, Mr. Speaker, you will endeavour to use the power you have to make sure that the motion relates to the subject raised.
It places the House in a dilemma. It is possible that nearly all of us regard this particular matter as not very serious. It is equally possible that nearly all of us regard the actual wording on the Order Paper as a truism which should be voted through. Now we are in the dilemma, however, that if we vote for it—
Miss Richardson: We may live to regret it?
Mr. English: Perhaps, but not for the reason in relation to which it was said by the lady in question, who was either silly or seeking publicity.
Mr. Frank Dobson: That would not disqualify her from being an hon. Member.
Mr. English: It would not disqualify her from being a member of the human race or even of the House of Commons. It is important that in future we should not be presented with this dilemma. The motion should always relate to the particular event complained of.
5.49 pm
Mr. John Silkin: This motion can be differentiated entirely from the first one, because the House had specifically said that there would be a breach of privilege if a report or document of a Select Commit tee were circulated outside that Committee. That is not the case here. Indeed, looking at the words of this motion, one cannot help but recall that in page 373 of "Erskine May" there is a prohibition against what are called frivolous motions—motions that are brought before the House in a spirit of mockery. When I first read this, I thought that it must be such a frivolous motion. I realised then that it could not be, because, as you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, if any motion is put on the Order Paper, it ceases to be frivolous under our rules, although for every other reason it is.
The first two lines of the motion remind one of what is not assault in law. If ore says to another person, "I would kill you if it were not assize time" it is not an assault because it is not something that is likely to threaten the person. If one says, "I will do something, I do not know what it is for the moment, but there may be circumstances in which I might or might not," I cannot see how that can be a threat.
I regard the motion as a complete waste of the time of the House. I hope that every hon. Member will treat it with the contempt that it deserves.
5.50 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I rise with interest not merely in the debate but in the business that is to follow in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I believe that it would not be an unwise judgment of the House if it were to decide that we should proceed as decently and speedily as possible.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has commented upon the motion. I believe that the debate has shown that we often have parallel debates — debates which are conducted by voice and by votes.
The motion
"That this House reaffirms that to attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is a serious contempt of the House,"

453
is beyond question. However, any vote on that motion could be subject to serious misunderstanding because of the statements that have been made.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for giving me and other hon. Members an opportunity of affirming something that lies at the heart of our parliamentary conduct. However, running parallel with that has been what I call the debate of the voices, and those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the past half hour will judge the debate of the voices. My hon. Friend is a tough fighter in these matters. He will not have been intimidated by the speeches expressing views contrary to his. Doubtless, Opposition Members who have been advancing their views will continue their debate of the voices.
We have had our consideration of this matter. I hope that we can now proceed without a vote.
Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day
  Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
    New Clause 1

      PARTNERSHIPS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND
      `For the purposes of this Act and the 1949 Act, occupation of agricultural land by a Scottish partnership shall, notwithstanding section 4(2) of the Partnership Act 1890, be treated as occupation by each of the partners.'.—[Mr. O'Neill.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.54 pm
      Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      By proposing new clause 1 the Opposition are seeking to take account of an anomaly which was drawn to the attention of the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading and which we pursued in Committee. During our consideration of the Bill in Committee the problem of partnerships in the occupation of agricultural land emerged. It is a problem that has become increasingly common in recent years, because while the level of owner occupation of land has remained constant, the level of tenanted land has fallen by about 5 per cent. during the past 10 years.
      There has been an increase in the non-traditional holdings of land. We wish to draw the attention of the House to these non-traditional holdings of land. We should like to ensure that the rights enjoyed by what can only be called "junior partners" in these agricultural partnerships are protected. It has become apparent that when holdings and leases become available they do so in many instances as partnerships, where a large estate is prepared to introduce into partnership a young farmer who is willing to forgo many of the traditional rights of a tenant for the opportunity of participating in his first farm.
      We believe that the clause will go some way to protect the rights of the junior partner. We feel that while the arguments advanced in the Northfield report are not without substance they would perhaps result in the ending of partnerships if we were to seek to outlaw them under the Bill. Nevertheless, we feel that it is important that the individuals who have entered into these agreements, primarily because of the absence of any other means of entering farming, should not be disadvantaged as against the rest of the tenants wanting to participate in Scottish agriculture who have been able to obtain, by whatever means, access to land through leases.
      We hope that the Minister, having had some time to reflect on the matter, will find this improved clause acceptable and will take account of what could well become an increasing problem in Scottish agriculture—the young man or woman who wishes to participate in farming but does not have the resources to buy or does not have access to a holding and who is therefore virtually forced into accepting the offer of a holding from a large estate on what can often be regarded as extremely unfair terms. Therefore, in the interests of equity, we wish the

      455
      Government to accept the new clause in its new and improved form. We think that it will go some way towards meeting the objections that the Government raised in Committee.
      We do not regard this problem of partnerships in quite the sanguine way that Northfield—which has been our bible as we have moved through the Committee—does. We think that it is a problem that has to be considered, if for no other reason than that it is most unlikely that we shall return to this subject in the House in the foreseeable future, even after the return of a Labour Government. It is a problem which we must solve now. We have to accept the changing conditions in agriculture, and one of the trends which has developed and which we believe will increase is the use of agricultural partnerships, especially for younger people entering farming. We feel that their rights should be protected and we believe that the new clause will go some way towards providing the sort of protection which they expect.
      Sir Hector Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the new clause does relative to the present situation, so that we can have a debate on it?
      Mr. O'Neill: I was endeavouring to be as brief as possible. We rehearsed the argument, but it may have been on one of the occasions when the hon. Member was not in the Standing Committee.
      We wish the partners in an agricultural partnership to have a right of tenure and to the kind of protection under the leases which partners in other tenancies enjoy. This is a kind of quasi-tenancy because of the uneven balance between the two parties in the partnership, where one of them is in effect the landowner and the other becomes a sort of partial owner, with very few other rights. We seek to establish the rights of the tenant in the way that I have suggested.
      Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for elucidating what the new clause, which is really an amendment, is about because it shows straight away that if it were approved a large proportion of this Bill would become pointless. We should be back to square one relative to providing new tenancies, because obviously partnerships would become very much less popular if the new clause were accepted.
      I think that we all realise, from the lengthy deliberations that we have had on the Bill, that there has been a very steady drop, now becoming a dramatic drop, in the number of farms available to let. This, of course, has been largely due to changes in capital taxation and the impossibility of landowners' gaining possession of their own farms, often when their need is particularly great. It is this issue of the possession of farms that is crucial to the Bill, and particularly to the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) has highlighted the fact that he feels that the partnership idea is unfair to the partner who is going to work and run the farm. I think that he is wrong in that assumption, both from my own point of view and from the number of partnerships that have been set up in Scotland. The reports that I have had on them are particularly favourable. This arrangement has given an opportunity for many young and able farmers to obtain the tenancy of a farm through the partnership system without
      456
      the use of the very large capital sum which is almost inevitable now whether one is buying a farm or becoming a tenant.
      The implied criticism of the partnership scheme needs to be answered, because in effect the estate sets up the partner in business and provides perhaps a quarter of the capital required— which may be £20,000 or £30,000, and I have even heard of as much as £60,000. The farmer, with all that assistance and help, is able to run the farm as a working partner.
      Profit sharing is, of course, on an agreed basis and, from what I have heard, seems to be reasonably equitable. The farmer has the first share of the profits up to, say, £4,000 or £5,000. Thereafter profit is on the basis of equal shares. There is a third tranche, which is again on a percentage of the gross sales. I emphasise that the estate normally gets nothing until the partner has had his first share of the profits. If there is a loss, it is shared equally.
      In the estate company that I am talking about, Buccleuch Estates — a very able company running largely in my constituency and, of course, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)—the farming partner is there for five years and thereafter on an annual basis.
      It has to be accepted that a person goes into a partnership with two considerations in mind. First, it is entirely voluntary, and, secondly, he goes into the partnership on a basis of trust—trust that if he maintains good husbandry and the farm is running well there is no likelihood of the estate's wishing to close the partnership after the five years. And it will, of course, be continued on an annual basis. Trust and confidence between the estate and the partner are vital, and no good estate would ever want to regain possession if the farm was being well looked after by an able partner.
      In Buccleuch Estates, I understand there are about 24 partnerships, so obviously this scheme is working satisfactorily. No partner has come to me and said that the arrangements made between the estates and himself are unfair. This has been going on for about seven years or more and has enabled many able young men to get into farming.
      Mr. O'Neill: From his detailed knowledge of the Buccleuch Estates, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many tenancies have been withdrawn from the market to be reformed in the shape of partnerships?
      Sir Hector Monro: When a farm comes up to be considered for a partnership the previous tenant will have left the farm, of course. It must be vacant possession, because it is impossible to turn out an existing tenant in order to set up a new tenancy, so a new situation is started with a partnership.
      I think that it is wrong for Opposition Members, whether in Committee or in the short speech by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire today, to knock the idea of partnerships, because these have brought new men into farming and this is as likely to be as effective as the provisions in the Bill in making more tenancies available, which is what the Scottish landowners and the National Farmers Union of Scotland want to happen. To attack one of the arrangements that can bring new men into farming seems to me to be very unsatisfactory and most undesirable.
      We want to maintain the structure of tenanted farms. There is an opportunity, through the partnership scheme,

      457
      to do just that. After all, there will be little desire on the part of the estate to regain possession unless it can see some of the worst things on the horizon occurring, such as land nationalisation by the Labour party or a form of capital taxation, which might make it absolutely essential to regain possession.
      We have to keep in mind all the time in the farming structure of Scotland the value of estates to farming and the rural economy. The farming companies and the big estates provide foresters, tradesmen, builders, stonemasons, drainers and so on with an immense amount of highly expert management, which is available to the tenants or partners. Within partnerships in the big estates there are other benefits, such as bulk buying of feeding stuffs and fertilisers. Another aspect that people tend to forget is the opportunities in large estates for access to the public, which is now becoming more important as people enjoy recreation in the countryside.
      The key thing is that partnerships must be ones of mutual trust between the estate company and the farming partner. I see no reason why we should try to devalue that scheme by the new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who put the case so admirably for the scheme that was agreed by the Scottish landowners and the National Farmers Union of Scotland, will reject the new clause, because it will not in any way help to bring more people into farming.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: The House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for advancing the difficult case on behalf of landlords who use this ploy. Evidently, he has been well briefed by the factor's office in the Buccleuch Estates, which is in his constituency. I think that the hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag. In reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), he admitted that in future new lets on the Buccleuch Estates, as in so many others, would not be carried out under the terms of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Bill that we are discussing. On the contrary, the farms would be let in the form of a partnership, which effectively avoids the protection of tenants.
      Sir Hector Monro: I would much rather that the hon. Gentleman did not put words into my mouth. All I said was that partnerships could not begin until there was vacant possession. I did not say that every farm that had vacant possession would become a partnership.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. If he reads his speech in Hansard, he will be able to check what he said. I have the impression that what is happening on the Buccleuch Estates, as on other estates, is that when there are new lets they are not under the terms of the tenancies under the agricultural holdings legislation, but in the form of partnerships.
      The Bill has been dressed up as a provision that will re-establish the tenanted sector. As the hon. Member for Dumfries said, it is the product of negotiations behind closed doors between the Scottish Landowners Federation and the National Farmers Union of Scotland. The Minister defended the package through thick and thin in Committee. Evidently, it will be difficult for anyone to
      458
      insert constructive amendments into the package, which is a pity, as there is a wider interest in land tenure in rural Scotland than the interests of those in the Scottish Landowners Federation and the NFU of Scotland.
      6.15 pm
      If the new clause is not accepted, the Bill will be fairly superfluous. As has already emerged from our discussions, landlords and their agents have well and truly discovered and developed a device of bogus partnerships whereby farms are let, not to tenants, but to an entity, which is a partnership between the landlord and the tenant. It has been described by many people in Scotland as a system that is little better than share cropping. It effectively drives a flock of sheep through all the provisions of the agricultural holdings legislation, which is supposed to protect tenants' security and control their rents.
      The Minister took it upon himself in Committee to advise prospective tenants not to enter into those medieval arrangements, which leave tenants with rights that are little better than those of feudal serfs. However, the fact is that prospective tenants have no choice. When a farm is available to let, they find that it is available to let only to a partnership. As there are far more prospective tenants in Scotland than farms available to let, prospective tenants cannot pick and choose, but take what the landlord is prepared to offer. In all too many cases, the partnership is bogus.
      In Committee I cited instances of those arrangements. As the hon. Member for Dumfries has explained, when Scotland's biggest landowner, the Duke of Buccleuch, lets farms nowadays, he does so on the basis of one of those partnerships. I have a copy of the particulars of let, to which I referred in Committee. It lists all the normal particulars of farms available to let. The catch-all clause, headed "Partnership", states:
      "The successful applicant will, prior to the date of entry, enter into a Participating Partnership with a Buccleuch Estates Limited Subsidiary Company to take a lease of the farm.
      The Partnership would be on the usual Estate form of Participating Partnership Agreement, a pro forma copy of which may be seen at the Estate Office by intending applicants."
      Whether prospective tenants like it or not, unless we accept the new clause, they will be stuck with those partnerships, without protection, rather than the tenancies that we would like to see in rural areas of Scotland.
      Whatever the hon. Member for Dumfries and other supporters of the Duke of Buccleuch might say, I can say with confidence, having met tenant farmers, secretaries of NFU branches and other people all over Scotland, that the system is bitterly resented by tenant farmers in Scotland. It is deliberately and blatantly designed to circumvent the wishes of Parliament about the status of Scottish farming tenants. I suppose that it would have been too much to expect the Government to address themselves to this problem, because to do so would be to dispute the interests of Tory supporters in the Scottish Landowners Federation. It is too much to hope that the Minister or his noble Friend the Minister of State would do anything as enlightened as that.
      I fear that the failure to take this problem on board could render the Bill, which has been heralded as the new dawn for Scottish tenant farmers, a giant flop. It may be a long time before the House has another opportunity to discuss the matter. I support the new clause. I hope and believe

      459
      that before long a Scottish Parliament will be able to frame completely new legislation covering the whole land tenure system in rural Scotland.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): In Committee we had a lengthy discussion on farming partnerships, and we have by and large ploughed the same field today. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has ploughed the field just as badly as he did in Committee. I only hope that his rolling acres on the border are not ploughed half as badly as he has treated this subject both here and upstairs.
      I accept that there is a considerable range of partnership arrangements and that some might not be as satisfactory for the working partner as others, but I do not accept that all those who enter farming by means of a farming partnership do so on impossible conditions imposed by the kind of ruthless landowners that seem to bedevil the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian.
      The Northfield committee of inquiry into the acquisition and occupancy of agricultural land, which reported in 1979, looked into the question of farming partnerships. It found that in many cases partnerships worked well in practice and concluded that legislation to regulate partnerships was not justified. The Government share Northfield's view and are opposed in principle to legislate to end farming partnerships.
      The new clause would effectively end partnerships and almost certainly encourage landowners to take the land into their own hands or to find other ways of having quasi tenancies, as Northfield suggested might be the case. The new clause would not, therefore, lead to any increase in the let sector and would effectively eliminate the opportunity that exists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out, for people to enter farming under a partnership agreement.
      As we have had a brief debate here and a much longer debate in Committee, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the motion.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 2

      VARIATION OF RENT
      Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
      `and
      (iii) at the end there shall be added the words "and any factor arising from a scarcity of subjects available to let".'.
      Mr. O'Neill: One of the recurring themes in Committee was the nature of the deal that was struck between the National Farmers Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. It was assumed that the deal was to be a compromise. There was to be a delicate balance of interests. The landowners were to get so much and the National Farmers Union, in its dual role as a representative of tenants and landowners, would get so much. One of the points in favour of young people wishing to enter farming or anyone seeking a new tenancy was to
      460
      be the abolition of key money. Our understanding is that there is still doubt as to whether new tenants will be adequately protected.
      We tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in an attempt to make clear that
      "any factor arising from a scarcity of subjects available to let"
      would not lead to an increase in the arbitrated rent which would take account of the willingness of individuals to pay over and above the going rate. Initially we were led to believe that key money would be outlawed. We have subsequently been informed, having had an opportunity to speak to the National Farmers Union, that protection would not be afforded by the Bill, as drafted, and that there was still a need for action.
      I accept that the amendment may be imperfect and that we may not have time today to develop the arguments. If the Minister tells me that he is prepared to consider the matter and that it can be dealt with in another place to the satisfaction of all concerned, we shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. We are anxious to get an assurance from the Minister that he will be able to meet the anxieties expressed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland in respect of key money. If he agrees that amendment is necessary—we accept that it may not be possible for him to indicate precisely the nature of the amendment—we would be prepared to take it on trust. I await the outcome of the Government's thinking.
      Mr. Home Robertson: We are paying the price for the haste with which the Bill has passed through Parliament so far. We were informed by breathless representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, after clause 2 had been passed in Committee, that the inclusion of the little word "normally" in clause 2(a)(i) would mean that a coach and horses could be driven through the intention to take the consideration of a premium as a result of a scarcity of farms to let out of the calculation of rents assessed for other farmers in the neighbourhood. We tabled the amendments to ensure that the point would be debated again.
      I was advised yesterday afternoon by Mr. Jock Hunter of the National Farmers Union that he had had further discussions with the Minister, following consultations that the union had had with its legal advisers and others, that seemed to bear out the union's interpretation that the Bill, as drafted, could mean that the premium created by the scarcity of farms to let could remain in the calculation. The provision on key money was the one good thing that led the Opposition not to oppose the Bill in principle. Obviously we would be worried if this intention is defeated because of the curious drafting of the Bill. We understand that the Minister has given an assurance to the National Farmers Union. I invite him to give a similar assurance to the House that, if necessary, appropriate amendments will be brought forward in another place.
      Mr. John MacKay: The intention of the Bill is certainly to provide that the arbiter must look to factors other than evidence of open market rents for comparable subjects in the surrounding area where he is of the view that such evidence as there is is insufficient or unreliable. It was envisaged that the phrase
      "insufficient, or not sufficiently reliable"
      would encompass situations in which there was a scarcity of subjects to let.
      While that is the intention, the Government acknowledge that it is important to ensure that the detailed

      461
      wording of the new statutory formula for determining rent on rent reviews by arbitration is the correct one, since this issue will affect the whole let sector in Scotland for a long time to come. We do not consider that the wording of the amendments is appropriate but, in the light of the discussion in the House today, and the representations we have had from the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation, we propose to re-examine the wording in detail. If, in the light of that reexamination, we consider that clarification of our intention in the Bill is required, we shall arrange for the necessary amendment to be made in another place. Having given that assurance, I hope that we can pass on to the next group of amendments.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: Before the Minister sits down, could he give us a tiny glimpse of what it is about the innocent word "normally" that is not normal in this context?
      Mr. MacKay: I do not want to have a long discussion. There is more involved than the innocent word "normally". There has to be a definition of when things are normal and what scarcity means. That is the complicated issue to which the draftsman will have to turn his mind to ensure that the Bill does what we, the Labour Opposition, other parties in the House and the two parties to the agreement outside the House intended—that the arbiter should be able to consider other factors than simply open market rents.
      I know that the hon. Gentleman has a constituent who is more than a little interested in the matter. He has been lobbying us fairly hard on the subject. I assure him that we have it very much in hand. We hope, if necessary, to put forward amending words in Committee in another place.
      Mr. O'Neill: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
      '(iv) the current economic conditions in the relevant sector of agriculture.";'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in
      clause 1, page 2, line 25, at end add 'in the surrounding area'.
      Mr. MacKay: Clause 2 provides:
      "Where the arbiter is of the view that such evidence as there is of rents in the open market for comparable subjects in the surrounding areas is insufficient, or not sufficiently reliable, to enable him to determine … the rent"
      he can take other factors into account. It was suggested in Committee that that definition was too wide, as agriculture in Scotland encompasses a wide range of sectors. I undertook to consider the matter again and I now propose amendment No. 4, which provides that the criteria shall apply to the sector of agriculture in which the review holding is engaged.
      The Opposition's amendment No. 5 would alter the criteria to consideration of economic conditions in agriculture as a whole as they applied to the area surrounding the holding. The economic conditions factor is intended to enable an arbiter, having examined all the
      462
      available comparisons, to adjust the rent upwards or downwards to take into account my proposed new criterion of the general economic conditions applying in the particular sector of agriculture in which the holding is engaged. The economic conditions factor will be available as an instrument of fine tuning. Although reliable information about the general economic conditions in Scottish agriculture as a whole will be readily available, information limited to a small geographical area is unlikely to be available.
      In the circumstances, and in the light of the debate in Committee, I commend amendment No. 4 to the House. I think that it will meet with approval and I hope that the Opposition will not press amendment No. 5.
      Mr. O'Neill: We tried in Committee to sharpen up the criteria. We suggested this change and the Minister, with characteristic caution, decided to consult his boss in another place before agreeing to it. Nevertheless, we are thankful for small mercies.
      I was interested to hear the language that the Minister used in proposing the amendment. The last thing that I expected from a monetarist Government was any sign of appreciation for things like fine tuning which used always to be associated with Keynesian economics. I am grateful to the Minister, as the amendment goes some way to meeting our criticisms.
      On the point about surrounding areas, I realise that in the context of the new criterion this would be restrictive. When we tabled our amendment, we were not sure what the future position would be. Subject to the discussion, I shall probably be happy not to press amendment No. 5.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am delighted that the Government have agreed to introduce amendment No. 4.
      In rejecting amendment No. 5, the Minister said that the Government did not have information about the agricultural conditions in different areas of Scotland. That is an extraordinary statement. The information must be available not only through the offices of his Department but through the returns to the college of agriculture and the figures made available for the purpose of the census. I do not think that he needs to rest his case on such grounds. Perhaps he will correct any misapprehension that his remarks may have caused.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I thank the Minister for introducing this constructive Government amendment. I may even claim some credit for it as I moved an amendment on this in Committee. I pointed out that the requirement to consider
      "current general economic conditions in agriculture"
      in assessing rents could be harsh on tenants in sectors of the industry that are currently having a bad time. At that time, a large group of pig farmers had come down from Scotland to see us and to tell us of the desperate state of the pig industry in Scotland. It would certainly have been outrageous if the rent of a tenant pig farmer had been shoved up in accordance with the profitability of the cereal sector. We pointed out to the Minister that that could happen under the Bill as drafted. The replacement of the original words by the phrase
      "the current economic conditions in the relevant sector of agriculture"
      is clearly infinitely better. It is also better than the drafting suggested in amendment No. 5, so just for once I simply offer my thanks to the Minister.
      Mr. John MacKay: I wish to respond briefly to one point. It is not the Government but the arbiter who requires the information. If the limitation of geography were added to the limitation of sector in the Government amendment the arbiter would be hard put to define the general conditions in the sector.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      TERMINATION OF TENANCIES ACQUIRED BY SUCCESSION
      Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 27, leave out 'of cases 1, 2, 3, 6 or 7' and insert `case'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'on that ground'.
      Mr. O'Neill: The amendment would include cases 4 and 5 in the list of criteria. It would restore the position so at to require the landlord in every instance to justify his reasons for refusing to grant a continuance of the lease. We believe that that would be more consistent, providing an approach that would cover every situation, and that the amendment will thus improve the Bill.
      Amendment No. 8 widens the criteria to apply the fair and reasonable provision across the board. That, too, would improve the Bill and would permit a consistency of application of the criteria not achieved by the present wording. We believe that the amendment would be helpful in allowing the arbitration and appeals procedures to take place on a footing of equal weight for all the criteria.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I support the amendment. Clause 4 allows the land court to exercise some discretion, as it were, and to grant possession only where a reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. I cannot understand why the Bill as drafted specifically excludes consideration of the resources and training of the tenant. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the amendment would be acceptable to the Government. If the court is to have discretion on all the other points, why should it not have discretion in relation to consideration of the resources and training of the tenant?
      Mr. John MacKay: The Bill as drafted applies the fair and reasonable landlord provision to notices to quit for all cases covering old tenancies and new tenancies with the exception of the criterion of financial resources in case 4 and experience and training in case 5, both for new tenancies. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the fair and reasonable landlord provision to apply to cases 4 and 5.
      In Committee we argued that the financial standing of a successor is a relevant factor in considering suitability to farm the holding effectively, as is his training and experience. It will be for the land court to determine, in the light of its knowledge and experience and in the circumstances of particular cases, whether a successor has sufficient financial resources, or sufficient training and experience, to farm the holding in question with reasonable efficiency. These are the only grounds that relate directly to the suitability and capability of the near relative successor. We consider it appropriate for the land court to take a decision in the light of the evidence before
      464
      it on these grounds alone. That is why we have excluded the fair and reasonable landlord provision from cases 4 and 5. Both sides of the industry agree with this.
      To accept the amendment would be to defeat a small but important purpose of the Bill, and I must ask the House to resist it.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 5

      ARBITRATIONS
      Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 11, leave out from 'arbiter' to end of line 12.
      The amendment is designed to afford an opportunity for a more informal style of arbitration whereby the parties concerned could agree to the appointment of an arbiter without going to the Secretary of State or the land court. We feel that such a provision could well speed up the business. In addition, it might be cheaper and easier to implement. We do not regard this as an issue of great principle—we do not think that it should be enshrined in the holy writ of the agreement between the Scottish Landowners Federation, the National Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries — but we consider it to be a reasonable amendment to which the Government should give sympathetic consideration.
      Mr. John MacKay: As the Bill stands, parties will have a clear choice between agreeing to appoint an arbiter privately to determine the level of rent and rent reviews, in which event they agree in advance to accept the arbiter's decision whatever it may be, or to have the opportunity of appealing against the level of rent determined, in which event they can ask the Secretary of State to appoint an arbiter. That arbiter will be obliged by the Bill's provisions to state in writing his findings of fact and the reasons for his decision.
      6.45 pm
      Parties will therefore have a clear choice of opting for private rent arbitration, in the clear knowledge that: there will be no right of appeal, or for appointment by the Secretary of State, in which case there will be the right of appeal. To provide a right of appeal in all rent review arbitration cases, as proposed by the amendment, would represent a significant and unnecessary statutory intrusion into private arbitration. As the tenant and landlord have the choice of which route to follow, we feel it right to resist the amendment and to leave that choice available to the parties.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'one month' and insert 'two months'.
      After debate in Committee I undertook to review the one-month period and to return on Report with an amendment to extend the period to two months, and that I am doing. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Again, I thank the Minister for this gigantic compromise. He will recall that in Committee I argued that one month was not sufficient to allow a busy working farmer to deal with his paper work. I cited my own experience as a busy working farmer in my time, when it was not unheard of for brown envelopes to lie around in large quantities on my desk, especially at busy times of the year such as harvest time and seeding time.

      465
      As the Bill was drafted, it would have been quite possible for a tenant farmer to find that his appeal against a rent assessment was time barred because of the original excessive restrictions which gave the farmer only one month to give notice of appeal against his rent assessment. A historic compromise is before us, and we should be thankful for small mercies.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      GROUNDS FOR CONSENT TO OPERATION OF NOTICE TO QUIT A TENANCY LET BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1984
      Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 11, at end insert—
      `Provided that this case shall not apply where the tenant has been engaged, throughout the period from the date of death of the person from whom he acquired right to the lease, in a course of relevant training in agriculture which he is expected to complete satisfactority within four years from the said date and has made arrangements to secure that the holding will be farmed with reasonable efficiency until he completes that course.'.
      This is an attempt to make case 1 in part of the schedule the same as case 5 in part II of schedule 1. It is intended to allow a student to continue traning provided that adequate provision is made for the running of the farm during the period of training. This will be possible when the student succeeds to a tenancy following death, or whatever, after 1984. There is every likelihood now that the son of a tenant who in undergoing a course of study would not be allowed to take up the tenancy on completion of his studies. We feel that it would be helpful to put both types of tenancy—the ones in existence before 1984 and those that are post-1984 — on the same footing. We realise that is a relatively short period, but there is no reason why existing tenants should be disdadvantaged against prospective tenants under the new set of arrangements.
      Mr. John MacKay: As has been said, the purpose of the amendment is to apply to existing tenancies the precise safeguard that the Bill will create for new tenancies where the successor is training for agriculture. The safeguard for new tenancies is that the land court shall not consent to a notice to quit if the successor is undergoing agricultural training. For existing tenancies, the safeguard for the young successor undergoing training lies in the requirement set out in existing legislation, as continued by the Bill, which provides that the land court shall consider whether in these circumstances a fair and reasonable landlord would serve a notice to quit.
      Both the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation consider that the existing balance between landlord and tenant should not be disturbed and that the provision of the fair and reasonable landlord gives protection to existing tenancies. For new tenancies we are creating more specifically the new condition. We do not consider that there is any need to change the balance in existing tenancies because the provision of the fair and reasonable landlord acts as the safeguard for any youngster in the position under discussion.
      Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the assurance that the Minister has given on the basis of fair and reasonable landlords, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 16 after 'holding', insert
      `and from any agricultural unit of which the holding forms part'.
      The amendment seeks to do what we tried to do by means of amendment No. 11 in respect of another of the criteria, but in this instance in respect of holdings. We believe that tenants should have the same rights after 1 January 1984 as they have enjoyed previously. If the Minister tells us that fair and reasonable landlords will be operating after 1984, we shall be happy to accept his assurance, although in this area I am not quite sure whether his assurances will be as strong as the previous ones. The amendment is similar in intent. There are seven cases in this schedule. The Opposition felt it preferable to have them all on the same footing before and after 1 January 1984. Were it not for the expedition of this business, the House might have debated longer a previous amendment. In this instance the Minister must come up with something better than he did before. Hope springs eternal.
      Mr. John MacKay: Under the existing legislation, on the death of a tenant a near relative successor cannot be challenged by a notice to quit if other land of at least the size of a two-man unit which he occupied forms part of the same agricultural holding as the holding to which the succession relates. Even though that other land may be geographically separated from the succession holding for future tenancies, it is intended that in these circumstances the successor will be open to challenge if he already occupies another two-man holding whether or not that other holding forms part of the same unit as the holding to which he succeeded.
      I give the example of a father who is the tenant of a farm and his son is a tenant, the owner-occupier or perhaps a partner of another substantial farm larger than a two-man unit, and the son's farm is separated geographically from the father's but both are worked together as one agricultural unit. If the father died, the son as the near relative would succeed to his tenancy. Under existing legislation, the son could not be challenged on multi-occupancy grounds notwithstanding that he was already the owner or occupier of another farm of substantial size because that other farm formed part of the same agricultural unit as the holding to which the succession related.
      While these provisions will continue to apply to existing tenancies, the Government consider that there should be no restriction on new tenancies. Both sides of the industry support that view.
      The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) might accept that in those circumstances the arguments for smaller and different units do not hold. The Government are referring to the position where a big holding forms an agricultural unit with the holding of the person the succession is for. In those circumstances, the Government and the industry think it right that there should be no restriction for future tenancies, although the current restriction will apply to existing tenancies. I trust that, with that explanation and example, the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      6.53 pm
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The purpose of the Bill is to introduce changes in the law governing the relationship between agricultural

      467
      landlords and tenants in Scotland, changes affecting the procedure for determining rent and rent review cases that go to arbitration and the arrangements for succession on the death of a tenant. The legislative changes had their origins in joint proposals by both sides of the industry in Scotland, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation which resulted from their concern about the decline in the number of farms available to let. The Government consider that the legislative measures in this Bill, together with the tax reliefs that we have introduced for let land, will make an important contribution to halting the decline in the let sector and safeguard the traditional landlord tenant system.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      6.54 pm
      Mr. O'Neill: The Opposition gave the Bill a qualified welcome; they continue to be somewhat qualified in their enthusiasm for it. It is clear that the Bill resulted from lengthy negotiations between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation. Occasionally such deals or compromises are given as the reason why there should be virtually no opposition to a Bill. It would be most regrettable to set a precedent establishing that deals agreed outside should become the basis for legislation to which there should be no opposition.
      Although the Opposition accept that the people involved are the best people to be consulted, the House has the final say. It is to that end that the Opposition have tabled amendments and have sought to have discussions on the legislation to ensure that the House, and not outside bodies, decides what legislation governing an important area of agricultural leasing is enacted.
      6.56 pm
      Sir Hector Monro: Hon. Members would not wish the Bill to leave the House without congratulating the
      468
      Government on introducing it. For a long time change has been desired in the structure of farm tenancies in Scotland. When agreement is reached between the Scottish Landowners Federation and Scottish National Farmers Union and chartered surveyors, it is right that we should move, as the Government have done, with commendable expedition. This Bill will be welcomed throughout agriculture in Scotland.
      The Labour Party tends to think that there are no tenants in the Scottish National Farmers Union. It is quite wrong. Meetings have taken place at branch level and at the headquarters of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in which it has expressed views on the proposed legislation. The Bill is a valuable step forward, and I support the Government.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I did most of the speaking in Committee and perhaps it is fitting that I should have the last word on Report.
      The Scottish National Farmers Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation asked for the legislation and have got it. They have prevailed on the Government and the House to give considerable concessions to landlords in respect of rent review periods and of the ability to break the succession of tenancies. I trust that after further amendments are made in the other place tenants will be given some protection from unfair rent increases. The Scottish agricultural community has been given unsubstantiated hope of more tenancies to come. I hope that that works, but I have my doubts. I am not convinced that there is much future in appealing to the good nature of landlords. The track record throughout Scottish history has not been very good on that subject.
      The Bill contains one fatal flaw in its failure to address itself to the abuse of tenancy partnerships. I look forward to returning to the subject of land tenure in Scotland in the near future in a Scottish Parliament.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Northern Ireland (Dogs)
6.57 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
The order is designed exclusively to deal with the problems caused by uncontrolled dogs in Northern Ireland. Those problems were recognised by the United Kingdom working party on dogs to be separate and much more serious than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Part of the order proposes to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that obtaining in Great Britain.
In the Province there has been a great increase in the stray dog population, aggravated by civil disturbances and movements of population. Attacks on people and livestock are far too common. For instance, in 1980 about 600 attacks on people and 820 on livestock were reported to the police, and the Government assume that others were not reported. More recent statistics show that several thousand injuries caused by dogs are treated in Northern Ireland hospitals every year. In the four main Belfast hospitals, the figure was nearly 2,000 for 1982.
Attacks on livestock cause not only terrible suffering to defenceless animals, but cost the fanning industry an estimated £350,000 per year. Losses on that scale have forced some farmers to abandon sheep farming and discouraged others from expanding flocks. This happens particularly on the edge of large towns. In addition, the large number of stray dogs in Northern Ireland frequently lead to traffic hazards, fouled pavements and a general nuisance. Perhaps more seriously, stray dogs can occasionally hinder and prejudice the operations of the security forces.
In recent years the police have been fully engaged in dealing with serious crime and terrorism in the Province and the Chief Constable has not been able to give as high a priority as he would have wished to enforcing the existing licensing legislation. Consequently, licence evasion is widespread. The number of dogs licensed has fallen from 120,000 in the 1950s to only some 46,000 in 1982, and it is thought that fewer than one third of dogs owned in Northern Ireland are licensed. Those statistics underline Northern Ireland's special position and the need for this legislation.
In view of the damage done, it is all the more remarkable that Northern Ireland legislation has fallen behind that of Great Britain in protecting the farmer against the worrying of his livestock. That is also the case with controls over guard dogs and breeding establishments. Therefore, the order would bring Northern Ireland generally in line with Great Britain in those areas. There is also the need for consolidation, since the existing legislation relating to dogs in Northern Ireland is comprised of about two dozen separate measures.
For many years environmental and welfare interests, farmers and the general public have been pressing the Government for the introduction of new legislation in Northern Ireland to alleviate the problems. The problems are caused mainly by inconsiderate owners, some of whom seem to leave their dogs to fend for themselves. That could be largely solved by a more responsible attitude to dog ownership. Therefore, a primary objective in framing the
470
order was to encourage responsible dog ownership as being in the best interest both of society in general and of dogs.
The Northern Ireland proposals would relieve the police of the burden of dog control functions and transfer the responsibility to district councils. It is hoped that this, together with the other new measures proposed, will minimise the number of stray dogs and ensure the licensing and effective control of all other dogs throughout the province. The proposals are based largely on the recommendations of the United Kingdom working party report on dogs, taking due account of the points made in the extensive and wide-ranging consultations with the many interests involved, mainly of course in Northern Ireland, and in the Northern Ireland Committee in November.
I should at this stage point to one of the very significant changes to which I agreed following that Northern Ireland Committee debate. I now propose that district councils should have direct responsibility for licensing and should retain their own revenue from licensing. It was proposed initially that licences would be issued through post offices, with all revenue being channelled into a dog fund operated by the Department and subsequently disbursed to district councils. This would have meant a considerable reduction in the revenue available for dog control, since both Post Office and departmental adminstration costs would have had to be deducted. This is a major change and will, among other things, place an additional responsibility on district councils.
I now deal with some of the main features of the order. The first relates to the cost of a dog licence. Article 7 provides for an increase in the licence fee to £5. I must emphasise that this is not taxation, but a charge or levy specifically required to help finance the new dog control service which is needed to deal with the special problems to which I have referred. It is suggested that the proposed sum is too high. However, anyone who owns a dog will appreciate that even the sum of £5—which works out at as little as lop per week — represents only a small proportion of the overall cost of keeping and feeding a dog. A £5 fee, however, is sufficiently large to make an owner think seriously about taking on the responsibilities of dog ownership and it should make the acquisition of dogs on impulse less likely. A licence fee at this level will have a sobering effect and will help develop a sense of responsibility. If the whole burden of the cost of dog control were, for instance, to be put on the rates, that principle would be lost. We must have effective registration as part of the dog control scheme and a realistic licence fee to cover both administration costs in registration and local authority control services.
We recognise that for elderly people — many of whom are on low incomes—such an increase will mean an extra burden. We therefore considered whether it would be proper to help alleviate that problem. On this, we have been generally guided by the approach followed by Governments of all parties, that the pension should be as high as possible in the circumstances and that elderly people should generally be free to choose how they spend that money, rather than the Government choosing their preferences for them. That should apply to dog licences. On the other hand, where an elderly person is living on his or her own a dog can be very important for companionship, so we propose to make an exception in that case. For persons over 65 living alone there will be

471
a half rate licence. We are taking an age limit which is the same for men and women rather than the different ages at which they become eligible for the state pension. Most of the existing concessions for the elderly apply at age 65 regardless of sex.
We shall also continue the traditional exemption relating to guide dogs for the blind. Various approaches have been made in regard to a similar exemption for the deaf. I do not propose to include such assistance in this order. There are virtually no examples of properly trained dogs for the deaf in Northern Ireland. However, we propose to allow exemptions for such dogs by subordinate legislation as the scheme develops in Northern Ireland. It is not as straightforward a matter as that relating to the blind, since the deaf are a less easily definable group and there are varying degrees of deafness.
There is also the question of those who, for one good reason or another, keep a number of dogs on their premises. We propose a block licence—details are in article 8 —to to cover them. That will be available at a cost of £12·50 to breeders who keep on the same premises three or more unsterilised bitches, any of which is used for breeding, and to owners who keep on the same premises three or more dogs of either sex which are registered with the Kennel Club or other prescribed registering organisation. The block licence will also be available to operators of registered guard dog kennels who keep no fewer than three dogs which are used as guard dogs elsewhere.
If licensing controls are to be effectively enforced it is essential that dogs should be easily identified. To that end article 31 includes powers to prescribe and regulate the wearing by dogs of a collar with the keeper's name and address on the collar, or on a badge attached to the collar, or some other means of identification. The Department may also prescribe and regulate the wearing by dogs of discs or other means of licence identification attached to the collar and make provision for such licence discs to be issued by councils along with the licence.
It is proposed that part of the costs of the scheme should be met initially from the district rates. It is the intention that the rates contribution will be phased out and the scheme will become self-supporting. To that end, both basic and block licences will be reviewed regularly and if necessary adjusted by order subject to affirmative resolution.
It is difficult to estimate the costs of the scheme. It will be up to district councils to assess the size of the problem with which they are confronted and to employ such staff and take such measures as they consider necessary to deal with the problem in their area. I have taken account of the expressed desire of local authorities, and Northern Ireland Members in the Northern Ireland Committee, that councils should be responsible for collecting and retaining the licence fees in their areas, for setting up their own structures and for using their own discretion according to the circumstances of their districts.
As I mentioned earlier, the provision for a central dog fund has been removed from the draft order and district councils will receive the entire revenue from licence fees collected in their areas. District councils may carry out the issue of licences direct from their own offices or may enter into contracts with other agencies, such as the Post Office, as they think fit. Doubtless they will wish to carry out their operations as economically as possible. It is difficult to say what extra staff they will need or what other expenditure
472
will be involved. It is anticipated that the new licensing arrangements and the enforcement activities of council officers will increase the uptake of licences.
We want to discourage the impulse acquisition of dogs, because they are often abandoned after a short period of ownership. I have mentioned the likely effect of a £5 licence fee in this regard, but the order also makes it a requirement for a person, except where exempt, to purchase a licence before taking possession of a dog. Articles 19 and 20 make it an offence on the part of both the person who acquires a dog and the person who sells or gives it away if a licence has not been obtained before the dog changes hands.
The order enables district councils to operate dog control services to collect strays and to enforce the provisions of the order. Article 40 makes it mandatory for councils to employ authorised officers to the extent necessary to deal with the problem and to make provision for stray dogs either through the use of their own pounds or by arrangement with owners of approved kennels.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the money that is raised in fixed penalties go to the local authority?
Mr. Butler: The money that is raised in penalties or fines will flow, as is normal, to the national Exchequer.
The powers conferred on authorised officers in the exercise of their duties include powers to ask the name and address of a person when an offence is suspected and power to require the production of a dog licence. The powers of entry of the authorised officer represent the minimum necessary to enforce the provisions of the order. To prevent a dog from attacking a person, or ending such attack or preventing or ending the worrying of livestock, an authorised officer may enter any land. That power does not extend to a dwelling house or its curtilage.
As to inspection of guard dog kennels or breeding establishments, an authorised officer of the district council may enter such premises only with the consent of the occupier or under the authority of a warrant granted by a resident magistrate.
There has been considerable debate about the extent to which dogs should be kept under control on a leash. I want to be as unrestrictive as possible. Therefore, dogs will have to be kept on a leash only in pedestrian precincts, and, to prevent livestock worrying, on land where livestock are present by right, except when the dog is on the land with the authority of the landowner. However, the order includes reserve powers similar to those in existing legislation to extend the requirements, if necessary, to other roads.
There will be exceptions from those controls for working dogs such as sheep dogs, police dogs or dogs being used in a pack of hounds or for such other purposes as the Department may specify by order.
The order clarifies and reinforces the law on attacks by dogs on people and livestock. It redresses an anomaly in existing legislation which makes it an offence if a dog attacks livestock, but not if it attacks people. In future, attacks on people or livestock will both attract a fine up to a maximum of £200, or £500 if the dog was urged to attack by the owner. There will, of course, be appropriate exemptions for dogs that are used as guard dogs and for police purposes.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is

473
"behaving in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked"
a model interpretation of an animal attacking a person, or is it specific to this order? Does my hon. Friend believe that it is so widely drawn as to lead to misunderstanding in so far as a dog barking at someone could be conceived as a dog that is about to attack?
Mr. Butler: I ask my hon. Friend whether he really believes that his example would be interpreted by the courts as meeting the second part of the definition. I accept that it is not easy to define what constitutes an attack on a person. No doubt the courts will have to interpret as they see fit. However, we believe that the way in which the order is worded should be sufficient to distinguish between those dogs which appear to be about to attack and the type of misunderstandings and fears that might arise in someone of a rather timid nature.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a point that has been raised by others. We intend to monitor that provision in the normal way. Case history will undoubtedly develop. We have considered that point with considerable care. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we cannot tolerate people, let alone livestock, being attacked by dogs. Perhaps not all of the cases of injury that I mentioned have been caused by an attack as is here defined, but the few thousands of injuries that are treated in hospital each year are significant and demonstrate the scale of the problem. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is right to take steps that seem appropriate to overcome that problem.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: I am worried about the phrase "apprehension of being attacked" in the order. Apprehension is not a strong word. I wonder whether the advice that my hon. Friend took when the order was being considered included consultations with people who know and understand dogs.
Perhaps I might give an illustration. The West Highland terrier has a great reputation, through its pedigree, for hunting. I do not believe that hunting has anything to do with it, but, at times, it has a fierce disposition. To its owner, however, it will be a loving and loyal dog. Perhaps I should tell the House that I have a West Highland terrier for which I am responsible. It can pass someone in the street to whom it will take an immediate dislike and make that clear by snarling. A timid person could become worried about the dog, but it has never attacked anyone. If the words
"behaving in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked"
were interpreted literally, and I took my dog on a visit to Belfast, it would be up in court in a matter of hours and be destroyed.
Mr. Butler: I hope that my hon. Friend will visit Belfast and, by all means, he may bring his dog. Should the House approve the order, I hope that the terrible fate that my hon. Friend has described will not befall his dog. If my hon. Friend comes to Northern Ireland and his dog is as he described it, I can only encourage him to keep it on a leash. In that case, the apprehension that even the most timid person might have on seeing my hon. Friend's dog's growling visage and other demonstrations of ferocity will disappear when he sees that the dog is firmly on a leash. That is how we should cope with that.
474
Northern Ireland farmers whose livestock are attacked will in future enjoy the same legal protection as their counterparts in Great Britain. They will be provided with a defence in proceedings arising from the shooting of a dog if the dog was worrying, or about to worry, livestock and there were no reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying, or if the dog had been worrying livestock, had not left the vicinity and could not be identified. Those provisions remove the anomaly in existing Northern Ireland law under which, if a dog that is about to worry livestock is shot, the farmer has a defence only if the dog is shot on hill land. I am sure that the House will recognise the need to bring that legislaion at least into line with British legislation because of the suffering caused to animals and the loss experienced by farmers.
Mr. William Ross: I take it from what the Minister has said that if the less favoured areas were to be extended before this clause came into operation a person inside the new boundary could shoot the dog, whereas he cannot do so at present?
Mr. Butler: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me on that point—he may be talking about a highly hypothetical matter—but I should be glad to seek advice on this issue. Whether the definition presently used for hill land under the relevant legislation would cover an extended area, I do not know. But I shall find out. We cannot say whether or when there will be an extension of the less favoured areas. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point, because it may prove to be of benefit in the event of such an extension if this legislation is not implemented.
The order also introduces controls on guard dogs and breeding establishments similar to those in the Guard Dogs Act 1975 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. In Northern Ireland, however, controls will be based on registration by district councils as opposed to the licensing system in Great Britain. It is not proposed to charge a registration fee, but establishments will be subject to certain standards and to inspection. Guard dogs are widely used in the present security context in Northern Ireland. For that reason, and on police advice, it has been decided not to implement immediately the powers to require the presence of handlers on premises where guard dogs are used. It is considered sufficient in the meantime to require the registration of guard dog kennels and the posting of warning notices. However, those provisions will not apply to the dog on domestic premises that may occasionally operate as a "guard dog".
The working party report highlighted certain weaknesses in the Breeding of Dogs Act. It reported that requirements were evaded by the farming out of bitches to other premises, that local authorities had no powers to inspect unlicensed premises being used for breeding purposes and that there is no provision at all for puppy farms where puppies are reared for sale or export. In addition, the Act covers breeding for sale only. The provisions of the order are designed specifically to overcome those shortcomings.
To ease pressure on the present overworked courts system in Northern Ireland, the order extends the fixed penalty procedure to certain offences under the order. In addition, it will apply to offences under the Control of Greyhounds Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 and fouling offences where byelaws are made under the Local

475
Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. In line with the recommendations of the working party, penalties for licensing offences should have a deterrent value, being fixed at three times the current licence fee, or £25, whichever is greater. For other offences to which a fixed penalty relates the level will be £10. The system will work as other fixed penalty systems, of which the most obvious example is the traffic penalty
I have already covered some of the points in the order where amendments were introduced after public consultation and consideration by the Northern Ireland Committee. The changes that give district councils direct responsibility for the issue of licences and remove the need for the administration of a central dog fund by the Department have been warmly welcomed by the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland. We have also gone some considerable way to meet the views of dog-owning interests. For example, article 7 has been amended to provide for wider consultation with interested parties on changes in licence fees. The block licence concession has been extended to include dogs registered with organisations other than the Kennel Club, which will be listed in subordinate legislation.
We have re-examined the control of dogs on roads under article 25 and have decided to take a more flexible approach, initially restricting the requirement to put the dog on a leash to pedestrian precincts, with the option to extend to other roads if necessary.
There has been great pressure from many interests for several years seeking new dog control legislation. We hope that this order, which is designed to encourage responsible dog ownership, will make a major contribution towards solving the serious dog control problems in Northern Ireland.
Naturally, there have been questions about whether this legislation is likely to be extended to Great Britain. We have been asked whether it is a precursor of further legislation. Let me make it plain, as has been done on several occasions in the House by the Ministers responsible, that the Government have no plans so to do.
Miss Janet Fookes: Pity.
7.25 pm
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Today we are coming to the end of a long road, because the implications of this Bill have been around in Northern Ireland since about 1975. The legislation has gone through a long consultative process, and the Minister has found out, just as I did, that once one starts the consultative process that is required for Northern Ireland legislation it becomes hard to end it. However, the Minister has decided to end the consultation and to bring this Bill before the House.
I do not complain about the fact that there have been long consultations. My only complaint is that the Minister did not take into consideration all our suggestions in Committee. For the first time in decades the House is debating dog legislation. In Committee we had a good consultative debate, and I am sorry that it did not attract more attention in the media in the rest of the United Kingdom, if only because of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who told us about some of the problems with the dog population in Northern Ireland. No one will quibble with the Minister's figures for the number of strays. In Northern Ireland stray dogs do not
476
just go about in platoons or companies; in some areas they are almost at battalion strength, whether they are green or orange dogs.
Some of those who were involved in consultations with the Government told me that they were worried because not all of their suggestions had been taken on board. Their main anxiety is that, since this is the first such Bill, it should be monitored tightly for some time. We are travelling into the unknown with this Bill and some people are worried that dogs may be picked up and destroyed at very short notice. The British Veterinary Association believes that five days is a relativey short time. There is also worry about article 33 whereby dogs attacking or about to attack people can be lifted, summarily tried, and executed very quickly indeed. Those are just some of the issues that have emerged from the public's response.
Mr. Bowden: During the early stages of the order, did the right hon. Gentleman have consultations with and seek advice from people who know and have compassion, love and understanding for dogs? If so, whom did he consult?
Mr. Concannon: There is doubt that the problems in Northern Ireland portrayed by the Minister are correct. They first came to our attention in 1975 during discussions with the National Farmers Union and various other bodies in Northern Ireland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all those bodies that wanted to talk to the Minister were allowed to do so. Some bodies have approached me about areas with which they are not happy, but they are matters of detail. The British Veterinary Association still wants the order to be passed.
I do not disagree with the way in which the order deals with the problems in Northern Ireland. It is necessary to bring the legislation up to date. Northern Ireland has a large problem with strays and people who do not license their dogs. However, that does not apply only to Northern Ireland. There has been a meeting of the Select Committee on Public Accounts since our last debate when certain suggestions came from the House. I was surprised to find that they came down on the side of the Committee and against the Government on the financial aspects of dog licensing. Some high-powered people appeared before the Select Committee on Public Accounts—Mr. Gordon S. Downey, CB, Comptroller and Auditor General; Mr. C. H. A. Judd, Treasury Officer of Accounts; and Sir George Moseley, KCB; Mr. G. Wedd, and Mr. J. Parker from the Department of the Environment. The Committee dealt with the problem of dog licensing in the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall return to that later, but I want to stress that we have no complaints about the legislation for dog control.
I thank the Minister for making local councils responsible for dog licences rather than the Department of Agriculture. That is where the responsibility should belong in Northern Ireland. However, as I have warned the Minister, if we are not careful we shall spoil the impact of the order in Northern Ireland unless we are seen to he treating the people of Northern Ireland fairly and justly.
The Minister said that over 50 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland do not buy licences. It would have been much better if he had said that over 50 per cent. of all the people of the United Kingdom do not buy licences. There is a problem of strays in the rest of the United Kingdom as well as in Northern Ireland. Although other areas might not have the pack problem of Northern Ireland, either in

477
company or battalion strength, the problems in the United Kingdom are not unlike those of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) stays she will learn a lot about the problems from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and no doubt enjoy his speech at the same time.
I am worried about the financial aspects of the Bill. There are only two directions in which we can go. I said in Committee that dog licensing was first introduced to raise revenue. Over the past four years dog licences have cost the Exchequer £7 million. We have now reached the ludicrous position where this year the revenue from dog licences in the United Kingdom will be only £1 milion while the cost of the licensing service will be £4 million —a loss to the Exchequer or the British taxpayer of £3 million.
I accept, as the Minister said, that this is a Northern Ireland order. I also know that if legislation works well in Northern Ireland there is a temptation to introduce it elsewhere. We learned that on the economic front. There is always that danger. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why we are going to spoil the order for a pittance. I can understand why the Minister says that it would teach people to be good dog owners and lovers. But to increase the fee in Northern Ireland to £5 when it will be only 37½p in Britain—7s 6d as I still call it—will strike the people of Northern Ireland as being unfair, no matter how the Minister dresses it up.
The Minister says that the money will be for the administration of the scheme by local councils but we read on the back page of the Public Accounts Committee report:
"The whole cost of the Post Office agency, even for collection and handing over the licence money to the local authorities, is borne by the Department of the Environment."
The subsidy and the £7 million that has been lost in dog licensing throughout the United Kingdom have been borne by the United Kingdom taxpayer. We are now going to charge the people of Northern Ireland £5 for dog licences whose cost will remain at 7s 6d elsewhere. Fewer rather than more people will buy dog licenses at £5. However, people in Northern Ireland are also taxpayers. I have a dog for various reasons—security being one—and I have a licence for it. Like me, it probably has more courage than sense. The last thing that I want is for the people of Northern Ireland to subsidise my dog licence through their taxes. Not only will they be charged £5 for their dog licences but they will contribute to the Exchequer by paying their whack of the £3 million shortfall into the kitty to supplement my dog licence.
Mr. Marlow: Is not the case really somewhat different? As my hon. Friend said, this money will be used to pay for the dog- warden enforcement scheme, but the money will not even be sufficient to pay for that scheme. There are dog wardens in certain districts of the United Kingdom. At present those schemes are paid for wholly by the ratepayer. The difference between this scheme and schemes in the rest of the United Kingdom is that one is by being paid for by the dog-owning public and the other is being paid for by the ratepayer. Is it not fair to argue that the dog-owning community should be more involved than ratepayers as a whole?
Mr. Concannon: The hon. Member can dress it up as he likes, but to the 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland this will be the big bad Westminster Government putting a fast one over the people of Northern Ireland. It will be as simple and as plain as that. They will think that they are again being unfairly treated. We can scoff at the licence being £5 and we can knock it down to this, that, or the other a week, but for me it is not worth the aggro and never was. We are discussing only a pittance. Even the £7 million shortfall over four years is only a pittance.
The cost of the dog licence could be increased to cover the fee collecting and so on, which would mean a substantial increase in the cost of the licence not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom. But, as the report of the Public Accounts Committee says, Governments have dodged the issue. We are told that it is not a priority. If it is not a priority, surely it cannot be a priority in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to spoil the Bill. I want the Bill to come into operation and I know that the people of Northern Ireland—farmers and everyone else—want it to come into operation. But I do not want it and its application to be spoilt by the people of Northern Ireland thinking that they are being unfairly treated. I made this point in the Committee. I am sorry that it has been taken up because I thought that this was a perfect opportunity, for the first time, to examine the current licence fee of 37½p and to give a lead to the rest of the United Kingdom.
My opinion is that we should forget the £1 million a year collected for dog licences and to deal with this in another way. There are other ways of doing it. More than 100 local authorities in the United Kingdom have a dog warden service. The cost on the rates is negligible. The legislation is necessary and is wanted by the people of Northern Ireland, but let us not botch it by imposing an unfair financial burden. The people of Northern will see it as an unfair financial burden but we will regard £5 a year as not very much. But it will be £5 in Northern Ireland and 37½p over here. The people of Northern Ireland will see it as the Government being vindictive to them.
Mr. Adam Butler: I listened with care to the right hon. Member in Committee and today to discover what he would do. He seemed to indicate that he would put all the cost on to the rates in Northern Ireland. Will he confirm that that would be his policy?
Mr. Concannon: There are ways and means by which it could be done. It could come straight from the Exchequer. This year, £4 million will flow straight from the Exchequer to the dog lovers of the United Kingdom, and we will not do a thing about it. Yet in Northern Ireland we will do something, because we will make the people of Northern Ireland pay for a service for which we in the rest of the United Kingdom will not pay. The Department of the Environment will foot the bill. That is the difference. It will be paid for by the Department of the Environment which, by the end of this year, will, over the past four years, have paid £7 million to the Post Office for doing it.
Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman is complaining about the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Yet, at the same time, he says that an Exchequer grant should be given to pay for the service in Northern Ireland. What will the right hon. Gentleman say to the district councils in the

479
United Kingdom which have dog warden schemes? Should they be paid for by Exchequer grant as well? If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be consistent, he must be wholly consistent.
Mr. Concannon: That is what I am trying to be. The people of Northern Ireland are part and parcel of the United Kingdom. They should not be treated differently. They have different problems but, financially, they should not be treated differently.
Dog owners have been subsidised this year by the Department of the Environment—there are no ifs and buts about that—to the tune of £4 million, or £7 million over four years. Governments — I am sure that the Labour Government was the same—do not consider this matter to be a priority. It is small beer—a few million pounds; it is not worth the hassle.
Although the legislation is necessary for Northern Ireland, I do not want it to get off on the wrong footing with the people of Northern Ireland. I argued this in Committee. Unfortunately, judging from the responses of the people of Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same response will come from other quarters after I have sat down—this is exactly what will happen. The people of Northern Ireland will see this as a penal form of taxation which does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Not only will we in the rest of the United Kingdom be subsidised, but people tend to forget that those who are in work in Northern Ireland are also taxpayers. They pay their share of what is paid by the Department of the Environment for our subsidised dog licences. It might not be much, but the fact that they contribute to it will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland.
I did not wish to speak at length, but I thought it important to tell the Minister that I am sorry, after all this time, that we are still arguing about the financial aspects. But for the financial aspects the order would have gone through on the nod. A short five-minute speech from each side of the House would have been enough to see it through.
Mr. Marlow indicated dissent.
Mr. Concannon: No? I am going on my experience of Northern Ireland orders that go through late at night. I am sorry that I still find myself standing at the Dispatch Box pointing out the financial penalties that will be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland, even though I want this legislation. I know that it is needed in Northern Ireland, and I did not want it to be sullied by disagreement over the financial aspects. After all, the cost could come out of the petty cash tin of the Department of the Environment; it represents hardly anything in cash terms. But here we are, having an unnecessary argument about it.
I should be only too delighted if the Minister would see his way to considering the financial aspects again. I would then wish the order well. I hope that it will help to solve the problems and to prevent some of the terrible attacks that take place not only on animals but on individuals and property in Northern Ireland. Even if the Minister did not take notice of what we said in Committee, I should have thought that he would take notice of the report of the Public Accounts Committee on dog licences. If he had done so, I am sure that he would have proposed a different means of financing the scheme.
7.50 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden: As the House will know, I rarely intervene on Northern Ireland affairs. I do so tonight because I believe there are wider long-term implications involved in the draft order. I have an interest to declare in that my wife and I have responsibility for the care and control of a West Highland terrier. It is a lively dog which at times tends to be rather aggressive, which is inevitable with a dog coming from a breed trained to hunt—not that I have or will use my dog for hunting.
I am appalled at some of the proposals in the order. There is no doubt that many people feel that it is bound to be used as a prototype in future for the rest of the United Kingdom. An article in Dog World of 6 August 1982 states:
"These proposals are of far wider significance than Northern Ireland alone. If they go through, then close attention may well be paid to them in the rest of the United Kingdom."
The order must have been drafted by a person with an almost pathological hatred of dogs—at the very least, with little understanding and knowledge of them. The impression has been given that the order is supported by various groups and organisations, veterinary surgeons, and so on. An organisation which has not so far been mentioned is the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the president of which, Mr. Desmond J. Thompson, in a letter dated 28 March 1983, told me:
"I stress that as a profession we are in favour of the sensible control of dogs, but when one links the definition of 'attacking a person' with the ultimate penalty of automatic death of the animal, then I feel that this is unacceptable in any legislation on dog control."
That is what the order will mean.
I was unconvinced by the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my intervention. In effect, he said, "If you have a dog on a lead in Belfast, a situation could not arise where anybody in the street would have a sufficient degree of apprehension so that the court might, if the case were brought before it, take action under the draft order." With respect, he does not understand dogs and he certainly does not understand West Highland terriers. I could have my dog on a lead, under control—this has happened in Brighton—and, because the lead is a certain length and the pavement is narrow and the dog might not like the hat being worn by the person coming towards us, it will make that clear by leaping forward, thereby probably showing its aggressive instincts, snarling and showing its teeth. Its bark is there rather than its bite.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Never take it to Brighton's nudist beach.
Mr. Bowden: That is an unfair intervention. I am being serious.
The action that I have described could cause serious apprehension to a person who did not like or understand dogs. There could be cases of malicious intent arising out of such circumstances.
When elderly dog owners study the order, it will cause them concern because in Northern Ireland their dogs could be brought before the court. I do not want to sound over-sentimental, but for many people in Northern Ireland—indeed, throughout the United Kingdom—dogs provide companionship and friendship. For those on their own, the elderly, and for those who have lost their families and relations, dogs can be the only thing life is worth living for, and the House should give due weight to that.

481
I believe that animals have rights and that the order is an attack on the rights of one group of animals. Nobody, in or outside the House, would do other than support sensible controls and responsible dog ownership. It is disgraceful that some owners should allow their dogs to foul pavements, not keep them properly under control on leads in the streets and allow them to endanger life by letting them run loose in the roads. The most severe penalties should be imposed to prevent that happening. Keeping dogs under control is vital because they can, and sometimes do, cause accidents and put human life at risk. That group represents a minority of dog owners, and they should not be used as the basis for an attack on the animals collectively.
We have discussed the costs. On 13 April the RSPCA wrote to me about that, saying:
"There is real concern in Ulster, which we are unable to appreciate fully over here, that the Ulster SPCA—currently caring for all the stray dogs in the province on behalf of the Ulster Constabulary—will be replaced as the 'agent' by more than a score of district councils, each having its own shelter."
The implications are interesting. I do not want to be over-humorous or to put into context something that is fundamentally serious, but one can almost hear somebody claiming that dogs will have to be segregated into Protestants and Catholics.
Mr. Fitt: I was going to suggest that.
Mr. Bowden: It would be utterly ludicrous for anybody to suggest that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would not really suggest it.
I was not convinced by my hon. Friend's closing comments that the order would not at some time in future apply to other parts of the United Kingdom. He said that there were no plans for that to happen, but we have heard that from Governments in the past, only to find plans emerging a few years later because of so-called changing circumstances or experience in other parts of the United Kingdom. I warn the Minister that if any such order were introduced to apply to any other part of the United Kingdom — including Brighton — he would have a tremendous battle on his hands.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not only monitor the order carefully but will assure us that within one year there will be a full and detailed review of it, with a report to Parliament on how it has been operating and that, unless the House is satisfied that it has been operating effectively, immediate changes will be made.
7.59 pm
Mr. William Ross: The order has made a great deal of interesting progress since it first appeared on the Order Paper. That progress has resulted in a rather more acceptable system of dog control than that which was first proposed. After the public consultation period, the Minister produced no fewer than six pages of proposed amendments. After the Northern Ireland Committee met and discussed them, the proposed amendments reappeared, but this time there were more than seven pages of them. That would not have happened if the folk who are affected by the order and hon. Members had been satisfied with the proposal as it first appeared.
We who represent the people of Northern Ireland are still not satisfied with the present form of the order. Like
482
the curate's egg, it is good in parts. The order does a number of things which need to be done, but it still has serious deficiences. It is a classic example of the evils of direct rule. If the order had appeared not as an Order in Council but as a Bill, it would have had a proper Committee stage and many of the matters to which we object would have been deleted by argument and vote. However, that is not the case. We are left now with an order which has serious deficiences, some of which may prove fatal.
On 24 March I met farmers from the Coleraine area who had recently suffered considerable loss from sheep worrying. There were 50 or 60 people at the meeting. When I asked how many of them had suffered loss or damage as a result of dogs attacking their flocks, all except two held up their hands. I said, "You are very lucky, aren't you?" They said, "Actually, no. We do not keep sheep. We came along to see what the meeting was about." The rest of the people at that meeting were there because they had suffered loss or damage. One would find much the same result wherever a meeting of farmers was held in Northern Ireland. At some time, every sheep farmer can expect the unwelcome attentions of killer dogs.
However, those farmers were practical men. They understood the limitations of the law and what could and could not be done. I pointed out to them that this was a control of dogs order, not a sheep protection order. Once that is clear, one begins to look at the subject rather more carefully than when one is embroiled in the emotional sight of dead sheep and lambs. Once the farmers saw that, they began to question the strengths and weaknesses of the order as I believe it has not been questioned in the Department of Agriculture or by the leaders of the National Farmers Union.
I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to bring the livestock protection section of the order—articles 28 to 30 — into operation within two months of the order being approved. He intends, apparently, to bring the remainder of the order into operation bit by bit. I wonder whether he will monitor the effects of each step before introducing the next. I believe that he would be wise to do that. I wonder whether there will be a review of the order in future. I shall return to that point, because the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) did not express a view about it.
Farmers in Northern Ireland have expressed the fear that there may be further delay in the implementation of the order. However, the main problem is not delay, but how the law will be enforced. That is the crux of the matter. One speaker at the meeting to which I referred commented that a mountain of paper, no matter how well-intentioned, would not stop one sheep-worrying. We shall want to see how the law is enforced and how well it carries out its basic purpose of ensuring responsible dog ownership and, although it is not spelt out clearly, reducing the large numbers of dogs which are at present running around in Northern Ireland. There is no point in closing our eyes to the fact that one of the order's primary objects is to reduce the dog population.
There is difficulty in identifying a killer dog. How does one know that a dog likes mutton until it has sampled a live sheep? There is no way. I speak as a practical farmer. No one can identify a dog that will kill before it kills. All farmers who keep sheep have a simple straight forward view of that. They say, "Every dog is a potential killer." I believe that that is accurate. All dogs, whether small or

483
large, are natural hunting animals. All dogs are potential killers and, in certain circumstances, will become killers of livestock. There is no point in saying, "My dog is perfectly well behaved. He would not touch a flea." In different circumstances, that dog can become a thoroughly vicious and dangerous animal. The most dangerous sheep-killing dogs are sheepdogs, because they know precisely what they are doing.
How is it intended to enforce legislation? Councils, the regions or perhaps the Ulster SPCA will provide wardens. Dog wardens will be employed, given a status and, I assume, some training and certain hours during which they are supposed to carry out their duties. If my reading of the position is right, some councils will expect them to work part-time only as dog wardens.
It is essential that there should be guidelines as to the type of people who are to be employed on this work. They must be carefully selected. I believe that they must have an understanding of animals, especially dogs, before they can do their job properly. The guidelines must ensure uniformity in the type of people employed on this important work.
There must be training for dog wardens or dog catchers. I do not know how the Minister or the councils will go about that aspect of the work. I fear that the dog wardens will learn on the job. I do not believe that that is satisfactory. I assume that regulations will be drawn up governing the employment and training of dog wardens. I should like an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to consider those regulations before wardens are employed.
A warden will require to have not only his working hours defined, but a certain amount of equipment. Among the items of equipment that the man or woman will need will be a vehicle to get round the countryside. Whenever he arrives at a farm where sheep-killing is taking place, he will be confronted with the problem of catching the dog. The farmer or his servant can go out and shoot a dog that is worrying, is about to worry or has just stopped worrying livestock. Can the warden do the same thing? If not, how is he to get his hands on the dog, which has no particular desire to be caught? It is not an easy task. If the warden sees the dog in the distance and cannot catch it, the farmer will shoot it. We are blinding ourselves to the realities and the practicalities of how the thing will work on the ground if we try to deny that point.
What will be the cost of this service? I assume that since we last discussed this matter in November, in the light of all the discussions that took place in the Committee and all the discussions and correspondence there have been on the subject, the Minister has had a very careful survey carried out into the actual cost of the service. Therefore, fresh figures must be available. My understanding is that the £5 licence is expected to cover half of the total cost. I wonder what the long-term situation will be. For how long will councils be expected to get half the money from the licence fee and the other half out of the rates?
What is to be the role of the police in this matter? It has already been said that the Chief Constable and his men are otherwise employed. We appreciate that the RUC is employed on more serious matters than catching sheepdogs and controlling other dogs in Northern Ireland, but the police have a role to play. I strongly suspect that, no matter how many dog wardens we employ, the police will still have a large and important role to play.
484
One aspect that seems to have been ignored is that there is a substantial shift of responsibility from the police to the dog wardens and the councils, including a shift of responsibility for keeping and caring for dogs that are taken into custody, as it were. Until now the RUC has been paying the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for caring for and for going out and picking up unwanted animals. They are taken into the society's kennels, kept there for a time and then given to a new owner or destroyed. For this the police pay a sum of money each year to the society. How much is spent on that at the present time? It might be rather more than we think. Certainly it should be enough to cover the cost. I assume it must be, because I do not see how the society could carry on with the task unless its costs were covered.
The £5 tax is not only an assigned revenue but an open-ended commitment. It is, I believe, a most dangerous commitment which is to be put on the shoulders of the dog owners, because, as I have already said, it is intended that eventually the licence fee will cover the total cost of the service.
A number of possibilities flow from this position. We can have at one end of the scale a completely gold-plated dog warden service which will have 100 per cent. effective control of dogs and cost what the gold-plating indicates — a very high sum indeed; a direct tax on the dog owners of Northern Ireland. Alternatively, we can have an extremely poor dog warden service which will be totally ineffective and bring the law into disrepute.
I should like to go further than the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). If the total cost of this service were placed on the shoulders of the councils and the councillors, I believe that they would take a far more responsible attitude. As long as the councils can say that the dog owners must pay, there will be pressure on the council to provide the gold-plated service. On the other hand, in a town where there is pressure from rising rates, there will be pressure in the other direction—to have a poor service.
I compare town and country in this context. The council with a large rural hinterland will be under pressure from the farmers and stockholders. That will be the paramount pressure on such a council. In the towns, however, the pressure will be the other way. It will be from the ratepayers, who will be seeking to keep the rates down, whether or not the dogs are controlled. It is wonderful what another £5 or £10 on the rates can do to a person's willingness to put up with dog dirt on the streets. I believe that most people in the towns would resent the increase in the rates which would be necessary to pay for the service. In either case, pressure on the council is not, I believe, likely to make it show responsibility, for it is the wrong sort of pressure.
If the cost falls totally on the rates, the councils, individually and collectively, and possibly even on party political lines—but that does not matter—can make a judgment as to what is needed and reasonable in the circumstances of their own areas.
A point was made earlier about the taxation problems of councils here. The point about the rates, which apparently was missed by the Minister, lies in the fact that the rates burden is directed to the problem within the council area. It is not general taxation throughout the United Kingdom; it is pinpointed on their own locality.
Mr. Adam Butler: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman made a remark to the effect that the councils would be able to tell the dog owners that they would have to find more money. If I understood him correctly, he appeared to be suggesting that district councils would be able to dictate the level of the licence fee. That, of course, is incorrect. The licence fee would be adjusted by the Department in the light of the costs of the whole operation. There would be no question of dictation.
Secondly, as part of his argument the hon. Gentleman instanced the larger town, where the tendency would be for the rates to be kept down because of the pressures from ratepayers. In those circumstances, surely it would be better to have sufficient income through a licence fee to encourage that particular council to run an efficient service rather than to succumb to the pressures of the ratepayers to do the minimum necessary.
Mr. Ross: Having studied the order with some care, I appreciate that the power to raise the licence fee does not lie with the councils. Is the Minister seriously saying that he can easily match that power, which lies in his hands, with the view expressed elsewhere that in the long run it is expected that the licence fee will meet the full cost? This means that there are going to be a lot of dogs licensed for £5 or the fee is going to go up if, as I understand it, at the present time the £5 licence will cover only half the cost.
Is the Minister saying that the Department will stand up to all the councillors in Northern Ireland if they arrive at its doorstep saying that the service is costing them X pounds in rates, the licence fee is not big enough and that they must have more money?
To aid my contention, I shall cite firearms certificates in Northern Ireland. Some years ago, before the price started to rise, a firearms certificate cost 7s. 6d. It now costs about £25 or £20 for a new firearms certificate or £13 or £14 for a renewal. That rise is far above the inflation rate in Northern Ireland and far above a reasonable cost of covering the service. That shows what can happen when one starts building a little empire for the control of any item that a person has, whether it be a gun or a dog.
I know that arguments can be made for firearms certificates, but the arguments for the high cost of firearms fees are no more valid than the arguments that will be put forward in a few years when dog licence fees rise to the same level. However, councils have only to use their best endeavours to provide a reasonable service. That attitude can cover a multitude of sins.
Another aspect of the financing of the dogs order is fines and fixed penalties. Councils will not receive fines or fixed penalties. However, as they are a direct result of the activities of their work force, I wonder whether it would be a means of getting further finance for the service if in some way the fines could be given back to the councils. Would that help the councils in the financing of the scheme? Will the Minister make it possible to pay fixed penalties, not only to the clerk of petty sessions but to the local council officer? At any rate, councils might be able to charge a collection fee, as the Post Office intended to do.
The concern of the British Veterinary Association has already been mentioned. That body has written to all of us who are concerned with the order. It says:
"Article 2(2), 'Attacking a Person' (a) and (b) together with Article 33(1) order that a dog which has attacked a person must be destroyed. A dog may however attack a person who
486
deliberately sets out to enrage it or may attack a person because its owner incites it to do so. In these circumstances the dog is not at fault and destruction is not an appropriate punishment".
That is an accurate statement of fact. In other words, the poor dog will be bumped off because its owner is a particularly nasty character and probably should not have a dog anyway. That is the danger that is always present in mandatory sentencing of any description, whether it is for an animal or a human being. When the sentence is mandatory, the courts lose their discretion and the right to order a lesser punishment.
The BVA also states:
"Also, nervous individuals may imagine a dog is going to attack when it is merely recognising their presence"—
I assume by barking or something. It further states:
"The Order could make cognisance of these considerations possible if the definition under Article 2(2)(a) was worded as an unprovoked attack upon the person and Article 2(2)(b) was worded as behaving in such a manner as to cause a reasonable person apprehension of being seriously attacked".
The hon. Member for Kemptown said that he had a terrier and that some people might be frightened when that dog behaved in a certain fashion. However, if, instead of a terrier, he had an Alsatian or an Irish Wolfhound and it growled, many more people would be frightened. Therefore, we must consider not only the dog's behaviour but its size, its appearance and whether that breed has an evil reputation, as Alsatians have.
I would be frightened of some dogs growling and barking at me, but I would not be in the slightest frightened of other dogs. How can someone go to court, even a perfectly honest person, and say, "That dog barked at me and I thought that it was going to bite." One cannot say that. Some people might have malicious intent or might be easily frightened. In either case, the poor old dog will suffer unjustifiably either for the sins of the person who is setting out to tempt or enrage it or because a person is of an exceedingly nervous disposition. A young man of 18 or 20 is not likely to be as easily frightened of a barking dog as an old lady of 70.
There is also the problem of young dogs, which like to play and gambol about. A young dog will often run up to a child, excitedly wagging its tail, and then knock the child down. The child goes home screaming and the parents complain that the dog has attacked their child when the animal has done nothing of the sort. Under the terms of the order that dog would be sentenced to death. This is not a light matter. It cannot easily be resolved, unless discretion is given to the courts.
One could say a great deal more about the order. I shall restrict myself to a few brief comments on one or two of the articles. Under article 23, a dog might be destroyed within five days, yet elsewhere the order states that a person has seven days in which to produce a licence. I do not see why the poor dog should not be given an extra two days to live. It would not cost very much. Perhaps in the intervening period the owner would turn up.
In article 50 there is a curious difference between paragraphs (a) and (b). In (a) it says that a council may make a charge
"for the collection and disposal of an unwanted dog".
In (b) it says that it may
"make a payment of such amount as the council may determine in respect of the sterilisation of a dog".
This seems to impose a charge and make a grant for essentially the same purpose—the reduction of the dog population. For the council to make a charge for the collection and disposal of an unwanted dog is a foolish

487
proposal which I missed last time but which has since been brought to my attention. The more I have thought about it, the more certain I am that councils should not make a charge for the service.
If there is to be a charge for getting rid of an unwanted dog, far too many irresponsible people will just chuck the dog in the boot of the car, drive 20 miles into the country and throw it out. If they knew that the local council would dispose of the dog for nothing, they would be willing to ask it to make arrangements to do so. As a result, dogs would not be let loose in the countryside. This will be especially important in the first few years of the operation of the order when people who have just tolerated dogs will want to get rid of them. The Government should not make a charge and pay a subsidy under the same article for the purpose of reducing the dog population.
I welcome quite a few of the provisions, not least the fact that in large measure this is a consolidation order. I welcome particularly that a licence will be necessary before someone can purchase a dog. Some folk think that this will not stop impulse buying, but I believe it will and that it is a step in the right direction. The increase in penalties is also satisfactory. If penalties were to remain low, there would be no incentive for people to care for their dogs.
I also welcome wardens, although my welcome for them is more lukewarm than for the other two items. Wardens are needed, especially when the police are so much involved in other things. There will be at least one warden or perhaps two wardens in most council areas trying to control the dog problem and check on licences. A large part of their duties will be to ensure that dogs are licensed. Above all, the wardens and the police will need the support of the courts when those who transgress are prosecuted. The legislation cannot do the job for which it has been designed unless penalties are imposed. If they are not imposed, the order will be nonsense. Some of it may turn out to be nonsense in any case.
Since we last discussed the subject in the Northern Ireland Committee the Minister has gone halfway to making this a pretty good order and control mechanism. If he had gone the whole way and put the entire cost on the rates, perhaps retaining 30p more as a registration fee than as a licence, it would have been better. Even if dog licences were abolished, there would still have to be a system of registering dogs. There is no point in trying to control them if there is no record of their owners. If the Minister had left the licence fee at 30p, or even if he had brought in a slightly higher registration fee, I would not have complained. Because he is putting half of the cost on the rates and doing half by means of what is essentially a tax, I have grave difficulty in supporting the order.
For many years people have wanted something to be done about dogs in Northern Ireland. Because of all the argument, discussion, consultation and the nonsense that has been talked at times, and the emotion about sheep being killed and dogs attacking children, everyone expected far too much. Expectations were raised to an unwarranted level. We are now slowly but surely coming back down to earth, realising not only the implications but the severe limitations of the order.
It is extremely difficult to devise sensible laws for the control of dogs. They are the only large, carnivorous hunting animals to be kept in large numbers of homes. They are different from cats, because they are trainable. They are also much bigger and stronger—big enough
488
and strong enough to attack and seriously injure not only livestock but human beings. They are in a special category in may ways because they are so easily trainable, but ultimately they retain the wild hunting instinct which makes them extremely difficult to control.
This legislation will stand or fall on how well it is enforced and on the extent to which it reduces the number of dogs. It will stand or fall on practicalities rather than theory. With all respect to the hon. Member for Kemptown, to whom I listened with interest, we shall not know how well it is doing its job in 12 months. It is likely to be at least three years before we can judge, but al the end of that time we shall need a thoroughgoing and detailed investigation into its effectiveness throughout the Province. Such a review is especially necessary if the Minister is correct in his assessment that it will riot be extended. It is all very well for the Government to say that they do not intend to use this as a pilot scheme for the rest of the United Kingdom. It will certainly not be accepted as a pilot scheme if it fails, but if it proves effective the extension of the relevant parts of it to Great Britain will follow as surely as night follows day. One cannot escape that conclusion.
I dislike many aspects of the order, especially the financing arrangements, but I welcome certain other provisions. Had it been a Bill that we could debate and amend, great improvements could have been made, but we are left with a curate's egg—and the rotten spots may well eventually destroy the whole egg.
8.37 pm
Miss Janet Fookes: It was with some diffidence that I contemplated intervening in the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), I do not usually intervene in matters relating to Northern Ireland, but the subject of dogs and their control is dear to my heart.
I start from a simple proposition. I am deeply concerned about the suffering caused to stray animals. Many have their lives cut short because they are unwanted and no homes can be found for them. I accept that part and parcel of the problem is the nuisance caused by large numbers of uncontrolled dogs through fouling pavements, sheep worrying, road accidents and the like, but I shall not dwell on that aspect as it has already been dealt with quite fully.
My main motivation is concern for the welfare of these unfortunate animals. Anyone who has seen, as I have so often seen, the miserable faces of those in dogs' homes and pounds, looking up with melting eyes in the hope of a new home and release from the pound, will understand why I feel so strongly about this and why I and many others have campaigned for years for better control throughout the United Kingdom. I join others in saying that I am deeply sorry that Northern Ireland has been singled out for the order. In this sense I do not regard it as being unfavourably treated. I am sorry that the rest of the United Kingdom is not being given the opportunity that is being granted to Northern Ireland.
Successive Governments of both complexions have been extraordinarily tardy in dealing with the problem and they hve been marked by procrastination and prevarication. I am sorry to learn from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government have no plans to introduce a scheme somewhat similar, or in parallel, for the rest of the United Kingdom. I am tempted to use language which would be unparliamentary but I shall not do so as I have great respect

489
for the House. I found the comment that my hon. Friend made towards the end of his speech unsatisfactory and to smack of double standards, which I detest.
I give the order a somewhat qualified welcome. As the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has said, it contains, like the curate's egg, good and bad parts. I wish that the Government had introduced a Bill instead of an order as that would have enabled us to table amendments. I noted that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) insisted on referring to the order as a Bill.
I envisage problems with the increased licence fee and with the moneys going to the district councils. I am delighted that the middle man, so to speak, has been cut out and that the money will go straight to the councils, but there appears to be no duty on local authorities to spend the money on dog control and dog wardens. It is conceivable that local authorities will be tempted to shortcut or under-play the provisions of the order and not to use the moneys in the way intended. In that sense, I am sorry that there is not to be a dog fund. I should not object to there being one for each local authority instead of a central fund. It is a pity that the moneys will not be earmarked for the purpose of controlling dogs.
Enforcement is all important. Detailed work has been undertaken on controlling dogs and for the institution of dog wardens by a committee which has a rather cumbersome name. Its title is the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, of which I have the honour to be the vice-chairman. It comprises not only animal welfare organisations but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other bodies that are concerned about animals—dogs especially—and the problems that they can cause. Over the years it has done a great deal of work. The working party report to which my hon. Friend referred, which appeared in 1976, largely mirrored the report of JACOPIS, which appeared the year before. I think that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The report contained a complete network of the ideas that JACOPIS wanted to put forward and to be accepted, many of which the Minister has said he will be introducing through the order, including identity tags, which are important in enforcement.
It is extremely important that a dog warden scheme should be carefully formulated by well-trained dog wardens, with such provisions as identity tags closely allied to it. I trust that the dog wardens will have the power to ask people who have dogs that are not, apparently, licensed for their name and address and to follow it up. I am not sure from the order whether that is the position. It is vital that dog wardens should be able to pursue people who apparently have unlicensed dogs. That is a key point.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Lady has mentioned the identification of dogs. That subject was raised in Committee. If all dogs had to be tattooed, there would be no possibility of concealing the dog's original owner. Would not that be an improvement on a dog carrying a disc that could be removed?
Miss Fookes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I was stating the views of the committee with which I am associated. Tattooing is a more controversial means of identification as some people dislike it, but it is one to which I am attracted because it has considerable merit. Public opinion will have to be educated in that direction.
490
Meanwhile, a proper identity tag would go a long way towards dealing with the problem, although I accept that it would not necessarily be completely successful. That would be much better than the present position, especially if the tag was brightly coloured and could be changed from year to year. It would then be possible to see at a glance not only whether the dog had been licensed but whether it had a current licence. I do not wish to dwell on that subject for too long because other hon. Members wish to speak. However, it is a point well worth getting right, having been carefully thought out.
Mr. Adam Butler: My hon. Friend's vast experience and the time that she has devoted to these matters necessitate listening to her. She may well be on to a good point about discs and that should be followed up. The Government have discussed possibilities along those lines. My reason for intervening in her speech is that she will find in article 41 of the order the answer to her question. An officer may request the name and address of any person who appears to have charge or actually has charge of a dog.
Miss Fookes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Justifiable fear has been expressed that dog wardens might have to learn on the job and thus make many mistakes en route. I trust that that will not be the case. The Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society has given seminars in this country for those engaged in dog warden services or who are likely to be so. Training sessions have been given and it has produced a training handbook, a copy of which I have obtained. It is a splendid handbook in loose-leaf form which deals with all kinds of matter which would be useful to a dog warden, including such topics as the type of equipment needed to catch dogs, how it might be used and its advantages and disadvantages. There is already a great deal of expertise, and I am sure that that organisation would be only too happy to hold seminars and training sessions in Northern Ireland once the order is enacted. I hope that I can talk to the Minister about that after the debate.
My next point has already been dealt with, so I shall be brief. I do not accept the suggestion that all is well when a dog is destroyed because someone has been attacked, or is apprehensive of being attacked. Only yesterday, the all-party mental health group held a meeting at which a very distinguished professor spoke about phobias and how they could be cured. He said that one phobia affecting many people was the irrational fear of a dog or cat. Someone with such a phobia might think that a dog was about to attack him. It might not be the case, but the person's fear would be real. The wording of the order cannot be as loosely interpreted as my hon. Friend the Minister would have us believe. Indeed, it is exceedingly specific and leaves no room for discretion.
Someone who was attacked by a dog might have provoked it in the first place. Some people, particularly youngsters, will tease animals and enjoy working them up into a frenzy until they attack. If that were the case, what would the legal position be? The person involved might have been attacked by the dog, but perhaps brought it on himself by his behaviour. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that point, because it is worrying. Indeed, that is one of the matters that particularly worried the British Small Animals Veterinary Association. I had a meeting with Mr. Thompson, its president, only recently

491
and he pinpointed that as a major anxiety. He is a Northern Ireland veterinary surgeon, practising there, so he is well aware of the problems that could arise.
The period for which a dog is detained before it can be destroyed is being reduced from seven to five days. It can be argued that an owner who wants his dog back will take steps to that end within five days, but it still seems a rather short time and I cannot see the objection to having the period of seven rather than five days. Indeed, the British Small Animals Veterinary Association did a survey and found that many dogs in the main centres of the United Kingdom were retrieved in those last days. Under this legislation they would have been destroyed by then. Therefore, I hope that that point will be considered in any review of the legislation. I hope that there will be such a review after 12 months or two years so that we can see the effect of the order.
Although I have, in a sense, given the order a qualified welcome, it goes considerably further than any other legislation for the United Kingdom. Therefore, I welcome it as a big step in the right direction, even if it does not go as far as I would wish. Finally, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to impress on fellow Ministers the urgent need to introduce such legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole. All organisations concerned with animal welfare feel strongly that that should be so. This issue has brought together not only those who care for dogs, but also those who do not care for them, and that is unusual. I hope that the order will be accepted.
8.54 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I almost hesitate to speak after the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) who speaks with such obvious knowledge of the subject. I had not intended to speak with such seriousness on the matter and I hope that she will forgive me for the way in which I intend to approach the order.
When we discussed the order in Committee, although we approached it from different angles, we agreed that it was not entirely welcomed in Northern Ireland. I recognise that there is a problem in the rural communities where the dog population is savaging sheep. We do not have that problem in Belfast. Although I recognise that problem from what I hear from representatives of the agricultural community, in Belfast I have never seen such a dog problem as would warrant this legislation.
I think that, in the dying weeks of this Parliament, the Government have seen fit to introduce another in the long litany of coercion measures that have been aimed for many centuries at the people in Ireland, but this time the legislation is aimed at a most vulnerable section of the population in Northern Ireland—the dog section. There are people in Northern Ireland — they include dog owners—who are worried about the effects of the order. If the dogs knew what it contained, they would be even more worried.
Many of the articles, especially articles 22 to 24, will be utterly unenforceable in the area that I represent and know so well. For however long we stay here and discuss the order seriously, it will be regarded as nonsensical in some parts of Belfast. I think, in particular, of several estates that have been mentioned many times in other respects — Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge, New Barnsley, Divis Tower, New Lodge Road, Ardoyne, and Glencairn.
492
In each and every one of those estates it will be impossible for a dog warden, dog catcher or whatever fancy title he may be given, to apprehend what he regards as stray dogs.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said that animals also have rights. I should like to take up that point in a little detail. Article 23 states that a dog warden can go anywhere in Northern Ireland—I have already said that that is impossible—after what he regards as a stray dog. Article 23 gives him authority to capture such a dog and take it to some place which is known as a pound. We already know in Northern Ireland that under section 12 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 a person can be arrested and detained on suspicion of being a terrorist. Under Article 23 of this order, a dog can be arrested, detained and executed on suspicion of being a stray. If dogs have rights, not much consideration appears to have been given to them.
I shall carry that example a little further. A Catholic dog on the estate of Ballymurphy and a Protestant dog on the estate of Glencairn, which is just across the road, are doing no one any harm. They are not eating sheep or barking at soldiers or chasing army vehicles as they normally do on those estates. They are lying there enjoying the summer sunshine, when all of a sudden they look round to find that they are being set upon by this new innovation— the dog warden or dog snatcher. He has a net, or ropes., or some other paraphernalia to help him to capture those poor, inoffensive dogs.
The dog warden then takes the dogs to the pound. I hope that the Minister can explain the pound in more detail. Is it the equivalent of a dogs' Long Kesh? Those dogs have commited no offence. When they are taken into this dogs' Long Kesh, will they be given cellular accommodation, or will they be put into the pound? As the hon. Member for Kemptowrt asked, will Catholic dogs and Protestant dogs be put into the same compound? With the highly dangerous state of tension in Northern Ireland, there could be serious objections to dogs from those two estates being put together. I am sure that the eagle eye of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will have detected the probably sinister motivation behind putting dogs together, because if that were allowed to continue we may reach a stage in Northern Ireland where we have canine ecumenism, and there is no saying where that trend could end.
Mr. Adam Butler: I did not wish to intervene while the hon. Gentleman was in full flood, but he has already spoilt his argument, because the example that he gave us was of a happy relationship between a Protestant dog and a Catholic dog who were lying in the sun together. Why should they be segregated in the pound?
Mr. Fitt: They were not lying in the sun together. Ballymurphy is on one side of the road and Glencairn on the other. A Protestant dog would not dare go into Ballymurphy, and the same is true of a Catholic dog and the Glencairn estate. The dogs were lying quite happily in their own estates. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will agree that there was serious trouble in Northern Ireland when prisoners with different political allegiances were put together in the compound at Long Kesh.
The dogs would be justified in feeling incensed at being put in the pound, because they would have committed no offence, but what will happen if they start to foul their cells? Will they lose remission? I doubt whether remission

493
will have a great effect on the dogs. All those matters will create problems, because, as many hon. Members have said, Northern Ireland is a place apart.
The most important matter of all is whether male dogs and female dogs will be allowed to live together in the compounds. If that happens, there is the danger that we may be in the process of breeding a new generation of dogs that will have absolutely no respect for law and order and will harass foot patrols if they are ever freed.
That was from the dog's point of view, but the dog warden is a more serious problem. How will he be recognised?
Mr. Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman see any serious implications if a Catholic dog were to mate with a Protestant dog?
Mr. Fitt: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Antrim, North would put down a motion praying that the order be annulled.
However, to be totally serious — I hope that the House does not believe that I have been less than serious in what I have said up to now—will the dog warden or the dog snatcher have a uniform? If he enters an estate such as those that I have mentioned, he will not have a uniform on when he comes out. Will he have a badge? I think the hon. Member for Drake said that a dog warden would be entitled to walk up to someone anywhere and ask for his name and address. The army and the police are afraid to do that unless they have guns. Many people who have refused to give their address have finished up in Castlereagh interrogation centre. It is not as easy as it might seem. We are talking, not about an English city, but about Northern Ireland.
It may be that a dog handler will apprehend or lift a dog in Coleraine, Bellaghy or Downpatrick, but not one dog will be lifted from the other areas that I have mentioned. Indeed, Belfast bookmakers—who are no fools when it comes to taking bets—are already laying long odds on the first dog to be apprehended under this legislation. They are laying even longer odds on the second dog to be apprehended under this legislation. There is no possibility that this legislation can be enforced.
Why initiate legislation which is completely unenforceable and which will eventually bring the whole concept of the order into disrepute? How many dog wardens will the Belfast city council need to employ to apprehend all the so-called stray dogs, which, the Minister seemed to imply, were to be found mostly on the working-class estates, both Catholic and Protestant, whereas there are not so many stray dogs in the Upper Malone road areas of Belfast?
If the Minister is right in saying that the problems exist on those estates, I can tell him now that he will find such actions impossible. If one wants to be a little humorous about it, to have a Protestant dog catcher going into an estate and arresting a Catholic dog—and vice versa—is just unimaginable. It just would not happen. Although I may say that in a frivolous way, there are serious connotations. We all know how hated the traffic warden is. I notice that even the Tories do not like them. The same would apply to dog wardens in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Drake mentioned dogs fouling the streets. I have a small flat in London, and the streets in Ballymurphy are not half as foul as the streets one or two minutes walk away from the House. If Parliament
494
cannot legislate for an area within walking distance of the House, how does it propose to legislate for Northern Ireland?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland have raised serious objections to the higher licence fee that is to be charged in Northern Ireland — £5 compared with 37½p elsewhere. Great exception will be taken to that. The people of Northern Ireland are perfectly entitled to resent being asked to pay what I regard as an exorbitant fee.
There are many families on the working-class estates where there is high unemployment to whom a dog is a comfort. I have yet to see a family from any estate in west or north Belfast — or in Belfast for that matter —deliberately or even accidentally ill-treating a dog. I do not say that people in Northern Ireland are more kind to dogs than people on this side of the water, but I have yet to see a family in Northern Ireland deliberately ill-treating a dog.
Many of those families will not have £5 for the licence. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was right to say that a family which could not find the £5 might be tempted to drive into the country to lose the dog. That would defeat the object of the order. There will always be dogs. Rather than see a dog ill-treated because its owners cannot afford to pay £5 for its licence, I agree with my right hon. Friend that some other means should be found on a national basis that would not rob or drain dry the Exchequer.
I must tell the Minister of State that there will be bitter resentment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that not only would the £5 fee be imposed or inflicted on Northern Ireland—the tone of his voice is all important in this matter—but that he would not introduce similar legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. If people in Northern Ireland were to listen tonight to "Today in Parliament" or tomorrow in "Yesterday in Parliament" and heard the Minister's tone of voice in saying so vehemently that similar legislation would not be introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, they would ask "Why?" My right hon. Friend was right to say that there is a dog problem in Britain as well. If, as it appears, a different approach is made in Northern Ireland, resentment is bound to be caused.
I jocularly said earlier that we had civil rights marches in Northern Ireland for less reason. I remember those civil rights marches very well. In the late 1960s the people felt that they were being treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom over the franchise and the allocation of houses. From a series of small items began the big demonstrations in Northern Ireland. I am prepared to admit that people took part in those demonstrations organised by the civil rights movement to exploit those legitimate grievances.
I do not know the extent of the problem in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. I am not aware of a problem in the city of Belfast. I say clearly to the Minister that the Government will not be able to enforce this order in the estates that I have mentioned. If an individual from a local authority, regardless of whether he is a dog warden and has a pass or authority, attempts to go into one of those estates, he will be a laughing stock. As I said, the bookmakers in Belfast are laying long odds on the first dog to be caught and even longer odds on the second. I do not believe that any dogs will be caught under this legislation.
9.13 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) when he asks "Why in Northern Ireland? Why not in the rest of the United Kingdom?" My hon. Friend the Minister said that there are special problems in Northern Ireland, but the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, "Walk down a pavement in London and see what you see". I have been to Northern Ireland on two or three occasions. I cannot ever recollect seeing as much filth and dirt on the pavements of Northern Ireland as we see in our own capital city. I shall not take up the hon. Gentleman's remarks about traffic wardens because I hope very much that the traffic wardens, in Northampton anyhow, are all good Conservatives.
Mr. Concannon: How many parking tickets has the hon. Gentleman had?
Mr. Marlow: I require notice of that question.
I am sorry that so few right hon. and hon. Members are present. This is a controversial measure and, as with most controversial measures, I believe that many of my colleagues, for very good reasons, like to keep their heads down.
I have a feeling that in politics one can easily make enemies but that it is difficult to make friends, and on this issue it is very easy indeed to make enemies. If one wants to do something to control dogs one must confront the serried ranks of an organisation known as Pro-Dogs. We talked earlier about threats made by Miss Ruth Hall to hon. Members if they took a particular course of action. I assure the House that the threats of Miss Hall are as a mild rebuke compared with the pre-emptive nuclear strike that would be offered by Pro-Dogs to any hon. Members who might cause offence in any way.
On the other hand, if the Government or hon. Members said that they were not prepared to do anything about dog nuisance, there are groups of young mums and elderly people who are quite properly concerned about the dog nuisance and who would feel that the Government were funking the issue. It is therefore a controversial measure and obviously one must be discreet and careful.
As I say, I welcome the measure in general, but why Northern Ireland alone? Why not clean up our own pavements, by which I mean the pavements of the rest of the United Kingdom? Why do we not protect elderly people on the mainland from perhaps being attacked, savaged or frightened by stray dogs? Are they no more at risk than people in Northern Ireland? Although the Minister denied it, in the way Governments do—they say it is for Northen Ireland only and will not come to the mainland, but Governments are bound to do that until they change their mind and bring another measure forward—is Northern Ireland in some way being used as a testing ground, a probing area, by the measure? If so, I would expect right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland to have some views on the subject.
Attitudes change. I remember years ago — I have never been a smoker and I do not like smoking—how, if one did not want people to smoke in one's house, one did not have ashtrays in evidence. If one did not want people to smoke in the cinema or theatre, or in a motor car, people would look as though there was something strange about one, as if one was odd or anti-social. Everybody
496
seemed to smoke and expected everybody else to smoke. People who did not like smoke in their eyes were looked on as being strange.
It has until recently been the same with dogs. The dog is man's best friend, but in some areas dogs are becoming public enemy number one. The young mother who wants to take her child for a walk in the park, or the play area in the park, finds a filthy mess all over the place and must clean the child when she gets home. The dog is her public enemy number one. Think of the elderly person who, on going shopping, finds a strange dog romping around in the shopping areas and who is frightened, perhaps bowled over, by it. That is that person's public enemy number one.
Think what it must be like to be blind in central London with all the filth on our pavements. In the street, one does not know what one will walk in; and if one walks in it, think of the business of having to clean it off one's clothes and footwear, especially if one is blind. The dog has not had its day, but I hope that in Northern Ireland at least the filthy dog will have had its day. That is the dog nuisance —fouling pavements, parks and play areas where people want to play rugby, soccer or any other game.
We have heard about the harrying problem of livestock worrying and of sheep being attacked. If one sees what happens to a sheep that is savaged by a dog, or if one talks to someone who has seen it, it is a very disturbing experience indeed. The Minister spoke about the problem of injuries and said that 2,000 people in Northern Ireland were treated in hospital. If the rate is the same in the rest of the United Kingdom— I suspect that it is; if one contacts one's local hospital one finds that many injuries are caused by dogs—that represents 60,000 people. It means that the equivalent of 100 people each year in every constituency have been savaged by dogs to the extent that they must go to hospital for treatment. That is a large number of people. Deaths arise from road accidents caused by dogs. There may not be many of them, but they happen and we should be concerned about them.
More recently, a lot of research has been done on the very real problem of disease. I shall mention simply the problem of toxicara canis, a worm which a dog passes which a human, quite often a child, can pick up. The worm can migrate through the body. It can do damage to various systems within the body and, in particular, it can cause blindness. As a result of the work that has been done by Professor Woodruff recently at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, it has been established that at least 50 people each year suffer partial loss of the sight of one eye as a result of this menace.
Most dogs and most dog owners are exemplary. Most dogs are treasured members of the family, well looked after and virtuous within society and perform a great service. My hon. Friend the Minister is proposing by this measure to raise a licence fee of £5 per annum in Northern Ireland. One has to say to the dog-owning public in Northern Ireland that that money will be well spent. It will be well spent on discouraging people from having dogs that they will not look after. It will cut back the number of stray dogs——
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman said just now "£5 per annum." There is nothing in the order which says that ii is to be £5 per annum. It is to be £5 for
"such period as may be prescribed."

497
The prescribed period is not being written into the order, nor has it, so far as I know, been mentioned by the Government at any time during the debate. When regulations are made which prescribe that time, they will not, if we are still operating under the 1974 Act, come before the House.
Mr. Marlow: I stand corrected by the right hon. Gentleman. The licence at the moment, as I understand it, is an annual licence. I should have thought that most people would expect that the £5 licence would last for a year. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I have no doubt that he will put the right hon. Gentleman right about this.
I am pleased also that in this measure the owners of blind dogs will not have to pay a licence fee for their dogs and that people over 65, for many of whom a dog is valuable, a friend, and protection in the house, will have a rate half that that anyone else will pay.
I notice that farmers who do not bury the carcases of their livestock will be liable to a fine of £200. I wonder whether this is necessary, or is it just a mean quid pro quo so that the farmers might be got at as well as being helped? Any farmer looks after his livestock. No farmer wants to have dead livestock lying around, but sometimes it takes time dispose of it and it cannot always be done immediately.
I am very pleased to see that the order is enlisting public support, in that if there is a stray dog in the neighbourhood an ordinary member of the public will be enabled to take possession of that dog and within 24 hours call the police or the local authority to take it away.
I am very pleased to see that there are realistic penalties. The owner or the keeper of a dog that is not licensed will be liable to a fine of £200, which is a significant amount of money. I believe that on the mainland there are almost as many unlicensed dogs as there are licensed dogs. I am sure that this level of penalty will be a strong encouragement to the licensing of dogs in the future.
The fine for allowing a dog to stray can also be up to £200. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) suggested that it may be better to have a system of tattoo rather than a system of ear tag. One very good reason for a system of tattoo is that many people, when they no longer have use for a dog, put it in the back of a car, drive it out to the country and let it go. If they do that and do not want to be found out and do not want to be fined, all they will do is clip off the tag in the dog's ear and they will never be traced. Simply another stray dog will have to be taken into the system and dealt with. If the dog were tattooed, people who behaved in that particularly unpleasant and cruel manner would still be liable, would be found and could be fined.
I am pleased to see, too, that there is the possibility of on-the-spot fines, at the relatively low sum of £10, for dogs found fouling the pavements. There is a lot of dog nuisance. Members of the public can identify where a dog has committed an offence and has fouled a pavement, and they get in touch with the local authority, but such is the bureaucratic burden, the length of time it takes to get the matter to court and the reluctance of witnesses to come forward that almost inevitably nothing is done. Therefore, members of the public who would like to take a hand in
498
discouraging this problem are discouraged from doing so. The ability of the dog warden to impose an on-the-spot fine will have an immediate and real impact on this very unpleasant problem of dogs fouling the pavements.
This is a positive measure and a very strong one. I ask my hon. Friend to speak to his right hon. and hon. Friends with a view to getting a similar measure implemented on the mainland as quickly as possible.
9.26 pm
Mr. Adam Butler: I should, perhaps, have declared my own interest before introducing this order. I think that the House knows, because I declare it, that I am a farmer and therefore have an interest from that point of view. I am not one who exhibits any pathological hatred of dogs. It has been suggested—it was not a personal attack—that there might have been some who drafted this operating from such an approach. I have almost lost count of the number of dogs which we have in our house from time to time, but at the moment it is reduced to three. I think that I can be described as a dog lover but a very responsible dog lover.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—who I hope will rejoin us—may have some knowledge about the date of the next election which I do not. He started his remarks by saying that it was quite wrong for the Government to introduce this measure in the dying weeks of this Parliament. I have to say to him that this measure was introduced closer to the beginning of this Parliament than to the end, because it was in the early days of 1980 — over three years ago — that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said that legislation would be introduced, and I think that he gave some general outline of it.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—who is, sadly, not here at the moment—made an important contribution to our debate. He said that this order was typical of the evils of direct rule, as he described it, implying that if there had been a Committee stage the order might have been in a very much better state than he claims it is. Let me remind him that this order has gone through a very lengthy consultative process indeed. I admit that when I first saw it I was apprehensive about it because it was introducing new powers; it was bringing into one part of the United Kingdom something that many people had indicated that they would not wish to see elsewhere.
I looked at the order very closely indeed. I have consulted widely, and my officials have consulted widely. As far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned, we had the Northern Ireland Committee debate, which was extremely helpful and in which amendments were made. As far as consideration by the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people as elected to the Assembly is concerned, they spent some few hours debating this matter. This is important, because they represent their constituents in the Assembly, just as hon. Members from Northern Ireland represent their constituents here.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that they have been elected, as he has been elected—admittedly by proportional representation and not by the first-past-the-post system—and more recently than he has. He cannot, therefore, say that they are not representative of their constituents.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: They are not representative as we are, because we are representative in a House to which the Government are responsible. No one is responsible to them; and they are responsible for nothing.
Mr. Butler: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that they are just as representative. It is a question of what they can do once they reach that Assembly, compared with what the right hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends and other Northern Ireland Members can do in this place. One cannot argue that they are not as representative of people's viewpoints. They are as capable as the right hon. Gentleman is of expressing a viewpoint about the constituents' interests that they represent. They did so and drew attention to some small points in the order of which they were critical. Perhaps some wished to amend some points that some wished to retain, as we have seen tonight, but generally they gave the draft order a good welcome.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely with all the consultative process the hon. Gentleman would not equate the Assembly with a parliamentary Committee in which elected Members can put forward amendments and have them tested in the House by vote.
Mr. Butler: I am a Member of the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the preferable way to go about bringing forward legislation. Therefore, it would be preferable, other things being equal, that this should be done. As it is, we have a system arising out of direct rule and have to meet the circumstances as best we can. In consequence of the different approach to legislation, we have a very much longer and much more thorough consultative process outside Parliament to try to remedy the situation. However, there is an opportunity under the recent Assembly legislation for the Assembly to take on such a role, but that is a matter for debate on another day.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West amused us, got us interested, and then came to his serious points. I think that some of the dogs in Northern Ireland have a great deal more sense than one or two people who will not apparently ever engage in consultations in any way with somebody from another community. I do not believe that the dogs to which he referred stop at the boundaries of Ballymurphy or anywhere else. They trespass across the boundaries that their human owners sometimes will not move across. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from that.
The hon. Gentleman came to the serious point about how the dogs would be treated in the pound. They will be looked after. They will be segregated individually. There are requirements in the order about care, the provision of veterinary care and so on.
This is a small but important point. One or two hon. Members referred to the number of days for which a dog could be impounded. The five-day limit is a minimum period before which it will be permissible for further action to be taken. Secondly, that was the period of time recommended by the working party on dogs. Thirdly, I believe that that time is long enough for any responsible owner to discover that his dog is missing. Even if it is a habitual strayer or one of the hon. Member for Belfast, West's dogs that is always on the prowl, within a day or two at the most he will realise that it has disappeared from the home and is not likely to come back, so he will get in touch with the pound. Therefore, the minimum period of five days is not wrong.
500
Four main points were raised in the debate. First, hon. Members asked why the legislation should not include Great Britain. As I made clear, I was repeating what had been said in the House previously by Ministers, namely, that there are no plans to introduce the legislation. One must be careful because there is already legislation applying here and the order brings the situation in Northern Ireland into line.
When people ask about this what they are really referring to is the imposition of a mandatory scheme of dog control and an increase in the licence fee. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) was debating with us, because she has campaigned for a long time towards this end. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made his position clear. If anybody came near to the description of someone having a pathological dislike of dogs, it might be him. I must leave that to be settled outside the Chamber between my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
The general position in Northern Ireland is radically different, whether we are talking about attacks on livestock, attacks on human beings or the general nuisance of the sort that I described. The difference was recognised by the independent working party.
As to the reason why the legislation should not be introduced in Great Britain, a significant number of voluntary schemes are operated by councils under the Local Government Act 1972. There are byelaws in respect of the fouling of pavements and the like operated by councils which have byelaw making powers, subject to approval by the Home Secretary. I would have thought that that was the right way to go about it in Great Britain; because the situation differs very much between one area and another.
In Northern Ireland we are talking about an area with a population comparable to a large county in England, with Belfast being comparable in size perhaps to Leicester. Whereas it might have been possible to introduce voluntary schemes, it is necessary in the circumstance of Northern Ireland that no one council should refuse to operate a scheme. Therefore, that is one reason for introducing a mandatory approach.
The second main point raised was about charging. Hon. Members have agreed that it is an excellent scheme, but they ask that the charge should not be put on dog owners. I should not like to suggest that since we are getting near election time there was any thought about effects on the electoral prospects. Nobody thinks that £5 for a dog licence will be immensely popular or vote winning, but surely that is not the point at issue. We are talking only of about 10p a week. As for food, a dog with the voracious appetite of the West Highland terrier of my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown would doubtless eat much more than most of his size, but we are talking about a minimum of 50p up to perhaps £2 a week for food. In that circumstance, I do not think that lop will have the effect that some hon. Members have suggested.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North reminded us, the £5 charge will have the important effect of deterring the impulse buyer and making people think twice about whether they really want a dog and are prepared to take the trouble that dog ownership assuredly requires. I should have thought that that would appeal especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Drake, who

501
is concerned, as I hope that we all are, about the welfare of dogs. There is no question but that if one has to pay for something one is likely to take better care of it than if it costs little or nothing.
I certainly believe that the cost of the schemes should be shared, or perhaps eventually be borne entirely by the dog owner. In the first instance, it should certainly be shared between the dog owner and the ratepayer. It would be quite wrong to put the whole charge on the ratepayer in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Patently, the beneficiary from dog ownership is the person who owns the dog. There is also a benefit to the community from the scheme in terms of cleaner streets, reduction of nuisance, and so on. To that extent, the whole community will benefit, but the owner of the dog benefits from ownership so it is not unreasonable that the cost should be shared, and perhaps eventually be borne entirely by the dog owner.
Will the charges have to go up? I do not know. What will be the size of the ratepayers' contribution? I do not know. In the first instance, it is for the local council to decide on the kind of scheme that it wishes to operate and the extent of the need in the area. It must decide whether to go in for some gold-plated operation with magnificent new pounds or whether to use the USPCA for the purposes of impounding, and so on. It is, therefore, very difficult to say how much of the initial cost will fall on the ratepayer, but if the operation is successful the cost should reduce in relative terms. The work that needs to be done should be completed in comparatively few years. Thereafter, one hopes, the situation that has led to the order will be under control and the work required to be done by council officers will be relatively limited.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister clarify the point that was raised earlier? Will the £5 be an annual fee?
Mr. Butler: I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South that it will be an annual fee and not be subject to change during the course of a year. That would clearly be iniquitous as it would be a 12-month licence.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In that case, why does the order not say so?
Mr. Butler: I am looking for the article that covers this.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is article 6(3).
Mr. Butler: It might have been clearer to put it in the legislation, but if a Minister says from the Dispatch Box that it will be an annual licence I understand that that is sufficient. As dog licences and virtually all other licences run for one year, I hope that that is sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I assure the Minister that I am not at all impugning his veracity, his honour or anything else of that kind, but if it is intended to be an annual licence, as he assures us that it is, and if the burden of the licence is proportionate not only to the sum but to the period for which it is applicable, surely that is something that ought to have been put on the face of the order and not left to be prescribed by an instrument that will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny at all.
Mr. Butler: I had hoped that there was no reason for confusion on this issue. The term is not set out in the
502
proposed order, but neither is the rate that will apply for the licence in, for example, 10 years' time. It is not unusual for these matters to be changed or to be prescribed in subordinate legislation. As one would expect, there will be an annual licence fee.
I accept that if the schemes are not operated effectively they will not do the job that is intended for them. However, we must consider the penalties that will apply and the licence fee itself, including the way in which it will operate to encourage greater responsibility. We have to judge whether the threat of penalties will be effective, and I believe that the maximum figures in the order will have a deterrent effect.
Will the officers of the councils be able to carry out their work? The hon. Member for Belfast, West repeated some of the remarks that he made in Committee. I think that I said to him in Committee that, if what he said was true, it was a matter for regret. He said that in certain areas of the Province it might be more difficult for the officers to operate the schemes. If that is so, I do not believe that it is an argument for not introducing legislation to cover the majority of the Province. Therefore, I see no reason why the operation of the scheme should fail merely because there is doubt about its effectiveness in one or two areas.
I agree with the comments that were made by a number of hon. Members about training. It must be self-evident that a properly trained force will do the job better than one that has received insufficient training. I have read the advice which has been set out by JACOPIS to which my hon. Friend the Member for Drake referred. I welcome the suggestion that JACOPIS should hold seminars in Northern Ireland and that use should be made of them. It seems self-evident that the scheme has to work if it is to be effective, and it is my judgment that the contents of the order, in so far as they affect the operation of the dog control schemes, will bring that about.
The last issue of general importance was that of attack and the definition, which includes apprehension by a person. The issue can be treated frivolously, but it is not a frivolous subject. We are concerned to stop or, as far as possible, greatly to reduce the number of attacks on people. I do not want to lay down whether a bite is an attack. Perhaps in some circumstances it is not. The injuries that are sustained by a few thousand people who appear in hospital for treatment every year may not have been attacks as defined in the order.
Nevertheless, it is certain that many people will have been attacked. The Government cannot tolerate that. That state of affairs must be brought to an end. Therefore, there must be clear definitions in the legislation. However clear the legislation is, there will always be some room for doubt. Perhaps in the light of experience there will be room for improvement in the wording. I was most impressed by the constructive criticism that the Government received on the Bill from the British Veterinary Association, a body that has the greatest reputation and should be listened to.
Reference has been made to the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, which is part of the BVA. The Government are reminded in briefing from the BVA that the British Small Animal Veterinary Association is the largest specialist division of the BVA. The briefing states that because the BVA covers all the United Kingdom—it has a territorial division in the form of the Northern Ireland Veterinary Association—and because it draws on

503
the experience of the Small Animal Veterinary Association, it is able to comment authoritatively on the draft. I accept that. That association raises questions that have been stated by several hon. Members in this debate. That factor encourages me to refer to the briefing that I have been supplied with. The BVA supports the general principle of the draft Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order and it wishes to see it approved. The BVA asks for monitoring of the application of articles 2(2) and 33, which deal with attack.
I have given an assurance, and I do so again, that the Government must see how the legislation works in practice. I am not prepared, as was suggested, to move on a step by step basis and not introduce one part of the order until the Government know how another part operates, because the measures hang together, especially in respect of the dog control systems. I am not prepared to make a commitment to come back to the House in a year's time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Drake suggested. Means are available to any hon. Member to question Ministers or to raise the matter on the Floor of the Chamber. The articles must be monitored to judge their effectiveness. Powers are available to the Northern Ireland Department that can be introduced by subordinate legislation. 1f the principal legislation needs changing in the light of experience, that can be done. I am glad that a body as prestigious as the BVA wishes to see the article approved. It has been said that we are moving into unknown territory. If that was a reference to the entire order, that is not correct because of its consolidation aspects. The Government are bringing into line the Northern Ireland legislation. If that is right, it serves to underline what I said about the dog control procedures.
I trust that, with those explanations and that final assurance, the House will approve this draft order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved
That the draft Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

Pastoral Measure
9.54 pm
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Pastoral Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): It might be helpful if I were to advise the House on the scope of the debate. This measure consolidates two other measures and related enactments with some minor improvements and corrections, as set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report, House of Commons Paper 283 of 1982–83. Debate should be confined, therefore, to the question whether the law should be consolidated or left expressed in a number of different measures. Reference may also be made to the improvements and corrections set out in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Sir William van Straubenzee: In view of the ruling that you have just very helpfully given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak to the motion briefly, because, as you have said, this is essentially a consolidation measure. However, perhaps I might be permitted to say that I know that only very binding public commitments have led to the absence of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) from this debate. He is always assiduous in his attendance and watchfulness over Church legislation on behalf of the Opposition, but I know that his place is very ably taken by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who combines a quiet approach with deadly interrogation. I look forward with no pleasure whatever to the questions he may want to ask me.
As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this measure consolidates the Pastoral Measure 1968, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1982, and four other statutory provisions that are identified in schedule 9. Other measures are also mentioned there, which hake been wholly repealed. The consolidation was set in hand largely at the suggestion of the Ecclesiastical Committee. It was felt to be for the general convenience of practitioners both at the centre and in the dioceses. The House is always conscious of legislating for people who have to follow the law, whatever it may be. Therefore, it is both helpful and convenient that it should be set out under one cover.
Within the provisions of our consolidation procedures there are certain minor amendments. I do not need to weary the House with them, but they are set out—as hon. Members will know—and clearly explained in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Although I shall do my best to answer any question on them, I hope that it will not be necessary to go through them in detail. In the past the House has approved both measures upon which the consolidation is based, and I hope that it will feel it proper to allow the matter to proceed, as recommended by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
9.58 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I am here this evening to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White). When the measure came before the Ecclesiastical Committee, I had nothing to say and, despite the eloquence with which the hon.

505
Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) moved the measure, I still have nothing of substance to add to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Pastoral Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
9.59 pm
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This is the third in a series of miscellaneous provisions measures which are for the convenience of both Church and state in that they bring together detailed but important amendments in one small Measure. It saves asking the House to approve matters separately, as has happened in times gone by.
Consistent with my duty to the House, I can commend this Measure comparatively briefly. I do not wish to give the appearance of treating the House in a cavalier fashion. That is the last thing that I would wish. Clause 12 is intriguing. It emanated from the diocese of Lichfield. It vests a house and adjoining muniment room in the cathedral close in the Lichfield diocesan board of finance. By a private Act of 1796 the property had been vested in the Registrar of the diocese and his successors for ever. This Measure provides for the property to be vested in the Lichfield diocesan board of finance on the vacation of office of the present registrar of the diocese.
Great care was taken to ensure that all interested parties in the diocese agreed to the proposal. Clause 1 amends the New Parishes Measure 1943, which empowers the Church Commissioners to acquire land or buildings for use as a church hall or dual-purpose building. The subsections go into greater detail, which I shall do my best to explain if I am asked to do so.
Clause 2 inserts a new subsection in the 1943 Measure to give a bishop the power to exercise certain powers if the benefice is vacant. I am willing to explain it if that would be of assistance.
Mr. Frank Field: Can the hon. Gentleman briefly explain what powers are to be exercised by the bishop?
Sir William van Straubenzee: Section 14 of the 1943 Measure deals with the power of corporations, and so on, to give or grant land for sites of churches and so on. That is the limited operation to which we are addressing ourselves. As the law stands, if there is a vacancy in the benefice, it is not possible to operate. In several other matters, if there is a vacancy and one proceeds under one of the other Measures, it is possible for the legal machinery to operate. That is not possible in this case at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has asked me why. The answer is probably because of an oversight. That means that when there is a vacancy in a benefice, it is possible for the conveyancing to proceed. It has been borne out by experience that delay and difficulty have been to the detriment of the Church's work and the people in a parish.
Mr. Field: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, apart from there not being an incumbent, exactly the same procedures would be gone through, with the bishop operating as if the incumbent were there?
Sir William van Straubenzee: It has to be operated carefully. If such a matter arises during a vacancy in a benefice, it can be dealt with—I said it could not, but I

507
must correct myself — but only by a complicated conveyancing procedure. Section 14 of the parent Measure sets out the conveyancing procedures, which are very much encompassed about. Nothing much happens in the Church of England without its being encompassed about.
Mr. Field: Perhaps I could put my question rather more crudely. I want an assurance that if there is a vacancy the bishop cannot carve up a piece of land quickly in a way that he could not do if there were an incumbent.
Sir William van Straubenzee: I can give that assurance. This is not a sly scheme to give the diocesans a power under which they could act unreasonably.
The Measure to be amended by clause 4 gave the incumbent the power to sell his parsonage, outbuildings and land, but it assumed that they would all be sold together. In modern circumstances, especially at an auction, they are often sold separately. This measure brings the law into line with modern conditions. Clause 5 deals with a section of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 and substitutes for the word "incumbent" the word "minister". That has no sinister connotation, and is designed to include a curate in charge. As the House knows, the Church often has to deal with such an occurrence.
Clause 7 amends the Bishops (Retirement) Measure 1951 in that it no longer refers to the diocesan bishop commissioning a suffragan bishop, because that phrase is no longer used.
Clause 8 deals with the discharge of the functions of a diocesan bishop by way of dedication but limits it to a six-month period, and is designed for circumstances in which no other bishop is available to whom to delegate in an emergency. One has in mind a diocesan who contemplates having to undergo medical treatment and there is no other episcopal person available. However, it is a limited function.
Clause 9 provides for the discharge of functions of archdeacon where the office is vacant. Clause 11 is important because it deals with the constitution of the appeal tribunal under the Pastoral Measure 1968 and brings in what I hope the House will consider are some modest improvements. It increases the number of clergy from whom the members of the appeal tribunal are chosen. It increases the number of laymen, but states that at least half of the laymen in a panel should be professionally qualified as lawyers. I hope that the House will consider that a proper safeguard in such serious matters.
I hope that I have steered the middle course between boring the House and properly explaining a measure that may be modest in content but is important. I hope that the House will accept it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Empty Local Authority Houses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
10.9 pm
Mr. John Heddle: I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a subject that is close to the hearts of many of our constituents, particularly those seeking the right to rent a home—the management of empty local authority houses under the rate support grant system.
I have no doubt at all that when my hon. Friend and I attend our weekly advice bureaux tomorrow evening and on Saturday morning several of our constituents will wish to discuss housing matters with us. Some will wish to discuss the right to buy; some will wish to discuss shared ownership; some will wish to discuss the half and half scheme; the improvement for sale scheme; homesteading; and the various other initiatives that the Government have introduced since 3 May 1979.
Others will wish to discuss the national mobility scheme and the tenants transfer scheme. Others will wish to discuss repairs that they consider to be long overdue. A significant number will comprise people who have been on their local authority's housing waiting list for a considerable time and who, in their wisdom, cannot for the life of them understand why the council—whether it be the Lichfield district council, the Tamworth borough council, or the local authorities operating within the constituency that my hon. Friend so assiduously nurses —will not give them the key to a home that has been left empty for so long.
It is to the scandal of empty homes that I wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention this evening. According to the annual housing and investment strategy programme for 1982–83, local authorities in England estimated that on 1 April 1981 there were some 97,000 local authority homes which had been lying vacant — wasted, unused, unoccupied—for 12 months or more. On 1 April 1982 that figure had increased to some 100,000 houses. Some —examples of which I know that my hon. Friend will already be aware of—believe it or not, have been left to the ravages of weather and vandals for an unbelievable period of five, 10, 15 or 20 years.
Some of the evidence—I shall not detail it to the House—can be gleaned from an excellent publication entitled "Homes Wasted" by a Mr. Anthony Fletcher. It reveals that in Manchester, not too far from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), at 15 Ladybound lane, a house that is owned by the local authority had been kept vacant for an unbelievable period of 12 years. At 7 and 15 Florence road, London SE14, in the London borough of Lewisham, two properties were bought by the Inner London Education Authority in 1971 for a proposed school extension. No. 7 Florence road has been left vacant for 11 years and No. 15 Florence road has been left vacant for eight years. They were not passed on to the GLC to be used for temporary housing and requests that they be used for short or medium-term lets were refused. Those houses remain unoccupied to this day.
In Tamworth in my constituency, at Glascote road within one mile of the town centre 50 properties were bought by the Tamworth borough council 10 years ago for

509
the proposed road improvement scheme known as the B5000. Those houses cost the local authority — the ratepayer and the taxpayer—some £350,000. They are now bricked up, derelict, vacant; crying out to be used by families who rightly deserve the right to rent.
How can this situation exist? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that, to people without a home, an empty house is an outrage, particularly if it is owned by a public body that should have let it or used it beneficially in some way. To them, to my hon. Friend's constituents and to mine, this is a scandal. It is a scandal, too, for the taxpayer and the ratepayer who has to pay for this neglect.
The loss of revenue from local authority dwellings amounts to about £35 million a year. The cost of maintaining empty houses is a drain on the public purse; and the cost of boarding up these empty houses, to keep the vandals and the weather at bay, is about £500 to £1,000 a house. It has been known for up to £6,000 of ratepayers and taxpayers money to be spent to rehabilitate some of these properties after vandalism has occurred.
The deterioration of publicly financed assets, the large rent and rate losses, the potential for increased vandalism and theft and the intolerable nuisance caused to law abiding neighbours, are symptoms that highlight the need to keep the number of empty houses to an absolute minimum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with that.
I understand that about 300 local authorities keep the number of their void houses at a low level—under 2 per cent. With them, I have no quarrel at all. Those are prudent local authorities controlled by both main political parties, but it is to more than 50 local authorities, the majority of which, sad though it is to relate to the House, are controlled by the Labour party, which is not represented here tonight, that I am directing my remarks. Keys are transferred from one department to another; they are transferred from in-tray to out-tray and from out-tray to tea-tray. In short, these much needed homes are left empty because of muddle, delay, inertia, secrecy and inefficiency—characteristics that often abound in large bureaucracies.
It will be remembered that, until a year or two ago, many local authorities, statutory undertakings and public bodies had no idea of how much land they owned. The initiative taken by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment in establishing land registers has now brought that imprudence to an end. Vacant land and publicly owned assets are now quite rightly brought under the close scrutiny of the Department of the Environment. How many local authorities have no adequate identification and record system to identify the houses that they own? I submit that, frequently, public authorities, local authorities, statutory undertakings, the Inner London Education Authority, British Rail, and so on, do not even keep adequate records of their properties. At any one time they do not know whether their properties are empty or occupied. They do not know what their short-term or long-term plans may be. It is known that properties literally disappear in the administrative sense. One has only to read Homes Wasted to see that.
I therefore propose to my hon. Friend four points that are designed to bring the efficiency of local council housing departments under closer scrutiny. First, I believe
510
that every local authority should be required to submit a six-monthly return to the Department of the Environment, identifying the houses within its ownership which have been empty for more than six months and the specific reasons why that council has left those properties empty.
Secondly, the Department should publish statistics concerning empty houses throughout the country obtained from the annual HIP — the housing investment programme returns from local authorities—so that we, as the guardians of the public purse, can identify the culprits of this imprudence.
Thirdly, the Government should place on local authorities and other public bodies a duty to consider shorthold schemes and temporary lettings for all their empty houses which are not let to tenants on housing waiting lists, and to transfer applicants under the national mobility scheme and tenants transfer scheme.
Fourthly, in respect of houses awaiting modernisation and repair—the reason which local authorities give for the majority of houses being left empty for more than six months is that they are awaiting repair, modernisation or improvement—rather than the local authority procrastinating any longer with those houses, it should offer those homes awaiting repair and modernisation to tenants on waiting lists in their existing state on a sort of homesteading for rental basis.
My constituency experience leads me to believe that I may not be far wrong in saying that eight out of 10 families on waiting lists are do-it-yourself experts, just as capable of modernising, improving, rewiring and re-decorating those homes as the council's direct labour organisation would be. Local authorities should invite those applicants to carry out the repairs themselves, perhaps in exchange for a rent-free period, or even provide those eager, anxious families who want the right to rent with the materials to carry out their own repairs, and in exchange for those materials allow them to refurbish the house at a reduced rent for a negotiated period. The advantages to the local authority and those on housing waiting lists—my hon. Friend's constituents and mine—are obvious for all to see.
Local authorities, not unreasonably, resent interference from Whitehall. Those councils which manage their housing stock efficiently and prudently will have nothing to fear from the proposals I am putting to the House tonight. This scheme is directed only at those councils which sit idly by while houses are left to deteriorate and the hopes of families on waiting list become daily more forlorn.
The priority estates project launched by my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues in December 1979 has, without doubt, helped local authorities to tackle the serious problem of difficult to let estates, which affect about one quarter of a million households. But the proposals I am making would significantly reduce the number of not difficult to let estates but individual houses which have not yet attracted a tenant and would help to break down the old attitude that the council knows best. It would also help to break down the intransigent bureaucracies whose attitudes in the past have prevented homes from being created.
The Government have taken several encouraging steps in their four years in office to encourage private owners to bring vacant property back into use. There has been the introduction of the shorthold scheme in the Housing Act 1980 and the removal of disincentives from people

511
temporarily absent, perhaps on active service overseas or in the Foreign and Commonwealth Service, to let their homes. We have had the encouragement of the North Wiltshire scheme, as it is commonly known, under which local authorities can lease privately rented accommodation for a brief period with a guaranteed right of possession to the owner at the end of that period. There has been the significant and generous contribution made through the department by the Government of improvement, repair and intermediate grants and so on, and the flexibility given to local authorities to guarantee mortgages provided by building societies for lending on older dwellings.
The four suggestions I have made tonight — in particular, the homesteading for rental scheme— must command the respect of even the most critical political scrutineer. Those proposals would significantly help the thousands of families on housing waiting lists who, for one reason or another, cannot and probably for reasons best known to themselves will not ever be able to afford to buy. They rightly deserve the right to rent. I believe that my proposals would give them that right.
10.24 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): It is customary for my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) to raise relevant issues from his fund of knowledge and with his expertise to put them across. Tonight is no exception. We have, rightly, had the opportunity to hear from him about the problem of void properties, far too many of which are on the books of housing authorities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity with which he has not only presented the case which is documented—though I take his point not sufficiently for his case—but has offered, as is relatively unusual in an Adjournment debate, some positive suggestions on how the situation might be improved. I assure him that his four points will be drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction as matters upon which he would no doubt wish to comment to my hon. Friend in writing in due course.
We have from time to time been able to make the statistics available to the House. I know that details of the authorities with the worst records have already been published.
My hon. Friend will recognise also that in the Housing Act 1980 there are provisions to assist short-term lettings of vacant dwellings. Housing authorities would do well to bear in mind that they have the power to deal with vacant dwellings without creating secure tenancies an offer of employment in the authority's area and want temporary accommodation—which have complained bitterly of the inadequacies of central support for their housing programmes would be wise to recall that they have the power under the 1980 Act to deal with some of those who are most in need of accommodation.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the subject in the round as well as making suggestions for improvement. I am grateful to him for doing so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has highlighted the problem of empty local authority dwellings. He started his campaign in a speech that he made in December 1980. He referred to the huge rent and rate losses involved and to the many steps that local authorities can take to bring empty dwellings back into use. An empty dwelling owned by a local authority is, in fact, a sin of omission. There can
512
be no other way of putting it, because there are now plenty of resources available for the improvement of stock and for the sale of assests and to allow those assets to be ploughed back into the housing stock. There is little excuse for ignoring the prospect of bringing empty dwellings into sensible use.
Ministers have raised the matter at a number of conferences attended by local authority members and council officers under the auspices of such bodies as the Institute of Housing, the Housing Centre Trust and the National Housing and Town Planning Council.
First, I should mention the source from which the Government draw information about empty properties. Local authorities are required to complete forms provided by my Department for the purpose of their annual housing strategy and investment programme. This is the basis of the HIP scheme to which my hon. Friend referred.
In their most recent returns, local authorities in England estimated that in April 1982 there were 100,000 empty local authority dwellings, of which 19,000 had been empty for more than one year. This latter figure is disturbing. The HIP returns also reveal that 34 local authorities had 15,331, or 80 per cent., of the estimated total of 19,000 long-term vacant properties. There are 34 local authorities which have consistently failed to make adequate use of their housing stock in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested. Copies of these returns are placed in the Library, as my hon. Friend will know.
I accept that these figures show that the empty dwellings problem is a major one but only for a minority of authorities. Nearly 80 per cent. of councils in England, whatever their politial persuasion, are achieving a void rate of 2 per cent. or less.
This is not to say, however, that the majority of councils should be complacent about the problem. Within my hon. Friend's constituency, which contains the district council of Lichfield and part of the borough council of Tamworth, HIP returns show that Lichfield reported 109 vacant dwellings on 1 April 1982, of which 10 had been empty for more than a year. Tamworth, on the same date, had 215 vacant dwellings, of which one had been empty for over a year. As a proportion of housing stock, these figures represent void rates of 1·6 per cent. and 2·5 per cent. respectively. My hon. Friend and I may not regard these as being of great significance, but, compared with the previous year at 1 April 1981, Lichfield's void rate rose from 1·3 per cent. to 1·6 per cent. and Tamworth's from 1·8 per cent. to 2·5 per cent.
Mr. Heddle: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. What he has just told the House, in effect, highlights the point I am making, because he will recall that in my speech I referred to 50 houses in Glascote road in Tamworth bought by the local authority. I stand to be corrected. They may have been bought by the Staffordshire county council in advance of the proposed rate improvement scheme but they are not revealed in the statistics in the HIP returns which have just been quoted by my hon. Friend.
Whether the properties are owned by the local authority, the Tamworth borough council, or the Staffordshire county council, there is a loophole in the recording procedures which the Department has set up with the local authorities and perhaps the figures are not painting the sort of picture that bears a close relation to reality.
Mr. Shaw: I have to accept that my hon. Friend is right. Inevitably properties move from one ownership to another of because of local circumstances. This may result in void properties as a result of the requirements of another local authority. The Department must operate a national system which is understandable. I think that the HIP system is the most relevant in trying to determine what is happening to housing stock in any district.
The problem of dealing with the monitoring of voids, and indeed with the eradication of voids, is a local one. The Government can only offer advice and, it is hoped, resources, which are available. The question is really one for local determination and local solution, and there is no substitute for the energy with which my hon. Friend pursues local authorities in his constituency in order to find a solution. The trend has not been all that helpful even though the absolute numbers in both Lichfield and Tamworth are relatively small compared with the 34 authorities which have failed to make proper use of their stock. The figures, therefore, should not give cause for alarm.
Let us look more closely at the risks and dangers involved. Voids are both a symptom and a direct cause of difficult-to-let estates. They invariably create a double financial burden on the authority — a loss of rent and rate income and, on top of that, the cost of boarding up and the sometimes enormous additional costs of repairing the ravages of vandalism, to which my hon. Friend has frequently referred. The reduction of the number of empty dwellings to the minimum must be a top management objective of every housing authority and every council.
Dwellings become empty and remain so for varying periods. In many cases, the fact that certain houses are vacant can be fully justified, and indeed the use to which my hon. Friend referred—for example, acquisition for road works—is perfectly justifiable. Some are available to let and some are on offer; some are undergoing or awaiting repair or improvement; some require major structural work; and others are awaiting demolition. But I accept my hon. Friend's point that in many cases short-term lettings to those who are in greatest need can probably provide welcome relief.
Finally, there is a range of miscellaneous reasons. However, when houses are empty for an unnecessarily long time there is justifiable cause for concern.
In considering the problem against the background of my own planning responsibilities, I am convinced that one of the factors that could ease pressure on green belt land and the need to develop greenfield sites is the encouragement and promotion of the maximum use of homes that exist in inner city areas that could and should be occupied. I am sure that my hon. Friend will endorse that view.
The Government's response to this problem has been vigorous and, I trust, effective. We have put forward a wide range of measures to encourage local authorities to make better use of their existing stock of dwellings. These include, among other things, the improvement-for-sale scheme, consents issued to those authorities wishing to waive the interest for a period of mortgages granted for
514
homesteading, powers for local authorities to guarantee building society mortgages and the consent given both to district and to county councils to sell vacant dwellings at discounts of up to 30 per cent. to priority groups such as first-time buyers. Capitalised repair expenditure on all local authority dwellings is now eligible for housing subsidy.
The Government, too, have been active in offering practical guidance to local authorities. In 1980, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction initiated a study undertaken by my Department's housing services advisory unit of some 40 local authorities and their practices and policies in dealing with the problems of empty dwellings. A report of that study entitled "Reducing the Number of Empty Dwellings" was issued in March 1981. Copies have been sent to every local authority and are available in the House. The study covers rent and rate losses. It examines the problems created by void property, the reasons for voids and recommends various steps that authorities can take. It includes suggestions for void control and includes suggestions for organisation, policies and initiatives to reduce voids. I have no doubt—I trust that my hon. Friend will agree with this — that the Government have provided every possible incentive and form of advice to help efficient housing authorities to avoid the problem of void dwellings.
I remind the House that in 1979, on the related problem of difficult-to-let dwellings, the Government mounted the priority estates projects, which is to run until 1984 and on which reports were published in 1981 and 1982. A main finding of the project is that physical improvement is not enough. Housing management in particular is seen as a key. The Department's film of priority estates, which I hope my hon. Friend has seen — "Tackling Priority Estates" — and which was completed last year, has already been shown to councillors and officers of 294 local authorities in England. My hon. Friend has run a massive campaign which must dramatise the issue of how to deal better with existing housing stock. Illustrated in that film is a series of examples of how authorities have dramatically reduced their void problems by improved security, new letting practices—for example, letting to the elderly or to students rather than to families—and by sales to both individuals and builders.
A number of innovative councils have shown again and again that, with new policies, void dwellings can be reduced and, indeed, eliminated. The Government have set out the local policies that are required to reduce voids in written guidance, in speeches and on film. I urge authorities to give higher priority to putting those policies into effect and to place greater emphasis on achieving in the course of the year a drastic reduction in the 19,000 council houses and flats that have been vacant for more than a year. That is a scandal and there is no reason for avoiding solving it. In raising the issue tonight, my hon. Friend has once again dramatised the importance of so doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
TRADE
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Metropolitan Police (Computers)
  Metropolitan Police (Computers)
  Double Glazing
  Double Glazing
  Fingerprint Index
  Fingerprint Index
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Laboratory Animal Legislation
  Laboratory Animal Legislation
  Mr. K. K. Abrol
  Mr. K. K. Abrol
  Selim Duzgun
  Selim Duzgun
  Trainee Probation Officers (Pay)
  Trainee Probation Officers (Pay)
  Police (Crowd Control)
  Police (Crowd Control)
  Cypriots (Deportations)
  Cypriots (Deportations)
  Car Registration Plates (Automatic Reading Experiment)
  Car Registration Plates (Automatic Reading Experiment)
  Criminal Information Systems
  Criminal Information Systems
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Revenue Departments (Report)
  Revenue Departments (Report)
  Finance Ministers Council (Meeting)
  Finance Ministers Council (Meeting)
  Development Land Tax Act 1976
  Development Land Tax Act 1976
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
TRANSPORT
  Bypass (Glapwell)
  Bypass (Glapwell)
  Heavy Loads (Police Escorts)
  Heavy Loads (Police Escorts)
  Public Transport
  Public Transport
  Pavement Damage
  Pavement Damage
ENVIRONMENT
  Telephone and Television Connection Points
  Telephone and Television Connection Points
  Timber-framed Houses
  Timber-framed Houses
  Temporary Prefabricated Houses
  Temporary Prefabricated Houses
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981
  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981
  Empty Property
  Empty Property
  Hostel Accommodation
  Hostel Accommodation
INDUSTRY
  Coal-firing Conversion Scheme
  Coal-firing Conversion Scheme
  Video Recorders and Office Equipment
  Video Recorders and Office Equipment
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Continuing and Higher Education
  Continuing and Higher Education
  Expenditure Cuts
  Expenditure Cuts
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Engineering Students
  Engineering Students
WALES
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
SCOTLAND
  Ambulances (Emergency Calls)
  Ambulances (Emergency Calls)
  Drug Rehabilitation Centres
  Drug Rehabilitation Centres
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Race Courses (Financial Assistance)
  Race Courses (Financial Assistance)
  Psychogeriatric Hospital Places
  Psychogeriatric Hospital Places
  Timex Corporation
  Timex Corporation
  "Welcome Back to Glasgow"
  "Welcome Back to Glasgow"
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Police (Computers)
  Police (Computers)
  Census Statistics (Dundee)
  Census Statistics (Dundee)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Psychogeriatric Hospital Places
  Psychogeriatric Hospital Places
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Surrogate Mothers
  Surrogate Mothers
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tigre, Ethiopia
  Tigre, Ethiopia
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Spurn Point
  Spurn Point
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Public Industries (Chairmen)
  Public Industries (Chairmen)
  Shipping Industry (Policy Development)
  Shipping Industry (Policy Development)
  Farmers (Subsidies)
  Farmers (Subsidies)
ENERGY
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries
  Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Coal Mining Subsidence Compensation System
  Coal Mining Subsidence Compensation System
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Arms and Explosives
  Arms and Explosives
  Mountpottinger Road, Belfast (Development)
  Mountpottinger Road, Belfast (Development)
  Sirocco Works Site
  Sirocco Works Site
  Psychogeriatric Hospital Places
  Psychogeriatric Hospital Places
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Armagh Prison
  Armagh Prison
  Barnacle and Brent Geese
  Barnacle and Brent Geese
  Ulster Office
  Ulster Office
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Animal Imports)
  Hong Kong (Animal Imports)
  Nicaragua (Member's Correspondence)
  Nicaragua (Member's Correspondence)
  Embassies (Co-operation)
  Embassies (Co-operation)
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Farmed Fish
  Farmed Fish
  Sheep Carcases
  Sheep Carcases
  Fishing Fleet (Statistics)
  Fishing Fleet (Statistics)
  Fishing Industry (Capital Grants)
  Fishing Industry (Capital Grants)
  European Community (Fruit and Vegetables)
  European Community (Fruit and Vegetables)
  Poultry, Meat and Eggs (Imports)
  Poultry, Meat and Eggs (Imports)
  British Wool Marketing Board (Stabilisation Fund)
  British Wool Marketing Board (Stabilisation Fund)
  Pigs (Deficiency Payments)
  Pigs (Deficiency Payments)
  European Community (Agricultural Support)
  European Community (Agricultural Support)
  Pig Producers (NFU Discussions)
  Pig Producers (NFU Discussions)
  Agricultural Land Prices
  Agricultural Land Prices
  Straw
  Straw
  Liquid Milk (Prices)
  Liquid Milk (Prices)
  Beef (Statistics)
  Beef (Statistics)
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Hard Wheat Imports
  Hard Wheat Imports
  Stockpiled Food (Rebate Scheme)
  Stockpiled Food (Rebate Scheme)
  Enclosures (Grants)
  Enclosures (Grants)
  Wheat Exports
  Wheat Exports
DEFENCE
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Nuclear Radiation (Compensation)
  Nuclear Radiation (Compensation)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Equipment (Expenditure)
  Equipment (Expenditure)
  TR-1 Aircraft
  TR-1 Aircraft
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  BH7 Hovercraft
  BH7 Hovercraft
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Rates: Scotland
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any report has yet been received from the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council regarding the heavy burden of rates levied upon racecourses, football grounds and caravan sites in Scotland as compared with their counterparts in England and Wales; and if not when this report is expected and what action will follow.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I understand that the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council have looked at possible changes to the valuation system in Scotland with regard to these and related matters. My right honourable friend is considering their advice and will decide what action should be taken.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, arising out of that reply, for which I thank my noble friend, may I ask whether he is aware that Scottish racecourses in particular are being so heavily rated as compared to English racecourses that they cannot balance their accounts? Is my noble friend aware that the burden of rates carried by Scottish racecourses is three or four times as heavy as that carried by comparable English racecourses? Is my noble friend aware that unless something is done about it, and done very soon, horse racing in Scotland will be killed stone dead?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the Government are very well aware of the difficulties, and indeed my right honourable friend met representatives of Scottish racecourses only yesterday. He is considering urgently what measures can be taken, and I understand he assured the representatives that if legislation is requried it will be pursued as quickly as possible.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Treasury derives very considerable benefit from both football and racing, directly and indirectly, will the Minister remember that this is endangered as well as the stability of football clubs by the present unfair system of valuation in Scotland? Will he further explain to the House that valuation in Scotland is not done, as in England, by the Inland Revenue—it is fairly cheap in this part of the world? It is done by local assessors, locally elected, locally selected, locally appointed and locally paid. Has the Scottish Valuation Committee looked into the question of different interpretations on both sides of the Border? This is
636
certainly true in respect of the other matter that is in the Question—caravan parks.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that there are anomalies and they extend beyond racecourses. Sports grounds, including football grounds, caravan sites, sporting rights, reed beds, hotels and solar heating systems immediately spring to mind. I am not sure that anything is wrong with the method of assessment as such, and certainly not regarding the valuers. But there are anomalies, as I have said, which have sprung up particularly in the last few years. The Government are considering urgently how, if these anomalies bear unfairly on the particular subjects, we can try to ameliorate the position.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as regards caravan sites there are extraordinary anomalies as between Scotland and England, and that I supplied his right honourable friend with comparative figures some months ago showing that two sites, only a short distance apart but on each side of the Border, were treated very differently? Does he recognise that this is a serious handicap to the tourist industry in Scotland?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the answer is, Yes. As I have said, the Government have become increasingly aware that there are these anomalies which bear very heavily on the particular industries concerned, and that is what we are now considering as a matter of urgency.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the Minister promise to act as sympathetically and speedily as the Government did in respect of the oil installations last year?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I can only repeat to the House that, in a matter which is complex in law, and not easy to solve so far as fairness is concerned in respect of every class of rateable subject, we are doing our best to be as quick as we can.

Juveniles on Remand
3.5 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to reduce the period for which juveniles accused of serious crimes are kept in care on remand before trial.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, court staff already give priority to cases involving juveniles, particularly if they are informed that a child is being held in care pending trial.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that quite reassuring reply. I wonder

637
whether he can tell the House if there is any limit on excessive delays caused by defence counsel, and whether there is any consideration of changing the law to a restrictive period of 110 days, as I gather obtains in Scotland?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to my noble friend's second supplementary point, the 110-day rule in Scotland does not apply to delays which arise other than from delays by the prosecution. I understand that his concern is for delays arising at the instigation of the defence. If courts are not aware that a juvenile is held in residential care in a secure unit, they cannot accord special priority to his case as they would otherwise do. It follows that the legal representatives of such juveniles should inform the courts of the circumstances in which they are held, and the Department of Health and Social Security is therefore asking social services departments to remind legal representatives of juveniles held on remand of the desirability of so doing.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, supposing there are no legal representatives, is it not possible to ensure that the court staff are nevertheless made aware that children are being kept in care?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of your Lordships' and others' anxiety about this matter. He is bringing it to the attention of the directors of social services, who, of course, would be the proper people in the case mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say how many children are now presently being kept in care on remand before trial?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords, not without notice.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that complaints are unevenly made from different parts of the country? Some Crown Courts in the South of England and some in the North seem to be unable to deal very quickly with children in care on remand. Others are very good. Can he inform the House why it is that there is this uneven service?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can only surmise; but in the cases to which my attention has been directed following my noble friend's Question it appears that delays have arisen due either to the desire of the defence to prepare a complicated case or simply to a lack of awareness on the part of the court that the child was held in that situation, which meant it could not embark on a structured régime towards rehabilitation; and we are taking such steps as we can to see that the courts are so informed.

Cruelty to Animals Legislation
3.10 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 to
638
provide for stricter control of experiments on live animals.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government intend to introduce legislation to amend and update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 as soon as parliamentary time permits. Detailed proposals will be published shortly.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is an extremely welcome and encouraging Answer for which I am grateful? I am glad that I put down the Question to give him the opportunity to give the Answer. Would he not further agree that the recent paper published by the British Veterinary Association would make a sound basis for the amendments that are required to that ancient Act?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome that he gave to my Answer. I have seen the paper to which he refers, which is jointly produced by the British Veterinary Association and the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. The Home Secretary was most grateful to the group for sending him their proposals. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, took a large part in that. They were published last week and are being carefully studied.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that many of the experiments now taking place on live animals are completely out of date owing to new processes, especially those regarding tissue, where new techniques can now be used in many cases? Furthermore, regarding cosmetics—and by "cosmetics" I am referring to those concoctions which are manufactured for the beautifying of women—although I am all for the beautifying of women, is it moral to cause suffering to animals for the beautifying of women? I do not agree with that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the use of such substitutes as tissue cultures, these are being increasingly used, but it is, I regret, necessary in many cases finally to test the effect of substances upon living animals. As to the tests on cosmetics and toiletries, they amounted to about half of 1 per cent. of all the tests made in 1981. We hope that they are kept to a minimum but they are still sometimes necessary and I believe that there is a wide understanding of this.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the term "cosmetics" used in my noble friend's previous supplementary question can be very loosely used? Baby powder is a cosmetic and in many cases people who have suffered very severe burns use most deeply researched cosmetics in order to hide their unhappy scars. Would my noble friend agree that it is too easy to dismiss them as just a matter of vanity in women and not to realise their much wider implications for people who really require such products for dermatological complaints or otherwise?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am sure that my other noble friend intended no discourtesy to those who do have these very serious needs.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that on eight previous occasions Government spokesmen have assured us that we have only to wait upon a favourable wind from Europe? Does his assurance that we now wait only upon favourable parliamentary opportunities make any difference to the situation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we hope that the convention will be ready for submission to the Committee of Ministers by next month. Ratification by the United Kingdom will be possible only when we have a new Act on the statute book, but we are very close to the starting gate now.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, that is the ninth assurance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that it was given in rather more precise terms and I hope that the noble Earl will afford me an even greater degree of credibility than he has given to my noble friends.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I underline two points very quickly to the noble Lord? Is he aware that one of the primary concerns of the veterinary surgeons is that the places where animals are kept—and not just the laboratories—should also be subject to veterinary inspection? My last point is that there is also the concern of ordinary folk who lose pets, who know full well that they have been stolen, that there seems to be reasonable evidence as to why they have been stolen. I believe that this aspect, too, should receive consideration.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Theft Act 1968 already provides severe penalties for the handling of stolen animals and the Dogs Act 1906 prohibits the police from handing over strays to laboratories. Nevertheless, the noble Lord may take further assurance from the fact that controls over the supply of animals for laboratories will be introduced in our legislation.

Cruise Missiles: Dual Control Cost
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the cost to the United Kingdom of a small British double-key force, whose active participation, on the orders of the Prime Minister, would be required for the launching of any United States cruise missiles from this country, and without whose participation such launchings would be physically impossible, either within their bases or outside them; and whether if Her Majesty's Government have not yet calculated this cost, they will now do so and inform Parliament.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a dual key system for the United States cruise missiles to be based in this country was considered at the time of NATO's decision in December 1979 to modernise its intermediate-range nuclear weapons. Such a system would have involved the United Kingdom in buying and operating the cruise missiles. In these circumstances, the sort of force envisaged by the noble Lord was clearly not appropriate, and the requirement to establish its cost did not therefore arise. The Government are satisfied with existing arrangements for joint decision-making about any use of United States nuclear weapons based in this country.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Minister of State not agree that curiosity on the part of the British people and Parliament about the cost of such a force as is outlined in the Question would also be a valid requirement for the information—not only the conditions that he laid down himself for a valid requirement for information but also a simple wish to know on the part of our own people and our own Parliament how much it would cost?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that may be so, but it is not the way in which the United States provides its allies with a dual key for particular nuclear systems. With a dual key come the obligations and responsibilities of ownership.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statement that in order for this country to control, or have key of, American weapons placed here involves their not being American weapons because we have bought them is the kind of nonsense which convinces nobody at all?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Paget. We have a system of joint decision. That means, in effect, that the weapons could not be used without the joint decision of the President and Prime Minister.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if there is a dual key system for cruise missiles, would it not in logic be necessary to have a similar system in respect of the airfields where there are based American aircraft with a nuclear capability?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that may be so; but there is not going to be a dual key system for cruise missiles.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, whatever may have happened in 1979 or since then, can we not have a firm declaration from Her Majesty's Government that if the cruise missiles which have been provided by the United States, an ally of this country, are to be launched from the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government must have accord and consent before that happens?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let me repeat the assurance which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Paget. Under the existing arrangements for joint political control—which is what we have—the weapons concerned cannot be used without a joint political

641
decision by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister. This was a matter which was reviewed by both the President and the Prime Minister when both came into office, and the Government are satisfied that this is satisfactory.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that political decision is one thing but that operational control is another? If effective British operational controls cannot be established over cruise missiles except at inordinate expense, is this not an added reason for not having them at all?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are dealing here with deterrence and that the people who must be convinced that these weapons are under joint control are not those in this country or Her Majesty's Government, but the Russians? If the Russians do not think they are under joint control but are under American control they may very well take them out by a nuclear attack on us before they are used. That is the danger of not having a clearly-established operational control here.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the danger is entirely in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Paget. These are arrangements which have been in existence for over 30 years, running over a period which has seen successive Labour and Conservative Governments. I repeat: the arrangements are effective and the Government believe they are perfectly satisfactory.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is it not the fact that it is the practice of the Americans to have two independent officers, each of whom must have physical control of the launch of their own weapons, so that there is a dual key control at the moment, both parts of which are in the hands of the Americans? What would be so inherently unreasonable about requesting that one of those officers should be British?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, because, I repeat, a full dual key control, as it is called, rests upon the obligations and responsibilities of ownership.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how dual control can possibly apply to the American Reserve Command, not only for this country but for Europe, established at High Wycombe? How can dual control apply to it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is going over some very old ground now. The question of joint political decision refers to the use of the bases: that is what requires the joint political decision, which is the present system that we have. I repeat for the fourth time that joint political control means, in effect, that the weapons could not be used without the joint political decision of the President and the Prime Minister.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether he knows of any evidence that the Warsaw Pact countries have asked the Soviet Union for joint
642
political control over the 320 SS20s which are deployed and targeted against this country; and, if not, why not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reason why the question has not been put is because I think we know the answer. My noble friend has put his finger on the right point. Almost certainly the answer to my noble friend's question is, "No".
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the answer because they are satellites and we are not?
Lord Balogh: My Lords, it would seem—
Lord Belstead: I am sorry, my Lords: perhaps it is because we have been going on for rather a long time, but I did not hear the noble Lord's question.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, the Minister has declared that the Government are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made, but would the Government care to take a vote of this House to ascertain whether or not the situation is satisfactory?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the decision has not just been taken; it goes right back to 1950—not quite as old as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but quite a long time ago. For the noble Lord to suggest that the present Government have in some way made a new arrangement is not an accurate assessment of the situation.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, my question was that it is naïve, is it not, to think that dual political control can be established under nuclear attack?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I will not again repeat the provisions of the joint political decisions which we have with the United States. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, will look at the Hansard record and make up his own mind from that.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Government tell the House whether they have, in so many words, asked the Americans to agree to the system of dual control described in the Question now before the House, and whether the American Government have, in so many words, refused to do so? If not, why are the Government so reluctant to give the cost?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have not put the question in the way that the noble Lord puts the question to me, and the reason is contained in my original Answer.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his series of answers this afternoon will give great comfort to many who have been confused by the ignorant talk about the dual key system?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. We need these terrible weapons in order to pursue NATO's strategy of peace by deterrence, which has kept the peace of Europe for nearly 40 years; and the system of joint political decision, I do assure

643
the House, is one which was gone through by the President and the Prime Minister when each came into office. It is satisfactory, as it has been satisfactory for the last 35 years.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
Lord Denham: 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 being made in another place on the Council of Agriculture Ministers, 18th to 20th April.

Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The object of this Motion is to enable the Select Committee, which will consider this Bill and also the Instruction which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and agreed to last Wednesday, to hear evidence if they so wish, from witnesses other than those called by the promoters of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Select Committee to whom the bill is committed may hear evidence other than that tendered by the promoters.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Building Control Bill
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing and Building Control Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 6,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 7 and 8,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 9 to 14,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 15 to 33,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 34 to 43,

Schedule 7,

Clause 44,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 45 to 49,

Schedule 9.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Litter Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Level Crossings Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Water Bill
3.27 p.m.
Read a third time with the amendments.
Clause 5 [Overseas activities of water authorities and statutory water companies]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("from time to time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. We added subsection (5) to clause 5 of the Bill at the Report stage. The effect of subsection (5) is to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance as to the criteria by reference to which he will grant consents for overseas work by water authorities and companies. In moving this amendment, I emphasised that we did not envisage frequent revisions of the guidance. I undertook that any proposed changes to the guidance would, as a matter of course, be preceded by full consultation with the interests concerned, and in particular with the water authorities and the consultant engineers. I also said that we would make a small amendment to our amendment to underline this point.
There was concern that the words "from time to time" implied a frequent process. We wish to respond sympathetically to that concern. Without the words in question it will still be possible to make changes to the guidance, but we certainly do not wish to imply that this will be a regular or frequent event. So we are happy to improve the Bill by bringing forward this small amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this amendment. The words "from time to time", which were originally put forward by the Government, were attacked by me at earlier stages of the Bill as indicating that the Government might be amending the guidance notices rather frequently. But the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has given the House an assurance that, if any amendments of the guidance notices which have been recently agreed are necessary, there will be full consultation with the water authorities, with the departments and with the public and private sectors.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Arrangements for carrying out Sewerage Functions.]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 18, line 18, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("the Water Act 1983").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which corrects a small mistake in the Bill. Schedule 3 takes the form of a new schedule to the Water Act 1973. Where it refers, therefore, to "this Act" it refers to the Water Act 1973. The reference in paragraph 8, however, should be to the present Bill, not the 1973 Act, and that is the effect of the amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is not a long Bill, but I think it can fairly be said that it has received the usual thorough and careful consideration from your Lordships. We have tried, as always, to present the Bill with an open mind and to respond positively to the points that have been put to us in debate. In turn, I should like to express my appreciation for the constructive spirit in which your Lordships have handled the Bill. We have been able to take on board many of the comments and suggestions which your Lordships have made, and I am sure that, in consequence, the Bill will leave your Lordships' House a better measure than when I first introduced it.
The overall objectives and the overall shape of this Bill remain as the Government always intended. Our object, as I said at Second Reading, is to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the water authorities. That is why we are introducing the new small boards and the new consumer arrangements; that is why we are dissolving the National Water Council and the Water/Space Amenity Commission; and that is why we are introducing new arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions. On the last of these, it was an amendment made at Report stage last week which gave effect to the Government's intentions following a period of consultation and subsequent discussion with interested parties, including Members of your Lordships' House, to refine our proposals and to make sure that they were right. I am, indeed, grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford, to the noble Baroness, Lady White, to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and to others of your Lordships for the detailed attention which they gave to this matter, and I am confident that, in this respect, we send the Bill back to the other place in the knowledge that it will lead to more efficient sewerage arrangements and to arrangements which take proper account of the interests of various parties.
We were convinced by the arguments we heard that it was not right to end any part of the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman over water authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, put this case most convincingly, and it was widely supported by the House. I am pleased that we were able to meet the wishes of your Lordships in this respect. The protection of the consumers' interests is a vital part of our approach in this Bill, and we felt on further consideration
646
that it would not be right to limit the ombudsman's powers in any way.
We were not able to accept a number of the other changes which some of your Lordships would have had us make to Clause 1. In particular, we could not agree to writing into the Bill the provision for local authority members; nor could we agree to the proposal for conservation and recreation members, or that the press and public should have the right to attend water authority meetings. All of those proposals would, in our view, have undermined the Bill in significant respects. Nevertheless, we did provide assurances on each of these points.
In particular, we agreed that there should be members from local government; we accepted that conservation and recreation were matters relevant to the functions of water authorities, and said that experience in these areas would be taken into account when we make appointments; and we undertook that there should be press conferences after water authority meetings and that the new consumer consultative committees should be open to press and public. Prompted by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, we were able to clarify through an amendment to Clause 1 the appointment of land drainage and fishery members to the Welsh water authority, and I am grateful to him.
On the consumer arrangements, Clause 7, we have agreed to a number of changes to the guidelines to meet concern expressed by the public, in the other place and by your Lordships. As these have been debated so recently, I will not go over them again, but I would express my thanks once more to my noble friend Lord Sandford; to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who was so tenacious on this as on so many other matters; and to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for the help which they have given us in the understanding of these issues and the clarification which we have sought to put before your Lordships.
I must also add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for the important amendment which he brought forward, providing that the guidelines should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. We accepted that this provided an important strengthening of the guidelines, and an amendment has now been incorporated in the Bill, which I think is a significant improvement. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his usual knowledgeable and constructive contributions on conservation aspects.
We are also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Howie of Troon, for the debates which we had on Clause 5—the overseas activities of water authorities and companies. It was as a result of those debates that we have written into Clause 5 a specific reference to the revised guidance we have drawn up in agreement with representatives of the consulting engineers and the water authorities. This guidance will indicate the way the Secretary of State will exercise his consent powers under Clause 5, and in the course of our debates I think we were able to allay the fears of your Lordships that we were enabling the water authorities to set up in competition with the private sector. The key to our approach is co-operation between public and private sectors. That is the purpose of Clause 5, and we believe that it will lead

647
to a significant improvement in our export performance in this most important field.
We had an important debate about arbitration procedures over terms and conditions of employment in the water industry. That debate took place shortly after a most tragic and, many would feel, unnecessary industrial dispute. My noble friend Lord Nugent spoke so effectively on the effects of this dispute, and in moving his own amendment provoked one of the most interesting debates on the whole Bill. May I also pay particular tribute to the other contributions made by my noble friend Lord Nugent on many other points which arose during the course of the Bill. His own experience makes him uniquely qualified to comment on water industry affairs, and I say again that we are deeply grateful to him.
I do not want to delay the Bill's passage a moment longer. I would, therefore, conclude by thanking my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for his great help and support to me throughout the various stages of the Bill. He has dealt with substantial parts of it, and has done so in a most able and effective manner. Finally, I thank your Lordships once more for the careful and constructive way in which you have dealt with the Bill over recent weeks. I now formally move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, if I remember correctly, the Bill had its Second Reading in this House without any support for the Government. I do not think there was a noble Lord or Baroness in this House who stood up and gave any support to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. But it is true to say that, as we went through the Committee stage, we were able, as the noble Lord said, to make some very substantial amendments to the Bill. It was very pleasing to hear the noble Lord's thanks to my noble friend Lady Serota, who raised a most important point about the ombudsman. We can also congratulate ourselves that guidelines are being laid down for the consumer consultative councils. As this is the only democratic part of the Bill which is left, we welcome these guidelines.
Although we began with no supporters, I should not like the Government to believe that the Bill has been readily accepted by all sides of the House. During the past week there have been two very close votes. The Division on one amendment was lost by only about six votes. The Division on the other amendment was lost by, I believe, two votes. Therefore, during the last stages of the Bill before it goes back to the other place the House has shown its disapproval of some of the measures contained in it.
The Bill changes completely the central body of the water industry. We understand that it will be a very much smaller body. As the Bill leaves us, it is not perfectly clear where the many statutory responsibilities of the water council will finally rest. The new water authorities will quickly have to resolve the uncertainty about the future of the employees of the water council. Several hundred employees are in limbo; they do not know where their future lies. I
648
would ask the Government to make quite sure that their future becomes a priority issue.
In our discussions we have heard about local government representation. Assurances and pledges have been given to us. I believe that on one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that he would stick to his assurance that there would be local government representation on the new water authorities. We are very disappointed that the Government will not write this into the Bill. Therefore, we hope that these pledges and assurances will be honoured. There is only a Government assurance. It has no standing in law because it is not written into the Bill. It is important, therefore, that when assurances and pledges are given they are honoured.
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks regarding me and my noble friends. We did not welcome the Bill. We are not sending it back to the Commons with any great enthusiasm. We shall watch carefully how the new water authorities live up to their image of super-efficient bodies. They will have to demonstrate that they will be able to give much better value for money than was given in the past by the old water authorities. Their greater efficiency has got to be proved to us. Greater efficiency is very difficult to prove in times of drought.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not think that this is the occasion to spend a great deal of time on speeches. We have discussed very thoroughly the details of the Bill and we have made some notable improvements. We on these Benches have not changed our view that this is a misconceived Bill and that a system which operates as part of the rating system, without democratic representation, is bad in principle. However, we in your Lordships' House have made the best of it. With the help of the Government we have reinstated the power of the ombudsman. We look forward with a great deal of interest, and maybe with a little doubt, to what the consumer consultative councils will do. There is absolutely no doubt that, apart from the major point of the principle of the Bill, the Government have been as helpful as they could be. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for meeting us on a number of matters. I wish that they could have met us on more, but undoubtedly they went as far as they could without betraying the unfortunately misconceived basic principle of the Bill. It is a pity that we could not do more, but what we have done has been worth doing.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

British Shipbuilders Bill
3.47 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved the following amendment:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("General duties of Secretary of State.
. The Secretary of State shall exercise the functions assigned to him by section 2 of this Act, and shall act generally, in the manner he considers is best calculated:—

649

(a) to enable United Kingdom shipbuilders to establish and maintain a predominant position in the field of shipbuilding and ship repair;

(b) to encourage United Kingdom and foreign ship owners or customers to use the services provided by United Kingdom shipbuilders and ship repairers; and

(c) to ensure that United Kingdom shipbuilders are properly protected against unreasonable competition from foreign shipbuilders and ship repairers.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been put down in consequence of the failure of the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, to assign to themselves anything other than powers in connection with British Shipbuilders. Your Lordships will recall that the original Act of 1977 imposed some duties on British Shipbuilders. These duties were specified. The Bill which we have been considering during the past few weeks takes away those duties and substitutes powers by British Shipbuilders, to be exercised, subject to regulation and direction, by the Secretary of State.
We on this side of the House believe that this is an unsatisfactory situation. A responsible public corporation was set up in 1977 to rescue the whole of the shipbuilding industry from the abysmal state into which it had fallen by that time, when it was getting only 4½ per cent. of the world market. That corporation was formed to take over a number of firms—most of which were ailing, apart from the warships section—and to bring succour to the entire industry. This Bill takes away any general duty, on anybody at all, to promote the interests of British Shipbuilders.
There are two principles on which this amendment is moved. The first is a general principle that one might have thought would be acceptable to the party opposite. It is the principle that those who have powers should also have responsibilities and duties. Indeed, the country at large is lectured at very great length from time to time on the necessity of, for example, the working population realising the duty it has either to its employers or to the country as a whole. It therefore comes a little odd that the Secretary of State should be relieved of any duty. This would seem contrary to the whole philosophy of the party opposite. So far as this House is concerned, I would have thought that such a situation would be unacceptable.
From time to time, doubts are expressed across the whole of the party spectrum as to the usefulness of the House of Lords. Some, I am given to understand, would like to abolish this House, while others would like to reform it. There is one point on which I believe all of your Lordships will agree—there may be a variety of views as to the whole spectrum of activity covered by your Lordships' House—and that is that this House does serve as a partial check on the Executive. This is an instance where I would appeal to all your Lordships to give the amendment before you very careful consideration.
This amendment would impose no onerous responsibility upon the Secretary of State. Indeed, one might almost have thought that the Government would accept the amendment with immediate alacrity, because its objectives are beyond any kind of party argument. The other reason for putting down this amendment is that at possibly no time since the
650
industry was rescued by the Government setting up a public corporation in 1977 has the industry been in such a parlous state. At no time since then has there been a situation in the shipbuilding industry when the firm support of the Government—and I do not mean merely financial support—is required in order that the industry may continue.
I can put this point in no better words than those set out in last Sunday's issue of the Sunday Times, which stated:
"Productivity in British yards has been raised, 23,000 jobs have been shed, and tender prices screwed down so far that all merchant ships are built at a loss. Indeed, the more ships built, the more money lost. No longer can the loss of a contract, like that for the 'Cunard Countess', be dismissed by Mrs. Thatcher with 'win some, lose some' shrug of a football manager whose team has suffered a humiliating reverse. The very future of the team is now at stake."
The article continued:
"In effect, the Government must now decide: does it or does it not want a shipbuilding and ship repairing industry? It"—
that is, the Government—
"has, after all, a responsibility to preserve a core industry capable of safeguarding the nation's security and independence of action—factors whose importance was underlined during the Falklands War, when the merchant fleet and shipbuilding yards made such a huge contribution".
In my view, those words encapsulate the current situation; a situation in which the results of the industry—according to the best information at my disposal (and I have not yet seen the latest accounts which go into early 1983), and despite the more favourable result in the year ended 31st March 1982—have not been so promising. Indeed, according to the Sunday Times on, I think it was, 13th February, losses for the current year soared to £70 million.
That is the situation in which the Government have brought forward this particular Bill, the main purpose of which seems to be the facility to enable the Government to dispose of the warship companies. I shall not refer to that aspect any more except to say—and I believe the Government will agree—that that is the Bill's main purpose. But it does provide an opportunity now to lay upon the Government, and to persuade the Government to think about, the policy that they will adopt towards the shipbuilding industry as a whole.
The industry's labour force has been severely depleted. A number of the yards are running at a loss. We are now in a position where only 44 per cent. of United Kingdom domestic orders are placed with British shipyards. This record is quite abysmal when one considers how other countries' shipowners consider their own shipyards. In Italy, for example, 95 per cent. of the Italian shipowners' orders to go Italian shipyards. In West Germany, some 82 per cent. of orders go to domestic shipyards—and in Japan, of course, 100 per cent. of the orders do.
The Government may argue that this is a very unusual clause to put into a Bill, laying as it does a duty on the Secretary of State. But if the noble Lord the Minister will refer to the Telecommunications Bill, he will find that Clause 3 lays down specific duties on the Secretary of State, so there is a good and more modern precedent for doing so. Why, therefore, should a duty not be laid on the Secretary of State in this matter?
It is all the more necessary because the present responsibilities of the Department of Industry in relation to shipbuilding are very sketchy. I have been all the way through the duties of the Department of Industry as officially published, and it seems that the matters which are put down in this amendment—to help United Kingdom shipbuilders, for this is not confined to the nationalised company British Shipbuilders but also includes private British shipyards—would enable the department to cover any of them.
If the noble Lord the Minister will carefully go through the structure of his own department and will examine its whole organisation, the functions of its regional policy and development grants division, its industrial and commercial policy section, and its industrial and commercial policy divisions (both "A" and "B"), and its industrial sponsorship—particularly in relation to the shipbuilding division—he will find that nowhere is there explicitly stated as a duty any of the items set out in this amendment.
It may be objected that these requirements of the amendment impose too great a liability. I cannot imagine the noble Lord disagreeing with the objectives of paragraphs (a) and (b) but I am putting some emphasis on (c), which would lay upon the Secretary of State a responsibility to act in the manner that he considers best,
"to ensure that United Kingdom shipbuilders are properly protected against unreasonable competition from foreign shipbuilders and ship repairers."
Nowhere in the whole of the Department of Industry's functions as published is there such a responsibility.
It is to the Department of Trade that we now turn. It has some limited responsibility, but only in regard to Europe. If one looks at the functions of the Department of Trade, as officially set out, it says it is responsible for general policy on trade with other countries and international negotiations on general trade, and the protection of United Kingdom commercial interests within the Community. It seems to me rather an odd limitation. There does not appear to be any requirement expressed in official terms in the published documents—and I have nothing other than the official documents—that lays on the Department of Trade any responsibility for the protection of British commercial interests outside the EEC.
This amendment would enable the Department of Industry to think again and to consider whether in the circumstances it would be proper for it to take on the responsibilities that are set out in the amendment. This becomes more particularly apposite in view of the recent contract which went from the Central Electricity Generating Board by a somewhat mysterious route to a company in Korea. I am within the recollection of your Lordships as having gone in some detail into the nature and extent of this transaction, and it is also within your Lordships' recollection that never at any point was a reply received from the Government to the very detailed points that I made in the course of that debate.
It was therefore with some dismay that I read the report of the proceedings in another place and the words of the Minister, which had some bearing—in
652
fact a very apposite bearing—on this Korean episode. The Minister said (and I quote from col. 249 of Hansard dated 19th April):
"Some hon. Members have this evening blamed the difficulties of our merchant shipbuilding industry on unfair competition for the Far East, and on many occasions the prime culprit has been identified as Korea. We should be wary of putting all the blame for our problems on unfair competition. The fact is that Korea, for example, has a substantial comparative advantage over the United Kingdom. It has come late to the business. Its industry is very new and has the benefit of considerable recent investment. Labour is cheaper and workers are prepared to accept working practices which would be unacceptable to their British counterparts."
The Minister declined in any way to intervene further.
I ask your Lordships to appreciate the enormity that is implicit in that statement. It means that in relation to countries where the wage levels are as low as 23 to 25 per cent. of European levels (I do not refer purely to those of Britain) where they live not under ordinary democratic conditions, as we do in this country, not under conditions where there are free trade unions, which there are so far in this country, but live under a military regime with a veneer of democracy, with pliant unions—which in the case of Poland are, quite justifiably, such anathema to the party opposite—where in effect you get forced labour, there is nothing that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do to prevent unfair competition.
Is that what the British Government really want? Is that the notice they are serving on British industry as a whole, that when they talk of the necessity for British industry to be more competitive—which I am sure we all agree within the context of the Western democratic world—it means they are prepared to stand idly by in the face of competition with newly industrialised states under conditions of virtual dictatorship, able to enforce wage levels which are a fraction of Western European levels and enforce working conditions and hours of work which were long extinguished before the end of the Victorian era? Is this the kind of competition that they are prepared to stand idly by, accept and support? We need an answer on this because if the reply is "This is the kind of competition we really mean and we are prepared to stand idly by and allow this," then the damage that will be done to British industry is going to be very much worse than the damage that has been inflicted on it in the past.
I repeat that nobody objects to competition on what we would call a fair and reasonable basis. I know "fair and reasonable" is sometimes an ambiguous phrase to put into legislation, although the lawyers tell me that the term "reasonable" is sometimes very good to have in a legal clause because it implies that it is a conclusion or an expression that all reasonable men would accept. But is that the policy that the Government are prepared to follow? If they are, then the country should be on notice that this is the case.
In the meantime the shipbuilding industry and the shipbuilding towns in this country are facing very considerable distress indeed. Already the streets of our shipbuilding towns are filled with people who have to go to the labour exchange to draw benefit. These are the realities of the situation. A great cloud hangs over the shipbuilding industry.
It is my hope that the Government will accept the amendment in its present form, but, if they do not, then the onus lies upon them quickly to produce a plan

653
for the British shipbuilding industry which shows a Government determination to translate it into actions, rather than merely expressing words, to ensure that the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom does not go down the drain.
It is a matter of vital concern to the whole prosperity of the country. It is a matter of vital importance so far as the ordinary defence aspects of the situation are concerned, as we have seen from the Falklands Islands episode, in which the whole of the shipbuilding industry devoted every conceivable effort to support of the campaign that was then waged.
We should like an answer from the Government but we hope that within reasonable parameters of the clause laid down in the amendment they will not have any hesitation in accepting it. I beg to move.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
4.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervened to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers held in Luxembourg on 18th-20th April. I represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of State.
"The meeting continued the negotiations for the 1983–84 price fixing. It started with a statement by the Commission on current trends in the 1983–84 expenditure.
"The Commission informed the Council that an increase on the budgeted figure would be required in 1983. This contrasted with the position in 1982 when the out-turn was less than budgeted, and resulted from a combination of factors including the monetary changes of 21st March, substantial increases in the production of major products, and trends in world prices.
"They also informed the Council that their previous estimate of the budget provision likely to be required for 1984 had to be revised upwards by 6 per cent. The Commission stated that their price proposals for 1983–84, which had been criticised by the majority of member states as being inadequate and substantially below current rates of inflation in Europe, would need to be adhered to. In discussion, seven of the 10 member states argued strongly that there was a need to improve upon the price proposals of the Commission. Only one other member state argued, with us, that there should be no increases in the Commission's price proposals. The majority of member states strongly opposed the Commission proposal to reduce their original price increase for milk to an increase of only 2·3 per cent.
"The meeting was adjourned to enable the Commission to consider their position. Following a meeting of the Commission held on Wednesday
654
they came forward with a revised package of measures upon which they hoped to complete the price fixing. The Commission reported that they had decided that they would not put forward any proposals for any further price increases on any of the major commodities. They further declared that they had unanimously decided that, irrespective of what the Council of Ministers themselves should suggest, the Commission would not be making any proposals for further increases on the major commodities during this price fixing. I welcomed this statement.
"In discussion of the package proposed by the Commission, while many member states still expressed a desire for further price increases, it was clear that the majority would, albeit reluctantly, come to a conclusion on the basis of the Commission's paper.
"A major difficulty remained for Germany. The proposals made by the Commission for the revaluation of the German green currency would mean an increase in prices for Germany of the order of only 1 per cent. overall and no increase on the major commodities, milk and cereals. The German Minister could not accept this.
"Primarily to allow further consideration to be given to this issue, the meeting of the Council was adjourned until next Wednesday, when an attempt will be made to conclude the price fixing on the basis of the Commission's current proposals.
"The proposals, if accepted, would result in an increase of prices for the agricultural marketing year 1983–84 for the United Kingdom of 2·3 per cent. on milk, 3 per cent. on cereals and 3·8 per cent. over all products. For the Community, the overall increase would be 4 per cent., substantially below the anticipated inflation rate for the Community of 9 per cent.
"In the United Kingdom, the effect on food prices would, over a full year, add one half of 1 per cent. to the food price index and one tenth of 1 per cent. to the retail price index.
"We would retain the beef premium scheme and the sheep premium scheme. There would be a small improvement in the butter subsidy. These consumer subsidies would be worth between £200–£300 million.
"The school milk subsidy would be improved from 10·9 pence per pint to 12·4 pence per pint. The scheme would last for five years and the total benefit next year is likely to be of the order of £16 million.
"For Northern Ireland, the various schemes assisting the beef producers would be extended and are anticipated to be of £11–12 million benefit to the Northern Ireland producers. The Commission have also proposed to move around 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland.
"The proposals include a number of measures of benefit to our pig and poultry producers. Firstly, these sectors would benefit from low cereals price increases. Second, the Commission would undertake to take account of regional difficulties in its management of the pigmeat market; this would for example mean that, if market conditions warranted it, the advantages of private storage facilities

655
financed by the Community could be continued in the United Kingdom even if there were no need for such facilities in other parts of the Community. And thirdly, following the strong representations we have made, the Commission propose to press ahead with a scheme to make available from intervention stocks cereals for use in animal feed. This could involve 2 to 3 million tonnes.
"I hope that negotiations can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I, personally, am grateful for the absence of my noble kinsman because the last time a Statement was made on the Common Market he accused me of an ungracious reception of what the Minister had said. I am afraid that I am going to be a little ungracious again in one sense, in that I think that, if the press reports are right—and I see no reason why The Times and the Telegraph should not be—Mr. Walker claims a farm price triumph. The Telegraph said:
"A triumphant Mr. Walker said Britain had virtually been given control over her Common Market partners by a Commission ruling that any change in the recommended prices required a unanimous vote by EEC Ministers".
The Times stated:
"This has given Mr. Walker total control over the outcome".
That seems an extraordinary thing. There were another two Ministers by his side in the negotiations and if any one Minister can have a veto then they all can have it. I cannot see why Mr. Walker, for whom I have great respect because he is a good Minister of Agriculture, should say that, but we all know that there is an election in the offing and anything that helps a little the Government are glad to pick up. But it cannot help unity in the Community if a Minister claims a triumph of this description.
In any case, if he has all this power that is claimed for him, why did he not go further? In the debate on 3rd March in the other place he demanded no increases at all. Why did he not use the power to get what he wanted, which he had stated firmly in the debate in March?
As regards the Statement itself, the last sentence seems to be an interim one. The Minister says that he hopes that,
"negotiations can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible".
No doubt after the week's grace that has been given we shall be having another final Statement. I wonder whether that will be the case.
Naturally we welcome the Statement. I, and I am sure the consumers, hope that the figures quoted, showing how little will be the increase in the price of food, are correct. If that is so, the consumers will certainly welcome it, too. I wonder whether the noble Earl would care to make a guess as to whether the reduction in the corn prices will redress the balance between corn and horn. That is the one thing that would help the agricultural situation—if we could have a better balance in that way. I have mentioned this before, and I wonder what the Minister thinks.
656
Referring to page 2 of the Statement regarding the difficulty with Germany over the green currency situation, if a settlement is made, is it likely to affect this country or will it purely be between France and Germany? I see that the German Minister refuses to accept the proposals. I wonder whether, if a change is made, it will make any difference to this country. The school milk subsidy is to be improved by nearly 2p. I wonder whether this will encourage the Government to get local authorities to extend the present milk schemes, and also to take up more of the present ones. I am sure that that would help and encourage a lot of people in this country.
The Commission has proposed to move 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland. What exactly does that mean? Is that to be at a cheaper rate? Are there no cereals available from British stocks to go into Northern Ireland? What is the reason for that? I wonder whether the Minister can answer that question. The low cereal increases are mentioned in the last paragraph as helping the stock sectors. Does the Minister think that that is really an opportunity? It is a very small increase, even taking inflation into account. I doubt whether it will help the pigmeat and poultry people as much as they would like, or even whether it will make any difference at all.
What exactly does the last part of the Statement mean, about moving 2 million to 3 million tonnes from intervention to animal feed? Is this what I read about in Agra-Europe about a week or 10 days ago, which was a scheme to subsidise this amount? It does not say so in the Statement. I should be interested to know whether that will be subsidised. That would certainly help stockmen to a great extent. I hope that the Minister can answer these questions. As I say, we welcome the Statement in general.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we on these Benches want to welcome the Statement of the noble Earl the Minister, and briefly ask perhaps two questions. First, is this a Statement at all? It would appear from the way that it is written that it is a statement of intent, subject to satisfactory negotiations confirming the figures in it. I should say that my noble friend who would normally be putting the questions on this Statement is not in the House today. I feel that the figures included in the Statement will have to be clarified and confirmed when the negotiations have been completed. I would ask the noble Earl to confirm that.
I also detect a slight change in the Commission's thinking towards the "fat cats" of the European farming community, who have been for far too long the beneficiaries of the CAP. I think that the Minister of Agriculture should be congratulated on supporting and assisting in the change of heart in this area. Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I, too, should like clarification of the last paragraph of the Statement—whether the intervention in stock cereals means assistance for the use of cereals in animal feeding, especially in the hill farming areas of this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may, I would answer the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, first. He asked whether this was a Statement. It is a Statement. He asked whether it was a statement of intent. He is of course quite

657
correct that it is a statement of intent. The Statement really showed what has happened so far. It indicated that if the proposals which were put on the table are in fact agreed to—which at the moment they are not—then this is to be the likely outcome. But the noble Lord was perfectly correct when he said that there would in fact be a further Statement when the outcome is final. It is not final yet, of course, although it is hoped that it will be next week. The noble Lord is quite correct when he says that that will have to be clarified, as indeed will a number of the points to which I have referred. I have been asked some detailed questions which I would prefer not to answer in total yet because the position itself is not clear. I appreciate the noble Lord's congratulations to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for having tried to encourage a reduction in the claims for higher increases of prices.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that he was grateful for the Statement and then proceeded to castigate the Government, not for what was said in the Statement but for what a newspaper had said or what two newspapers had said. If a newspaper says that somebody thinks that this is a triumph, that is what the newspaper says; it is not what the Statement says. I hate to say the most elementary of things to the noble Lord, but he really should not believe all that he reads in the newspapers. One newspaper will say one thing and another will say another. I do not think that it was very helpful to castigate my right honourable friend by saying that it does not help unity when a paper has said that this was a triumph.
If the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, were to read the Statement a little more thoroughly he would see in the fullness of time that it was not my right honourable friend but the Commission who reported that they had decided that they would not put forward proposals for further price increases of any major commodities. The Commission further declared that they had unanimously decided that, irrespective of what the Council of Ministers themselves should suggest, the Commission would not be making any proposals for further increases in major commodities during this price-fixing. That was the Commission's move and that was the Commission's proposal. My right honourable friend warmly welcomed that, and that is the position as it is.
The noble Lord asked me to speculate on whether the reduction in the price of cereals would repair the balance between corn and horn. I would for clarity and for correctness remind the noble Lord that it is not a reduction in price; it is a reduction in the increase in the price. In so far as this increase is lower than it might have been and lower than the rate of inflation, one hopes that that will make its effect felt on the balance between corn and horn, as he puts it.
The noble Lord also asked what effect the alteration of the German currency rates would have upon the United Kingdom. I am bound to tell him that I would not speculate on that because I do not know what changes will be made. When the noble Lord referred to school milk he said that he was glad that this would result in an increased subsidy of school milk. I quite agree that this is encouraging. It ought to encourage the use of more milk in schools. We would hope that
658
it would do so. It is quite encouraging to know that this is going on for the next five years.
With regard to the point about cereals to which the noble Lord referred, he will be aware that when stocks are taken into intervention they are taken in at a price which is inevitably lower than that which is used when they are on the open market. Very often the criticism has been that there have been these stocks of cereals in intervention which cannot be used for feeding purposes. The purpose of this—and it is a very difficult situation to police properly, which has been one of the problems; it is difficult to operate the provision effectively—is to be able to use that which was in intervention for pig or other animal feeding by some method which will have to be approved and which will enable this to be done either by taking cereals out of intervention or by preventing them from going into intervention, possibly with a subsidy—but that has not yet been determined.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to point out to him that it is Mr. Walker who is claiming the triumph. He is quoted in The Times—and I look forward to seeing a denial in The Times tomorrow. It was Mr. Walker whom I quoted as saying—and I shall read it now—
"Although that increase is below the average and through the B quota …"—
I am sorry, my Lords—
"I … believe that a freeze on cereal prices this year would be far more sensible."—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/83; col. 388].
I was quoting Mr. Walker.
Earl Ferrers: I am so sorry, my Lords. I thought that the noble Lord was quoting a newspaper report. It may be a newspaper report of what the Minister said—but it is not what the Statement says. In so far as it is said that my right honourable friend was pleased, of course he was pleased, because he has been encouraging the Commission and the Council of Ministers not to increase their proposed prices at the price fixing. In so far as the Council has decided not to do that, of course my right honourable friend was perfectly pleased, as would have been the noble Lord had he been in my right honourable friend's position.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I should like to ask a very brief question. Is it correct to assume that the beef premium scheme has been saved?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, that is correct, my Lords.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is a most heartening move on the part of the Commission to have taken a firm line so differently from earlier years, whatever are the other implications, and that this is something that we should welcome with open arms?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. However, I must be careful not to be too much in agreement with him for fear that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, may say that I am being triumphant. I would say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend has over a great many years been trying to persuade the Commission

659
and the whole Council of Ministers to make such a move. The fact that it is beginning to take effect is I believe grounds for modest pleasure.
Lord Oram: My Lords, can the noble Earl make clear what was the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture in respect of milk? Do I understand the position to be that he supported the proposal of the Commission; namely, I believe an increase of 2.3 per cent., or did he advocate no increase—a freeze? When a few weeks ago we debated the matter, I understood that the Government were favouring a nil increase in those cases where surpluses were continuing to be produced, and I am wondering whether the Government have changed their attitude in that respect.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will know, the object of any negotiation is to be able to secure an agreement. It has always been our view that there should not be any increases in those commodities which are in structural surplus. That is our view. But when one knows that that is not likely to have the agreement of the other members of the Community, it is essential to try to find what is the position on which one can get agreement. When the Commission put forward the proposals which included an increase of 2.3 per cent. in the price of milk, my right honourable friend supported them because he knew they would be the kind of proposals which were most likely to attract agreement. Even though he supported those proposals, as was explained in the Statement, agreement has not yet been secured.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to my noble friend's supplementary question, is the noble Earl aware that we welcome the fact that the effect of the proposals on food prices will be small? Will he be good enough to "translate" that particular point in rather more detail? From what has been stated would we be right in inferring that there will be no increase in the price of milk or bread, but that there could be an increase in the price of beef? Is that how we should read that part of the Statement?
Secondly, while wishing to bear in mind the noble Earl's injunction that we should not believe everything we read in the newspapers, may I ask him to confirm what the Financial Times stated this morning: that a supplementary EEC budget of more than £1.2 billion is needed this year to finance farm support spending? That is 35 per cent. more than last year. I think that the point is made, or at least can be read between the lines, in the Statement, but are those the facts? Is the estimated cost of the current proposals £261 million this year, and a further £486 million next year? If those figures are true, are they not proof of the need for radical reform of the CAP?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are all conscious of the expenditure of the common agricultural policy. As the noble Lord, as an ex-Minister of Agriculture, and a greatly respected one, will know, all countries are trying to secure within the common agricultural policy a system which works properly and effectively. When the noble Lord says that the CAP needs drastic reform, I would point out that reform must be carried out in a
660
way that is acceptable to the parties involved. I agree with him that the percentage increases are unattractive, if I may so put it.
With regard to the 35 per cent., I want to make the position quite clear. One refers to the first five months of this year, even though only four months have passed. It is expected that for the first five months of this year the increase will be 35 per cent. over what it was for the first five months of last year. That does not mean to say that the cost of the common agricultural policy for this year is expected to be 35 per cent. more than it was last year. However, it is expected that there will be an increase, and the Commission has said that it will be putting forward a supplementary budget after the price fixing has been agreed. What that amount will be, I cannot yet tell the noble Lord.

British Shipbuilders Bill
4.36 p.m.
Debate on the amendment moved on Third Reading, resumed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I now return to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that, much as some might hope, it is just not possible to legislate against market forces, and though at first sight the amendment might seek to do that, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not say that in his opening remarks. As it appears, the amendment does no more than ask the Secretary of State to use what influence he has in a way which, in his judgment, promotes certain objectives.
These objectives are ones with which I am sure we would all agree. We might have different means of trying to achieve them, but I doubt whether anyone in the House would not subscribe to the wish to see United Kingdom shipbuilders in a stronger market position, to see United Kingdom and foreign owners encouraged to place their orders in this country, and to see United Kingdom shipbuilders protected against unreasonable competition; though what in this context constitutes "unreasonable" is, I suggest, open to debate.
Because the Government broadly share the underlying spirit of the objectives, we have taken, and shall continue to take, action designed to help British Shipbuilders and the other United Kingdom shipbuilders and repairers. Perhaps I may refer to some of the steps that we are taking. Our support for British Shipbuilders now amounts to over £600 million in the form of public dividend capital fund, the intervention fund, the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, and other aid. In 1981–82 alone, for example, we provided over £47 million-worth of price support through the intervention fund. We fully recognise that the industry faces a continuing period of acute difficulty, not least the kind of difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred, and which were referred to recently by my honourable friend in the other place. We accept that this must mean a

661
continuing measure of support for merchant shipbuilding for the foreseeable future.
United Kingdom aids to shipbuilding are set within a European framework. The problems of Far Eastern competition and a distorted world market have hit all European shipbuilding industries. The level of assistance over the past year has been determined by a balance between the need to overcome distortion in the market and that of avoiding a subsidy race which would be in no-one's interest. A subsidy race would be very costly, self-defeating and leave the United Kingdom industry no better off than before. We have to offer aid within an international framework if we are to avoid escalation. We shall be discussing proposals for further assistance to the shipbuilding industry with the Commission and our Community partners.
The Government provide support for the shipbuilding industry in a number of different ways: the intervention fund, as I have said, credit, shipbuilders' relief, et cetera. Noble Lords, especially the noble Lord. Lord Bruce, have suggested changes which would permit additional support to be given. I am not referring to what he said today but to what the House has heard on other occasions. Some changes are not practical. A scrap and build scheme is often mentioned as a possibility. In debate on the Bill my honourable friend the Minister of State explained at length why this would not help. In the end, it would benefit mainly the scrapyards; and at a time when most owners are heavily tonnaged and want to scrap ships without buying new ones, it is unlikely to be widely taken up and provide much help to the shipbuilding industry.
Improved credit is another suggestion heard from time to time. The Government are willing to consider proposals for improvements to the home credit scheme; but the scope for flexibility is limited by international commitments to ensure that the terms of the scheme comply with those permitted under the OECD understanding on export credit for ships. I know that other contries offer more advantageous credit terms than we do. Belgium and Denmark are examples. But they do not also give production subsidies. If both elements of support are considered together, the United Kingdom is about halfway up the league in terms of assistance.
The United Kingdom shipping industry is also criticised for placing a much smaller proportion of its orders in home yards than fleets in other countries. This was a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred. On average, about 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet orders go to United Kingdom yards compared with over 80 or 90 per cent. in some other countries. But the United Kingdom fleet is very much bigger than others in Europe, apart of course from Greece—they have no shipbuilding industry to speak of—and is an important employer, with over 70,000 seagoing employees, as well as being an important export earner. It operates in a fiercely competitive international market. Its competitive freedom is vitally important.
United Kingdom shipowners have to be able to buy where they can get the best deal. If United Kingdom yards offer the best terms, they will certainly win the business. We cannot hope to tackle the problems of the
662
United Kingdom shipbuilding industry by damaging the commercial freedom and efficiency of United Kingdom shipping. Other Governments provide assistance but the amendment does not stipulate what action should be taken. For that reason, it is an unnecessary and, in my view, an inappropriate addition to the Bill.
Having said that, I was pleased to see in the amendment a reference in paragraph (a) to United Kingdom shipbuilders rather than simply to British Shipbuilders, the public corporation. There are some small private sector shipbuilders and private ship repairers. We have made no secret of our hope that the size of the private sector will increase. We have however repeatedly made it clear that the powers to direct British Shipbuilders to dispose of its property would be used only after consultation and for reasons related to the industry's interests—to build on the strengths of the industry. But our concern is that the whole of the industry, whether the public or private sector, should improve its competitive position and regain its markets. Whether it could improve its position to move from a 2 per cent. share of the world market for merchant ships to a predominant position, as envisaged by the amendment, is I believe a matter beyond even the industry's boldest dreams.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment seeks protection against unreasonable competition. The whole framework of European Community and OECD policies is designed to avoid unfair competition through regulation of subsidies—both production subsidies to the builder and subsidised credit to the buyer. The difficult question however is when is competition unreasonable or unfair? Comparative advantage through lower costs does not make competition unfair. But if there is evidence of hidden subsidy leading to depressed export prices we shall certainly pursue it with the countries concerned—as indeed I think would the Government of any country or any Government of this country.
This amendment, if accepted, would I fear not achieve anything. It would express generalised objectives without specifying how they are to be achieved. It makes it clear that it would be for the Secretary of State's judgment whether his actions were designed to achieve the objectives. The amendment would change nothing and would be an unnecessary addition to the statute. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have some sympathy with Lord Bruce's comments. My noble friend on the Front Bench asked: what is unfair competition? I consider that unfair competition arises where a country like Korea or other countries in the Far East pay wages that are about a quarter, or even less, of what we pay here. Many of the countries that compete with us in shipbuilding have what really amounts to forced labour. Some are dictatorships. I consider these factors as unfair competition. I agree that we in Europe have to stand on our own feet. However, when one considers the depressed wages in other countries, I believe that we should subsidise the British shipbuilding industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Yes, we do. But one has to remember that the shipbuilding industry used to be what I would call the heart of England. At one time we built half the tonnage of the world. Now, I understand, we build only 2 or 2½ per cent. That is an utter tragedy. We still have the skills. We are probably the most skilful shipbuilders in the world. I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that we cannot restrict shipowners as to where they have their ships built. They must have their ships built where they can obtain the cheapest quote. I was once interested in a small way as a shipowner. They contribute a great deal to the invisible exports of this country. We cannot restrict them.
There is, however, a need to try and combat the position under which some countries use forced labour. I should like to go back for a moment into the past. Several of your Lordships, including my noble friend on the Front Bench, will be too young to recall the flax trade. It was a great trade in the North of Ireland, and also in the Netherlands. However, owing to forced labour in other countries, especially Russia, the trade was completely destroyed in this country and in the Netherlands. By using forced labour, Russia was able to undercut every other producer of flax. Having done so, Russia had a complete monoply of flax and "upped" the price.
I do not wish to stray off the point, but forced labour in dictatorships poses a great danger. I do not know what the answer is; but of all the industries in Britain, the shipbuilding industry should, I believe, have the greatest help. I am on the whole opposed to heavy subsidies, but here is an exception.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, like the noble Lord the Minister I first read this amendment with a great deal of sympathy for the general theme behind the three subsections. I then reminded myself that my noble friend Lord Simon had spoken very strongly against this Bill on Second Reading. But I also reminded myself that it was the constitutional duty of this House as a revising Chamber to try to be helpful. Therefore, basically it seemed to me that it would be helpful to include a new clause headed:
"General duties of Secretary of State"
at this stage of the Bill. When we read those words particularly in the context of Clause 2, new Sections 4A and 4B, there is a strong case to be made out for saying that it would be helpful in the circumstances of this British Shipbuilders Bill to have some general duties of the Secretary of State set out in this way.
As far as subsections (a) and (b) are concerned, I would go a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as regards the basic theme behind those two subsections. However, subsection (c) causes me considerable trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, emphasised this subsection as being a very important aspect of the amendment. I believe that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, also appreciates the problem which is facing British shipbuilding operations in the light of what is loosely known as "unfair competition". If subsection (c) had dealt with competition in the context of Articles 85 and 86 of the
664
Treaty of Rome I would have supported it. But when it deals with,
"unreasonable competition"—
whatever that may mean—
"from foreign shipbuilders and ship repairers"
generally, then I ask myself: what is intended by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to prevent such so-called "unfair competition"? Does he mean that import restrictions would be imposed or that there might be some kind of levies? That of course would be a situation which we on these Benches would be very much against. Therefore, it is with considerable regret that I must say that I could not support the amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, proposes to divide the House.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I rise only to support what the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, have already said. Subsection (c) includes the word "unreasonable", which is a word about which enormous differences of opinion are held according to whether you are suffering from import competition or you want to export. Ever since the end of the war the problem of competition in international trade has exercised the world and that is particularly so in the period of a recession. But throughout that period GATT, and now the Community, have built up a complex structure to deal with this problem. It would be most unfortunate if we made any move suggesting that we wanted to weaken those institutions.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I should like to make one additional point. There is really very little between the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I on the spirit of the amendment that he has put before your Lordships' House. The problem is that the world shipbuilding industry, of which the British shipbuilding industry is but a part, is facing the worst recession in its fortunes for half a century or more. That is why the situation is so difficult in the world shipbuilding industry, and of course the British shipbuilding industry is not immune to those difficulties.
Several noble Lords have pointed to the difficulty of defining the unfair competition which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has in mind, and I too share the misgivings on that point. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will agree that to put these sort of exhortations, which is really what they are, into the Bill, would not now be appropriate.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for the support he offered to what I believe to be the whole core of this matter—that is to say, whether our domestic industries, of which the shipbuilding industry is only one, but a very important one that goes right to the vitals of the nation, should be exposed without any demur to competition that emanates not from free democracies within which free trade unions operate, not within Europe, I would hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilgerran, but from countries with military régimes where trade unions are the pliant servants of Government, as in Poland before Lech Walesa; and whether we are prepared to sit back and allow this to continue. We all

665
know that, since the abolition of exchange control in the United Kingdom, considerable sums of money have left the City of London for South Korea precisely to invest in shipyards there, where these low costs, these fractional wage costs and these very subnormal conditions of work apply. We know, too, that money has gone there from the United States and from West Germany. Sure enough, they are new industries which are well equipped, but they have been equipped very largely through British finance. In order to get a return on British finance in places like South Korea we are now in a situation where labour—I venture to put it in parenthesis, sweated labour—in such countries is now going to be permitted to strike at the vitals of our own industry here. That is the plain and simple issue and that is the way in which I am sure the country will understand it.
I am very grateful for the sympathy that has emanated from the noble Lord. He expressed himself most agreeably in favour of the broad trend of the amendment. The irony of it is that in the middle of the debate on this matter there was a Statement from another place on the CAP—a CAP which is about the most protectionist instrument of the lot for the whole of British farming. So we are applying one standard to our industries that are battling for our existence but we are prepared to pay out thousands of millions of pounds in deliberately protective measures in support of British farmers. This is not a time to debate agriculture, but the contrast is very stark and very ironic.
I did not mention the question of scrap and build. That was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite presumably in amplification of the concluding statement of his right honourable friend in another place. But since the noble Lord touched upon the matter, may I say that scrap and build was very much on my mind when this amendment was put down.
It is the duty of the British Government to take a very hard look at the position of the shipping industry when large numbers of floating coffins are abroad the high seas at present, sustained only by the fact that insurance companies will still continue to insure, at exorbitant rates, ships that are not really seaworthy. The noble Lord may ask how that affects the Government. The answer is very simple, and it was brought out very clearly at the conference on shipping over which I presided in Paris in 1978. If the Government themselves (not the Department of Industry, but the Department of Trade) really enforce standards of inspection on British ships—and I mean really enforce them—then that would result in a number of ships which are at the moment sailing the seas not being allowed to be there, and it would in fact necessitate their replacement.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I feel that I must intervene again, and I hope that I still have your Lordships' permission to do so. Is the noble Lord saying that there are ships on the British register now sailing which are unseaworthy?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, no. I am saying that there are ships owned by British shipowners which are scrupulous enough to fly under flags of convenience but which are still owned by British
666
shipowners, who avoid the regulations. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, this has been brought out. For example, he knows that 25 per cent. of the tankers in the ownership of British shipowners are registered under flags of convenience and do not fly under the British flag. Therefore, something that Her Majesty's Government could do would be to enforce standards. They may enforce them as regards ships under the British flag; but they could also take a far more active part in international conventions that seek to enforce these standards internationally.
In any event, the Government ought to take a more positive attitude towards the whole of the British shipbuilding industry. I suggest that the incorporation of this clause, which merely incorporates general duties—but sufficient duties for any Secretary of State to be mindful of them in the discharge of the functions of his office—ought to be included in the Bill, if only as a marker as to the real responsibilities of the Secretary of State in relation to the shipbuilding industry. I am sorry, but in view of the Government's refusal to accept the amendment, I must press this matter to a Division.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Molloy, L.

Birk, B.

Nicol, B.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Peart, L.

Brockway, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Collison, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rea, L.

Denington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Segal, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Soper, L.

Gregson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Willis, L.

Longford, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Coleraine, L.

Amulree, L.

Colyton, L.

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Aylestone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Banks, L.

Cox, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Belhaven of Stenton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bellwin, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Blake, L.

De Freyne, L.

Boardman, L.

De La Warr, E.

Caccia, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Derwent, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Diamond, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Cathcart, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

667

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Garner, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

George-Brown, L.

Porritt, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glanusk, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Roberthall, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rochester, L.

Gridley, L,

Romney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sainsbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hanworth, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Somers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Southborough, L.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Kennet, L.

Stamp, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Kitchener, E.

Swansea, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tordoff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trenchard, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Moyola, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I now rise to move that this Bill do now pass. The Bill will give commercial freedom to British Shipbuilders. It will enable them to draw on the resources of the private sector and to open up new sources of finance. But it will also give the Government reserve powers to deal with unfair competition and to determine the borderline between public and private sectors of the industry. These powers are, as you Lordships will recall, subject to negative resolution of either House.
In our debates noble Lords opposite have perhaps not fully acknowledged the support that the Government have given to the industry and which I referred to again when we were considering the amendment just now. Our first actions on coming into office were to ensure the continuation of the Intervention Fund and of the Shipbuilding Redundancy Payment Scheme. Both these schemes were on the point of collapsing. More recently we have significantly increased the value of the redundancy benefits available. The taxpayer has also been called upon to assist the industry by providing well over £600 million since 1979.
668
The Labour Party, by contrast, has emphasised the support that it would give to shipbuilding, should it be returned to office. It has said that it would increase investment in the industry. But when it left office, capital investment in British Shipbuilders was at a very low level—a level which provided for little more than essential maintenance. In contrast, under the present Administration, capital investment has increased and new large capital projects have been started. We have approved an increased external financing limit for 1983–84 which accommodates capital expenditure of £90 million; that is, a fourfold increase on the levels of four years ago. That is a level of expenditure which compares favourably with the frequently quoted levels of investment undertaken in Japan.
We are of course fully aware of the current severe difficulties facing the industry. These problems are afflicting the industry worldwide whether it is publicly or privately owned, and the Government are sympathetically considering the request for assistance which the chairman of British Shipbuilders has put to us. This Bill is designed to help the industry. It will improve British Shipbuilders' ability to compete and survive. I therefore beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when I listened to the noble Lord's record of what had been done for British Shipbuilders under the present Administration, I suddenly realised that we were getting away from the Bill and must be getting near election time. However, he did say in the course of his remarks that the Bill gave the Government power to protect the British industry from unfair competition. Since the noble Lord, right from the beginning of the passage of the Bill through this House from the Second Reading onwards, has explicitly stated that it is impossible for the Government to protect British Shipbuilders against unfair competition, it is very interesting to see whereabouts in the Bill that power has been taken. In fact, the only power that would enable the Government to do it was comprised in sub-paragraph (c) of the amendment which the Government have just rejected.
I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time any further in the consideration of this Bill. It is a bad, squalid little Bill. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever, except to give the Government powers to flog off the profitable portions of the warship section, which operates on the cost-plus basis. This is the sole purpose of the Bill.
I ought to warn the noble Lord that on the return of a Labour Administration we shall undoubtedly repeal this Bill. Moreover, we shall make inquiries to exhume some of the rather queer transactions that have been referred to by me in the course of the Committee stage. I hope that none will be protected from that exhumation which will take place.
This is a completely unnecessary Bill, but there is nothing we can do within the conventions of the House to stop it going through. It would be an abuse of the conventions of this House, as we see them, to object to a Motion that the Bill do now pass. I suppose,

669
my Lords, that the best thing we can do with it is to let it pass, because it will soon pass out of human consciousness anyway.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, may I say just a few words about the Bill at this stage? For reasons that I shall not rehearse now, my noble friend Lord Simon on behalf of my noble friends opposed the Bill in principle at Second Reading, as your Lordships know. We sought to introduce one or two amendments, for one of which I was responsible, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will not be surprised to be reminded that I regret very much that the Government did not feel able to accept the amendment concerned with the subject of employee involvement.
I should however like to take this opportunity on behalf of my noble friends to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the way in which he has piloted the Bill through this House. Their general attitude to it must be the same as that to which expression has just been given by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I think we should leave it at that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed.

Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
5.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield The Lord Bishop of Wakefield rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this is the first occasion that I have had the honour to introduce to your Lordships' House legislative business proposed by the General Synod. The first of the Measures before the House this evening is the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure. Like its two predecessors, it is concerned with making minor amendments in the law on points of detail which are not contentious. We are seeking to ease and simplify the legal and administrative procedures of the Church at a number of specific points.
In brief, the purpose of this Measure is first to amend the new Parishes Measure 1943 in relation to the enlargement of existing sites of churches and church halls. The aim of the first four clauses of this Measure is to enable conveyancing of church property to be done more efficiently in certain specific transactions. The Measure also makes more comprehensive provision for the discharge of certain of a bishop's functions if he is ill or absent from his diocese. It amends, too, the constitution of appeals tribunals
670
for the compensation of the clergy by increasing the number of clergy and laymen from whom the members of the tribunal are chosen.
In Clause 12 it transfers a house and muniment room in the Lichfield Cathedral Close to the ownership of the Diocesan Board of Finance when the present diocesan registrar vacates his office. There are also other small amendments to the law in the Measure.
This Measure first came before General Synod in July 1981, when it received general approval. A revision committee then scrutinised it very carefully and considered a number of suggestions made by individual members of Synod. A number of valuable amendments were made, and they were agreed to by General Synod at revision stage in February last year. The Measure received final approval in July 1982 in all three houses of Synod with no dissentient vote. Subsequently, counsel to the Ecclesiastical Committee suggested two drafting amendments. So the Measure was amended by General Synod and given final approval in February of this year. Once more it received approval with no dissentient votes.
The Ecclesiastical Committee have met and considered the Measure. They have expressed their opinion that it is expedient. I very much doubt whether your Lordships will wish me to detain the House with a more detailed exposition of the clauses. I would stress that they are the outcome of a long process of preparation and scrutiny. As I have indicated, they are mostly of a minor and technical nature, but they are helpful for the smoother administration of the Church in a number of specific ways. So I beg to move that the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent,—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity briefly to contribute to the Motion moved by the right reverend Prelate in support of the Church of England General Synod Measure which is now before the House. As your Lordships may know, I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and also a Church Commissioner. I am pleased to support the Measure. The Measure, as the right reverend Prelate has said, does not effect major changes, but it would permit a number of detailed, uncontentious points to be resolved. This, it was thought, would help towards simplifying the Church's legal procedures. The Measure comes from the General Synod of the Church of England, has been considered to be expedient by the membership of Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee, and should receive our support. I give the Measure a welcome.
Lord Amulree: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the Motion that the right reverend Prelate has moved. I hope that it will be agreed to by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pastoral Measure
5.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield The Lord Bishop of Wakefield rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the second Measure for which I seek your Lordships' approval to present to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent is the Pastoral Measure. This is a substantial Measure which is of considerable importance, for it touches at so many points the life and ministry of the Church of England. This is a consolidation Measure and consolidates the Pastoral Measure of 1968, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure of 1982, and other related enactments.
It is the outcome of a lengthy and very thorough process of consideration which began as far back as July 1973. It so happens that I was then appointed vice-chairman, and later became chairman, of a large and representative working party to review the operation of the 1968 Pastoral Measure. We consulted the dioceses, inviting bishops' councils to submit evidence from the diocesan bodies, such as the Board of Finance, the Pastoral Committee and the Advisory Committee—all the bodies most closely concerned with the working of the Measure. We also received oral and written evidence from the Church Commissioners, from the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, the Redundant Churches Fund, the Council for the Care of Churches and the amenity societies. All told, we examined more than 600 suggestions for amending the Pastoral Measure.
In July 1975 we reported to the General Synod that, broadly, the Pastoral Measure was functioning well but we believed it could be improved by a series of detailed suggestions—some of them far-reaching, others more technical. We also recommended a code of good practice to help those in the dioceses operate the provisions of the Measure with care and sensitivity. I believe that the code, which was authorised by the Standing Committee of General Synod, has been of very real assistance in this respect. After the Synod debate in 1975, the wheels were set in motion to prepare the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure. Those wheels turned more slowly than we had anticipated, but in due course the Measure was introduced and then very carefully revised by the Revision Committee of Synod. When I moved the final approval stage in February 1981, it was passed in all three Houses with no dissentient votes. The lengthy preparation and thorough discussion has, however, meant that we have been able to express the mind and will of Synod as a whole. The pastoral situation in our Church has changed considerably since the 1975 debate. There are, for instance, 2,000 fewer parochial clergy than there were eight years ago, and, of course, the whole financial balance of the Church has changed enormously as the living Church now provides substantially greater proportions for the stipends of the clergy.
The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure was carefully examined by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it was
672
debated in your Lordships' House on July 14th last year, on a Motion introduced by my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. Your Lordships, I imagine, will not wish me to go once more over ground which was covered in that debate: for example, in regard to the modification of the right to appeal to the Privy Council, or the transfer to the Church Commissioners of the final decision in regard to the demolition of a church when it is to be replaced by a new one, let alone the finer points of the Measure (I speak at random) in regard to pastoral committees, pastoral orders and schemes, definitions of interested parties, the membership of team ministries, the changes in relation to pastoral accounts and so on.
The broad issues of policy have been debated already, and the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure has received the Royal Assent. But in their report last year on that Measure the Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention to a number of minor defects in the drafting. They recommended that these should be amended on consolidation. Indeed, they felt that because the Measure was so lengthy and complex, consolidation was highly desirable. In the General Synod we were of the same mind. It is obviously essential that practitioners in the dioceses, administrators in central Church bodies and perhaps, most of all, those people in the parishes whose interests may be affected by it should be able to have access to a text which is comprehensive and complete. The consolidation Measure received final approval in the February meeting of the General Synod in all three Houses by 298 votes to 3.
The Ecclesiastical Committee have deemed this Measure to be expedient. In their report they have stated that it makes a number of minor corrections and improvements for a more satisfactory consolidation, and these include amendments to cure the small defects in the amendment Measure that they had previously noted.
My Lords, those of us who have lived with this Measure over the past 10 years have tried to keep before our minds the words in the Long Title of the 1968 Pastoral Measure, which are retained in the Measure before us today. It is,
"designed to make better provision for the cure of souls".
That, in the beginning and at the end of the day, is what this Measure is for. Of course, we know that no legislation, no enactment by itself, can secure the effective ministry of clergy and laity, or provide loving pastoral care, sound teaching, reverent worship, a proper regard for buildings or a commitment to evangelism. We know that. But good legislation can help to provide a better and less cramping framework in which these desirable things can happen.
Just as it requires a good spirit to work the provisions of a Measure and a good code of practice (which is now in progress of preparation) to help people use it to best advantage, so in the end it requires pastors and lay people working as partners and animated by the Spirit of God to forward the ministry and mission of the Church. It is our hope that this Measure will provide a useful set of tools to help in that task, and it is in that hope that I beg to move that the Pastoral Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, again I am pleased to support the Measure before us and, as the right reverend Prelate has said, it has come from the General Synod of the Church of England and is a consolidation Measure, including the Pastoral Measure of 1968 and the Pastoral Measure of 1982, which, as your Lordships will recall, was debated last July. As we have been told, there are other statutory provisions set out in Schedule 9. As we have been told, this is a consolidating enactment and does not amend the existing law except in regard to some rather minor and insignificant matters.
I am sure the House is pleased to hear from the right reverend Prelate of the need to keep Measures up to date in respect of desirable changes and of the assurances of consultation. Not least, of course, we can be assured by knowing of the very painstaking examination and work which various church bodies at all levels devote to all such measures. The Measure has been before the Ecclesiastical Committee and will be very convenient to all concerned with its operation. I welcome the Measure and invite your Lordships' support.
Lord Amulree: My Lords, I should like to support what the right reverend Prelate has said, and to support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
5.31 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First of all, may I say that the fact that I am speaking from my usual place in this House does not mean that this Bill is in any sense a party measure. It is obviously a matter on which each individual should form his or her conscientious opinion. I am glad to see, so far as I can judge from the list of speakers and from what I have heard, that the Bill will have pretty full support from all parties.
First, what is female circumcision? Although it is in the Short Title of the Bill, I have to admit that it is a misnomer—a very common misnomer, which is now in such universal use that I think it would be pedantic to seek to upset it. The operation the Bill addresses itself to is something far worse than the misnomer suggests. It is nothing short of the cutting out of the clitoris, and a whole spectrum of other mutilations beyond that. I am going to leave the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is qualified to do so, to explain in more detail what it amounts to physically and in medical terms. The point to grasp, for the needs of the legislator, is that all these procedures are mutilations, and that the operation assaults, and attempts to cancel, the womanhood of a person.
674
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Articles 5 says:
"No one shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".
I think that when the House has heard the full account from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, of what goes on no one will be able to doubt that this operation falls under those words.
Where is it done? It is done in an East-West belt across Africa between the Sahara and the Forest and just running into South-West Asia across the Red Sea. Within that belt it is done to babies, to little girls and to young women, who may belong to any of the tribes and religions found in that belt. That means it is done among Muslims, among Christians, among Jews, among polytheists and among animists. The point is that it is in many places a majority operation, and in some countries it is estimated that as many as 90 per cent. of girls and women have suffered this mutilation.
Why is it done? It is not required by any religion. It is custom, pure and simple, and that is all we really know. Anthropology and psychology are still groping for the deeper reasons; and theories about it are many and extremely interesting. However, this Bill has nothing to do with Africa. The reason for the Bill is that this operation has begun to appear in this country, among people who come from that belt in Africa and South-West Asia.
The evidence that it is being done is as follows. The BBC's Radio 4 programme, "The World Tonight", on 12th November last year, transmitted the voice of a GP. He said that he had referred—I now quote textually—
"about eight in the last four years. They were from the Third World. They had a removal of the clitoris".
A tape of the programme exists and the staff of the programme have assured me that the speaker was indeed a general practitioner in this country, and that his identity is known to them. I accept that, and I can say to the House that it should do so also.
Quite separately from that evidence, I have in my possession incontrovertible documentary evidence that the clitoris and labia minora of a woman were excised in a London clinic in 1981. Beyond those direct pieces of evidence, it is commonly believed, among serious people who have made inquiry into the situation in this country, that those pieces of evidence are the tip of the iceberg.
Why is it appropriate to legislate? Some say we should legislate because it will help those who are working against this practice where it is prevalent. That opinion is to be found among leaders of the movement against it in certain countries: I have evidence of that too, but I will not delay the House with it at the moment. Some people say that we should legislate here to stop this country becoming a haven to which well-off people come to have it done, as pressure against it mounts in their own countries. It is in fact already banned in Sudan and in Kenya, and has recently been banned in Sweden. Those practising the operation have been prosecuted in France. The new Swedish law provides for two years in prison.
I merely report these opinions. I do not myself urge these arguments upon the House as reasons for legislating. It is in any case doubtful whether we should

675
legislate for ourselves, solely or principally to help people in other countries: there is an interesting argument concealed there. What I do urge as a simple, sufficient, and indeed imperative, reason is that we will not have this mutilation done here. It is against all humanity, kindness, respect and love; and we will not have it.
Who backs this Bill? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,
"gives full support to any measures which will help to eradicate what it regards as a repugnant and unnecessary procedure".
But the Royal College has reservations about the provisions for certification and notification which are in the Bill as it is drafted. I will come back to those reservations shortly. The British Medical Association supports the Bill; the Royal College of Midwives supports the Bill; the Royal College of Nursing supports the Bill, including an emergency resolution of their representative body last week; and I believe that we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that the Association of Health Visitors supports the Bill.
Going now outside the medical organisations, the following bodies also support the Bill—the National Council of Women, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Minority Rights Group, the Anti-Slavery Society, the Fawcett Society and the Josephine Butler Society. Even during this afternoon I have received—and I must mention this—a petition from 16 African women living in London, which says:
"We give our full support to your effort to legislate against the operation of female sexual mutilation in the United Kingdom".
Lastly, to come close to home, 110 Members of the House of Commons have signed an Early Day Motion which,
"calls on HMG to make it illegal for doctors practising in the UK to carry out female circumcision on girls living in the UK or brought to the UK from abroad".
I have heard also of a good many petitions destined for Members of the House of Commons.
Let us look at the Bill for a moment. It starts by defining the actual deeds which must not be done under the Bill, and it then goes on to prescribe the penalties for those who do them. Clause 2—and this is the most important part of the Bill—provides that, so long as these deeds are done for the physical health of the patient, no offence has been committed. This is here because about 8,000 or 9,000 operations in this country are done every year which include the cutting, sewing or cutting out of some relevant part, or parts, of girls or women. They are typically done for cancer and for pre-cancerous conditions, and there are a whole lot of minor conditions which it can be no part of this Bill to seek to prevent or to incommode, as part of the ordinary everyday life of the medical and surgical professions.
The Bill then stipulates that the operations must be done in a National Health Service hospital or a registered nursing home, and empowers the Secretary of State to make statutory instruments about various matters.
Here I come to the reservations of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They are directed to the procedure which is set out in the Bill, by which
676
the confirmation of two medical practitioners that the operation is indeed in the interests of the physical health of the patient is required before it may be done, and so on.
These reservations of the Royal College are obviously weighty and must be met if the Bill is to be good law. I never supposed that I would be able to get these provisions right the first time round, and I am glad to say that both the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the officers of the British Medical Association have agreed to meet me and discuss how we can improve these provisions. Perhaps we shall be able to meet at the same time with the Department of Health and Social Security. The Minister may be able to say a word about that when he comes to reply. After that, I will introduce amendments for the Committee stage of this Bill.
Lastly, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' goodwill and shall listen carefully to points which will be made in this Second Reading debate. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—.(Lord Kennet.)
5.43 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Trefgarne replies on behalf of the Government, in view of what has been said I think that I ought to acquaint the House, at least, as Lord Chancellor, with my opinion as to the present legal position, because I think that anyone hearing the noble Lord would think that it was lawful to do this thing in this country at the present time.
Under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be liable to imprisonment for life. Under Section 20 of the same Act, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years.
I do not want to talk about this Bill at all, because my noble friend will do it far better than I, and he is the spokesman for the department concerned. But, at any rate, I really must make it plain to the House and to the public that it is my solemn opinion that anybody who participates in this country in the excision of a clitoris is guilty of one or both of the offences which I have just read out, and will render himself, and anyone participating in such a procedure will render himself, liable to prosecution for an offence for which a private prosecution is available. I must say this, because I believe that people are beginning to think that this is not against the criminal law. I can only say that I am quite sure that it is against the criminal law as matters stand. It may be an argument for the Bill; it may be an argument against the Bill. But I am simply stating what I believe to be the criminal law at the present time.

677
The second thing I must say is that, in the case of a minor under the age of 16, there is no possibility that consent is any defence at all. A minor under the age of 16 is not able to consent to the commission upon her of a criminal assault. Neither parental consent nor the consent of the minor would be any defence at all, and if the parents did such a thing, or instigated such a thing or participated in such a thing, it would only render them liable to criminal penalties, too. The doctor, the anaesthetist and the nurses involved would all be guilty. And I must add this. Of course, these matters are ultimately for the courts to decide—my opinion is worth nothing, unless backed by the opinion of a court and the verdict of a jury, because these are indictable offences—but I must utter the most solemn warning against members of the medical profession, or anyone else who thinks that this is lawful under the laws of England.
I must add this, too: that we know that in the best conducted operations death can sometimes ensue. If I am right in what I have said up to this point, the minimum charge in such a case would be manslaughter and if a properly directed jury found that the operation was carried out with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm—and in my opinion, for what it is worth, and speaking simply as a judge of fact, the excision of the clitoris is grievous bodily harm—then the more serious charge of murder would possibly lie. So that people had better be careful, whether this Bill is passed or not.
I must also add that I very much doubt whether the consent even of an adult is possible. There is a long, long history in English law, whereby the consent of an adult to a maim is not admissible as a defence, if a person inflicting the maim—which this certainly is—is charged with an offence against the person. It is, of course, in the end a matter for the courts; it is a matter for juries. But I do not think I should be doing my duty as Lord Chancellor if I did not say quite emphatically that, in the case of what is now being discussed, the excision of the clitoris, unless there is some very unusual reason and there are physical or medical indications—for instance, in certain kinds of cancer—to the contrary, people would be running the risk of prosecution and going to prison for a very long time. Having said that, I leave the debate in the hands of those more capable than I of discussing the merits of the Bill.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord resumes his seat, in order to clarify the position may I ask him one question? When he read the sections from the 19th century Acts, I think the word "unlawfully" appeared—"when any person unlawfully does grievously bodily harm", or words to that effect. This seems to limit the scope of those sections.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think not, although the point was raised in a very different connection in a case in which I sat judicially in your Lordships' House. Obviously a surgical operation inherently involves doing that which would prima facie be an assault. What I have been saying is that an assault without definite physical-medical indications is criminal and, therefore, unlawful under these sections. As I believe I have just said, if for some reason, which
678
I do not pretend to be qualified to speak on, there was a medical indication that an operation of this kind ought to be performed, that might be different. Then the word to which the noble Baroness has drawn my attention would have significance.
It fell to my lot when I was hearing an appeal in a murder case to point out that where a surgeon operates in order to save a patient's life, knowing that the chances are that the patient will die under the operation, it is not unlawful because he is performing that operation to save the patient's life. Then the word "unlawfully" does operate. In my opinion, for what it is worth—I do not claim to be infallible in these matters—I can think of nothing other than a physical condition of the kind I have indicated which would render an assault of this kind lawful, either upon a minor or upon an adult, subject to what I have already said.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, first may I say that the Government share with the noble Lord the repugnance with which he views these operations when they are carried out for customary or cultural reasons. This is not a part of our culture, and we would not wish it to become so among any part of our population here, whatever their ethnic origins. We cannot of course legislate for other countries, but through the World Health Organisation we have added our voice to encourage those who, through exhortation and education, are trying to eradicate these practices abroad.
The noble Lord is therefore to be congratulated on having brought forward this Bill. But, even if it were not the case that operations of this sort, without medical justification, could be classified, for example, as unlawful wounding, as my noble and learned friend has just explained, the Government would, I fear, be unable to accept the Bill in its present form. There are a number of medical conditions, some simple and some complex, which can necessitate operations such as those described in Clause 1(1). This is of course recognised in Clause 2(1) which provides exemption for operations necessary for the woman's physical health. But the requirement to obtain a second opinion when legitimate operations are to be performed, and to give notice of these operations, would in our view represent a serious interference with legitimate medical practice.
The certification and notification procedure would be a thoroughly unwelcome piece of additional bureaucracy, and one which might also create problems in relation to confidentiality. Most important, it could harm the interests of patients by delaying necessary and even life-saving treatment. I understand that the Bill, as presently drafted, might result in a need for at least 8,000 second opinions, including those for cancer, pre-cancer and possibly many more. Even minor biopsies in the defined areas might require a second opinion, and this would add to the total I have mentioned. Indeed, the Royal College of Gynaecologists—the noble Lord referred to this in his opening remarks—hold the view that this pertains even to episiotomy, which is a common procedure during childbirth. The Bill provides that the second opinion must be obtained from a doctor who is not in

679
the same "practice" as the doctor who proposes to perform the operation. While the term "practice" has some meaning in the context of a family practitioner, it is hard to see what would be meant in the case of a hospital doctor, and it is of course in hospitals that legitimate operations of this kind will mainly take place.
Without in any way lessening our repugnance at the idea of women being subjected to this sort of mutilation and degradation, we must retain a sense of proportion. Press reports talk of only a handful of these operations being carried out in this country, for cultural reasons, during recent years. But of course I accept that even one operation is too many. I accept also that there have been a number of rumours about the operations being more widespread. Were this Bill to be enacted in its present form, it is unlikely that anybody who is about to, or who has undertaken, a ritual "female circumcision" would issue a notice to that effect, or seek a second opinion. We feel therefore that notices and second opinions will only impinge upon legitimate medical practice, and will impose a time-consuming burden on doctors and on whoever, at public expense, has to monitor the notices.
The Government also have to consider the views of the medical profession. I understand that some parts of the profession may have reservations, both about the imposition of legislation into the doctor-patient relationship and with regard to the questions of notices and second opinions to which I have referred.
To summarise, therefore: the Government's view is now that these procedures, when carried out without medical justification, are already contrary to the law as it stands. My noble and learned friend described that. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, while commendable in its overall intention, would in its present form tend to impede the medical profession in its legitimate function, without helping the difficult problem of bringing a successful action against an offender in cases where an adult has given her consent to the operation.
But, having said all this, we do acknowledge the case for a firm statement in legislation which would put the illegality of the practice of female circumcision, in its ritual and cultural sense, beyond any possible doubt. It is not clear that the difficulty of definition and scope that I have referred to in the noble Lord's Bill can be satisfactorily overcome. However, the Government would not seek to oppose the Bill at this stage. Indeed, I would most certainly be prepared to participate in the discussions to which the noble Lord referred. I cannot, I fear, guarantee that time can be found for the Bill in another place; but, as I have said, I will most certainly participate in discussions with the noble Lord to see if it is possible to overcome the difficulties I have described.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, there must be very few people in the United Kingdom, whether they be men or women, who approve of the carrying out of this mutilating operation anywhere, let alone in this country. There is therefore widespread support for the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in introducing this Bill. He has described why it is particularly timely. I have listened with great interest to the
680
remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I should like to point out that so far there has been no prosecution against doctors or others who have carried out the operation in this country, which suggests to me that there is a need for a stiffening of the law, such as is suggested in the Bill.
It falls to me, with a medical background, to describe in more detail what is involved in so-called female circumcision. After describing the operation, I will say a little about its origins and its consequences. As has been pointed out, the term is in fact inaccurate because far more is involved than circumcision, which literally means "cutting around", as applied usually to the familiar operation on the male foreskin. In that operation, the male sexual organ (the penis) is left completely intact, apart from the hood known as the prepuce or foreskin, which covers the sensitive glans. After the wound of male circumcision has healed, the function of the penis as a sexual organ is in no way impaired. The sensitivity of the glans is slightly decreased, but some claim that this is an advantage since it decreases the chance of premature ejaculation.
In female "circumcision" the central part of the operation is the removal of the tip or the whole of the clitoris. This small organ is the female equivalent of the penis and, like the male organ, is highly sensitive, richly supplied with blood vessels and nerves, and when appropriately stimulated gives rise to pleasurable erotic sensations leading to sexual climax or orgasm. In other words, it is the core or focus for a woman's sexuality and ability to experience sexual pleasure.
There are other erotic areas which can sometimes give rise to sexual pleasure or orgasmic intensity but the clitoris is the main centre. To deprive a woman of her clitoris is thus to deprive her of her major source of sexual pleasure and satisfaction. Sexual arousal can still take place, however, but without the relief given by a climax or orgasm this can lead to tension and unhappiness.
The operation carried out traditionally in large parts of Africa, and sporadically in the Middle and Far East and in South America (and which, incidentally, was carried out in this country) is usually much more drastic than mere clitoridectomy. The removal of the surrounding hood of the clitoris is the only true female circumcision—the so called "Sunna" circumcision. It is only rarely performed; and the most common form, which is apparently undergone by 80 to 90 per cent. of the women in the Sudan, is the co-called "Pharaonic" circumcision, which involves not only total clitoridectomy but also the removal of the inner lips or labia minora and partial removal or paring of the inner parts of the "outer lips" or labia majora. The raw edges of the labia are then sutured together, apart from a small finger-sized opening towards the back to allow the passage or urine or menstrual flow. This part of the operation is known as infibulation. Thus, the woman is not only deprived of her main organ of erotic sensation but is effectively "sewn up" against normal sexual activity.
The fact that this operation is done at all is unknown to most people in this country, but it has been practised in one form or another for centuries—probably millennia—in many parts of the world. As suggested by the term "Pharaonic", it was practised in

681
ancient Egypt. The main areas where it is practised today (as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said) tend to be those where Islam has influenced the African cultures of the Southern Sahara. However, it does not appear to be a particularly Islamic practice—nor is it a formal initiation rite, like male circumcision in much of Africa, although there is often a local ceremony surrounding the practice.
Explanations given by those practising the operation are complex; that it promotes virginity before marriage, promotes fidelity within marriage, and protects against rape. But it is also held to be an ennobling procedure and has correlations with high social prestige. Whatever the reasons, sexual activity and a high birth rate clearly occur in countries where it is practised, despite the fact that after every birth the infibulation has to be cut or torn and subsequently restored.
Theories for the origin of the practice are numerous. One possibly over-simplistic view is that it is part of the tradition in which, in a male dominated society, women are regarded as the "property" of men. To decrease a woman's sexuality and effectively seal off her sexual availability might prevent her from being "taken" sexually by other men. Virginity in unmarried women is much prized in many countries—not only where female circumcision takes place. But in those countries clitoridectomy and infibulation are felt to ensure virginity.
More basic anthropological and psychological reasons are felt by some to be operating subconsciously—such as male fear of female sexuality; a belief that this is more powerful than the man's and will prove too demanding for the men to satisfy, so that women will gain power over them. In the Sudan (as sympathetically described by Anne Cloudsley in her book Women of Omdurman) the practice is very deeply ingrained. It is now carried out mainly by locally-trained midwives. It is accepted by most Sudanese women, who regard the operation as a mark of womanhood; non-infibulated women being regarded as outsiders or curiosities. There the practice is carried out on young girls, usually between the ages of five and seven, often without adequate hygiene or anaesthesia—as those who watched the recent very disturbing BBC documentary will have seen.
The adverse consequences of the operation can be very serious, especially when carried out in primitive circumstances. First, there is the psychic trauma associated with a very painful procedure involving the genitalia. This may give rise to inital if not permanent dread of the sexual act. Secondly, there is the danger of wound infection and subsequent scarring, or severe haemorrhage, at the time of the operation, followed by urinary or renal infection.
Thirdly, the sexual act after marriage is made extremely difficult, with a need to artificially widen the residual small orifice, causing pain and possible haemorrhage. Fourthly, every time that a delivery takes place there is the danger of a third degree tear into the rectum, or even of obstructed labour in badly scarred cases. This is only averted by an anterior as well as the usual posterior episiotomy—cutting of the skin and tissues around the vagina at delivery. After each delivery this need to be repaired, and the woman is "re-infibulated" or sealed up.
682
Despite all these difficulties associated with suffering, and at times death, the custom dies very hard where it is practised traditionally. The operation has been illegal since 1946 in the Sudan, and yet it is practised now as widely as ever before. However, other African countries—such as Kenya—have either banned the operation or are considering this. The practice in those countries will only die out when the women themselves realise that it is an unnecessary and cruel procedure. Throughout Africa, women are campaigning to end the practice. To me, it seems intolerable that the operation can take place in this country, when the countries in which it is a major problem are struggling to end it.
For these reasons I strongly support this Bill. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists find the provisions in the present Bill cumbersome, but I am sure that at Committee stage, a formula can be found which will meet the college's objections—especially if we can count, as we have been promised, on help from the Department of Health. I would therefore ask noble Lords of all parties to give this Bill a Second Reading.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I will begin by expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Bill. It draws our attention to a matter of great concern, which has both medical and social implications. I should like to speak in strong support of this Bill, as both a nurse and a sociologist.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already made clear, the term "female circumcision" is generic—covering a range of procedures involving varying degrees of mutilation. The least traumatic is termed "Sunna" circumcision, and the most radical form is called "Pharaonic" circumcision or infibulation. The wording of the Bill makes no distinction and effectively proscribes all forms of female circumcision. This, I suggest, is to be welcomed because all the evidence indicates that there are no physical benefits whatever to be gained from any of these practices—rather the reverse, because there are numerous attendant risks.
These risks are of many kinds, and although they may vary according to the type of circumcision, the health hazards associated with some or all of the procedures have been well documented by health care workers. They indicate a strong justification for their prohibition. If I may, I should like briefly to summarise some to these health risks. Immediate and short-term physical complications include haemorrhage, pain, shock, localised infection, septicaemia, difficulties with micturition, and damage to adjacent tissues and organs. Longer-term physical complications include the danger of chronic infection, development of abscesses, scar tissue, cysts and neuromas, dysmennorhoea, dyspareunia and obstetric complications. Many other secondary and long-term complications may also follow: for example, renal disease resulting from urinary tract infection.
In addition to such physical ill-effects, psychological, and especially psycho-sexual, problems may result. The research evidence is less substantial here,

683
partly because many of the women involved are reluctant to speak on the subject, and partly because many are naturally influenced by the norms and values of their culture, which may advocate circumcision as desirable. However, the physical mutilation resulting from circumcision in even its mildest form must be expected to have some adverse psycho-sexual effects. There are many accounts of women who have undergone infibulation who experience terror at the prospect of marriage and acute pain in the process of deinfibulation.
As we have heard, female circumcision is widely practised in many parts of the world. It is found in more than 20 countries in Africa, in Oman, South Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and among the Moslem populations of Indonesia and Malaysia. While it is impossible to estimate precisely the numbers of women involved, well-informed sources claim that the order of magnitude is at the level of tens of millions, and a small number of cases have recently been reported in Europe, in France and the United Kingdom. Hence the significance and the timeliness of this Bill.
Turning very briefly to the reasons for female circumcision, clearly a practice which is so widespread must have powerful social and cultural legitimation and be supported by many members of the communities involved. If it is hoped to achieve change, it is important to try to understand the socio-cultural reasons for this support. We have already heard of some of them. They include beliefs that circumcision is desirable because it is hygienic, because it prevents promiscuity, because it enhances the desirability and value of women, because it is in keeping with age-old tradition and because it symbolises a girl's transition to adulthood. And sometimes, especially in Moslem communities, it may be carried out in the sincere but erroneous belief that it is demanded by Islamic faith.
It is perhaps relevant to point out that many of these beliefs are inconsistent in so far as they bear no relation to empirical reality: for example, there is no correlation between female circumcision and hygiene—rather the reverse, as it is often associated with infection. With regard to the argument of the traditional association with the rite de passage into adulthood, this too is inaccurate, as circumcision is frequently performed on infants or girls who are so young that they cannot be seen as nearing adolescence. And finally the belief that it is a religious requirement is inconsisent with the facts because it is carried out by adherents of many faiths—Roman Catholics, Protestants, Copts and Animists, among others—which clearly do not require it.
Given these anomalies, it is important perhaps to explore other reasons for the perpetuation of this custom. The informative report on Female Circumcision by the Minority Rights Group suggests several other reasons, including the financial incentives for those who perform the operations, the influence of older women who have themselves been circumcised, the power of community pressure and a suspicion that Westerners are trying to eliminate traditional cultures.
If we turn now very briefly to the case for action and legislation, given the complexity of the situation,
684
attempts to bring about change must obviously be sensitive to the multiplicity of factors involved. Recent initiatives have consisted of two kinds of approach, legislative and educative, and several organisations have made strong recommendations designed to try to eliminate the practice of female circumcision. I will briefly refer to four such initiatives. First, the World Health Organisation Seminar in Khartoum in 1979 recommended:
" —adoption of a clear national policy for the abolition of female circumcision;
—establishment of national commissions to co-ordinate and follow up the activities of the bodies involved, including where appropriate the enactment of legislation prohibiting female circumcision;
—intensification of general education of the public, including health education at all levels, with special emphasis on the dangers and undesirability of female circumcision;
—intensification of educational programmes for traditional birth attendants, midwives, healers and other practitioners of traditional medicine, showing the harmful effects of female circumcision with a view to enlist their support along with general efforts to abolish this practice".
The second example is UNICEF's Position on Female Circumcision, May 1979, which concluded:
"The abolition of a widespread and deeply entrenched custom of such long standing, fraught as it is with cultural sensitivities, cannot of course be accomplished overnight. What should be emphasised is that the task is being undertaken carefully, but actively, on several fronts and that UNICEF is seriously committed to the effort to overcome the practice of female excision".
Thirdly, the Council of Representatives of the International Council of Nurses agreed the following Motion:
"That the international Council of Nurses:
—endorse the WHO/UNICEF position on the practice known as female excision, female circumcision and female mutilation;
—work actively with appropriate colleagues and community groups for the abolition of this custom, and,
—include this subject matter in all maternal and child health programmes and health education programmes of the international Council of Nurses as appropriate".
Finally, coming nearer home, the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom has followed suit by offering strong support for this Bill and by seeking evidence of the extent to which female circumcision is practised in this country. For example, the college has published a request in the Nursing Standard, which reaches about 43,000 nurses, for any nurses who come across cases to notify them to the college, so that some indication of the extent of the practice in this country may be gained. And as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, only last week at the Royal College of Nursing's Representative Body's Congress the following Motion was agreed unanimously and with acclaim:
"This meeting of the Representative Body recommends Council [of the Royal College of Nursing] to support current legislation to prohibit in the United Kingdom female circumcision and infibulation".
My Lords, before concluding, I should like very briefly to refer to two kinds of argument which I have heard in opposition to this Bill and in opposition to the idea of passing legislation designed to prohibit the practice of female circumcision in this country. First, there are those who argue that it is wrong to impose what they regard as "Western values" on people from other cultures. Secondly, others claim that if the practice is made illegal it will merely be driven

685
underground, be performed in insanitary conditions and be fraught with even more danger of complications.
I do not believe that these arguments constitute grounds for opposing this Bill. On the first point there are surely some cultural traditions which are so antithetical to human well-being that they cannot be regarded as sacrosanct. Cannibalism and the burning of widows are two such examples. I would argue that the mutilation inherent in female circumcision could be seen in a similar light, especially as it is all too frequently carried out on small girls who are not in a position to choose for themselves. On the second point, that there is a danger that the practice will be driven underground, this is clearly a possibility. However, one may hope that it will be outweighed by the deterrent effect of the law. I understand that, in other countries where female circumcision is widely practised, the symbolic effect of the passing of this law in this country would be welcomed as an example and as a precedent.
I therefore conclude as I began, by expressing my strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his endeavours to bring about the prohibition of female circumcision in this country.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, female circumcision is a totally heinous thing. It is impossible to find a single circumstance in which such a barbaric procedure could be justified, in a civilised society such as ours, for non-medical reasons. This is an opportunity for your Lordships to show the world how atrocious we think this practice is. I hope we can pass a Bill which simply says: "Any form of ritual or custom of female circumcision or infibulation is an offence punishable by a prison sentence and being struck off the medical register". Perhaps a fine could be imposed as well, at least to cover the court case; but to most of the doctors practising in Harley Street, for example, a fine would not make much impact. What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us today should be written into this Bill.
The television programme explaining female circumcision shocked many people. That female children and women can suffer so much and be treated in this debasing way, which is so much against nature, is a revelation to many. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that there already is legislation which makes it an offence to assault a child in this way. But if that is so, what of an appendicectomy or a tonsillectomy? Might these not fall into the same category? We must be totally clear.
This horrible, barbaric operation has taken place here in Britain, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. If there are three cases a year, it is three too many. I hope that we can find a way of showing how strongly we feel, so that other countries may feel guilty and tighten up their own legislation. There may be a spin-off and understanding that human kindness and women's dignity is needed throughout the world in this respect. There are some feelings that this Bill needs amending. They are well-intentioned, but they might give the impression that there just could be
686
circumstances in which female circumcision was justified. There is only justification for operations for medical reasons, and this must be made utterly clear.
There is also concern from some doctors about the way the Bill is drafted because occasionally the labia majora or minora or clitoris have to be removed because of (a) cancer; (b) suspected cancer; (c) skin changes which precede cancer, called leukoplakia (d) intractable itching and pain; and (e) genetic or congenital abnormalities. If the Bill becomes law as it stands, doctors wanting to treat vulva cancer surgically would, for example, be legally bound to seek the signed consent of a colleague from a different practice (which is a meaningless term in a hospital setting) or a special certificate, which will have to be preserved for possible inspection at a later date, by unspecified individuals. Would this not establish an unacceptable precedent?
This procedure might slow up cancer operations, which I am sure those who drafted the Bill will not have intended. When a cancer operation is performed there will be proof that it was done because of cancer, as the histology and pathology results will be written up in the notes and documented. In the case of genetic or congenital abnormalities in a child, several doctors will almost certainly be involved—the general practitioner, the paediatrician and the surgeon. There will be no such proof for female circumcision operations.
Most doctors are honourable men and women. I am sure they would deplore female circumcision on nonmedical grounds as much as your Lordships, perhaps even more so. It is just as likely, if dishonourable doctors want to perform female circumcision for money or custom, that two could be in league even if they are from different practices. But as I have already said, practices would not apply to hospital doctors.
Some doctors seem worried about Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, but surely most patients in this country will have at least two doctors involved in their case—the referring general practitioner, the surgeon, and, if a child, a paediatrician. But the Bill does need amending for the reason I have already stated—the hospital doctor. May I ask: would Clause 2(1)(a) apply to patients coming from abroad? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would clarify that point. Clause 3(1)(a) causes concern to some gynaecologists. Would it not be simpler, rather than having certificates and regulations, that any such opinions be referred to in the patient's clinical rcords?
The penalties for female circumcision must be so harsh that the risk of performing such an operation is just not worth even contemplating.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I cannot congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, enough on this issue. He is a very courageous man to have brought up this subject at a time when it really is becoming quite a common thing for Eastern and African women to come here to have an operation. I am entirely with the noble Lord except on one small point. Jewish women are not subject to any kind of circumcision; it is only the men. I am told that, on the whole, circumcision for men is a healthy thing rather than the opposite.

687
It is a tremendous thing at this time, but people have left out the psychological urges that make people come to this country to have the operation, and also the attitude towards sex of people from, let us say, India and Africa about this whole problem. No one has spoken about the men's attitude to women's sexuality. In some countries—I cannot, of course, name them—their attitudes are extremely mean. They want their women entirely for themselves. They will not suffer any kind of infidelity, and that is one reason why some of the operations have been done in this country. It is all wrong that they have been allowed to be performed.
What has been so satisfying this afternoon has been the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and of the Church. They have all been sympathetic to this Bill. I personally am very happy about that.
There are a great many speakers and I shall not make a long speech. The problem is that some men in other countries will not put up with any kind of infidelity. I know that this operation is undertaken to keep their women faithful to themselves. It is one of the strongest reasons for getting it performed. The fact that the women come here to have it done is simply shocking. It is terrible. It is the most cruel operation possible. One thing about it is particularly cruel. The clitoris is the organ which gives women pleasure. That is another reason for men being thoroughly chauvinistic and why some of them may not wish to support the Bill.
There is not a great deal that I wish to add. I cannot take the reservations of some doctors seriously at all. When the operation is performed properly it is perfectly all right, but when it is not done by qualified doctors of course things go wrong. It cannot be helped. I still feel that this idea of keeping women faithful by performing this absolutely savage operation is a great indictment against men in countries where it is done for that reason.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: First of all I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Bill. It will teach us a geat deal. I should especially like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his expert opinion at the beginning. He put our minds a great deal to rest about the state of the law. We shall have to discuss this more. What he said will also be a warning to the medical and legal professions about what are the rights at the present time. It may help us tremendously in getting the Bill—if we have it—correct. Anyhow, it will awaken people, particularly in the medical and legal professions, to what is the present situation. I should like to offer the noble and learned Lord my sincere thanks for coming in at the very beginning and giving us a lead.
I really enter this debate because I have, unfortunately, had the opportunity of seeing these operations take place. When I was the delegate to the United Nations I did bring this question up. In 1959 the matter was referred to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to ask whether they could persuade the World Health Organisation to take on this responsibility. WHO refused at that time
688
because they said that it was not within their powers or within the recognition of what they should do. It was not until the Khartoum conference, which has been mentioned, that the WHO acted. I think that it should take further action. It is necessary to educate the people in the countries in which the operation takes place.
I should like to suggest that we press home this business. It is not anything to do with religion; it is to do with customs. It is not so difficult to change a custom as to change beliefs and religion. If persuasion could be used to show the film in other countries, that would be very helpful. It was an excellent film. In many of the countries concerned people cannot read or write but they can see with their eyes what is happening. It would be of great use if this could be done and if we could have illustrated leaflets which could go to hospitals and clinics through UNICEF and UNESCO. It has to be done by tremendous propaganda and perhaps not so much by physical action. Young children should be taught about it. Children of the age of five can undergo this operation. If only they could protest against this themselves, it would be very helpful. As has been mentioned, one of the great difficulties is that many women earn their living in this way. It is women who do a great many of these operations.
I think it will have been helpful to have this debate today to arouse the interest of many people in this country who can be helpful overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the question of health visitors. They passed a resolution on the matter. I want to mention particularly the Commonwealth Countries League, which has not been mentioned. It is made up of 40 women of different nationalities throughout the Commonwealth. They meet regularly in this country. They have affiliated to them 25 other women's organisations. These are the type of women who can help people to understand this type of operation and can do the propaganda themselves.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The debate has brought out very many interesting points, particularly legal and medical points. I hope that we shall be able to get some satisfaction in getting a better understanding and eventually getting this very nasty type of operation stopped.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, first I apologise for speaking out of order. My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby was good enough to change places with me, because I thought at one point the debate would go on at great length and I would, sadly, have to leave for a very long-standing engagement before it ended.
Like other speakers, I, too, certainly would not like to make a long speech at this stage. After all, we have had the case for the Bill put very admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I, too, would like to congratulate him very much indeed on all the work that he did to bring this Bill forward. Then we have had the medical facts put again in an absolutely clear fashion by my noble friend Lord Rea. I do not think that anybody would like to draw on the emotive quality brought out by these facts. Then again the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has given supportive evidence of those facts and also many ideas about why this practice exists.

689
I would merely like to make two points, having first expressed my very great support for the Bill. They relate to two possible objections which could be made to the presentation of such a Bill. The first one is that I suppose it could be said that the feelings of outrage which are certainly felt here towards this barbaric habit exist only in the Western countries and that women in the countries concerned not only accept that this happens but also want it. Of course, this argument could be true. These women, through deeply ingrained and entrenched traditions, and also through complete ignorance, feel that they are compelled to undergo this operation. Furthermore, mothers feel that it is their duty towards their small daughters to make them succumb to this mutilation, one of the reasons being that it will facilitate their marriage. I understand that it is very difficult to get married and to get a man to accept you if you have not undergone this operation in those countries.
It is quite undeniable that an increasing number of outstanding and prominent women in both Africa and the Arab countries are becoming fiercely opposed to this monstrous practice. It is they who support the introduction of the Bill. To suppress the practice would help enormously the work that they are doing in those countries. I should like to name a few of the organisations. One organisation in this country is called the Women's Action Group in Femal Excision. Another is the International Planned Parenthood Association. In Egypt there is the Cairo Women's Family Planning Association. In the Sudan there is the Nursing School of the Khartoum University Medical School. In Kenya there is the National Council of Women in Kenya, and in Somalia, the Somali Women's Democratic Federation.
So, as I have said, the members of all these organisations would welcome the Bill, since it would help them in their campaign of education. I do not think that there could possibly be made the objection that a Bill of this kind in this country would be regarded as an interference in the countries where the practice is commonplace.
My second point is with regard to the objection to legislating against a practice arising from which there has been only one proven case, or only a very few. Surely the point—I think that this point has been made, but I should like to put it again—is that once society has identified a particular practice as being inhuman and cruel, once that has been made unequivocally clear, then it must he the duty of that society to take action to prevent it happening; to take action indeed before there are further cases. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that with Kenya and the Sudan having brought in laws of their own to render the operation illegal in their countries, then the demand for the operation in England surely must grow. I feel that this is a very definite point that ought to be made.
As I am sure your Lordships know, both Sweden and France have made the practice illegal in their countries. We do not want to happen here what happened in France, where a little girl died undergoing the operation, before the French authorities had taken action.
690
So, in conclusion, I should like to say that I give my whole hearted support to the Bill, for I feel convinced that such legislation will render the position here unequivocally clear, notwithstanding the law as it stands, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made plain to us. It really ought to be made quite clear that we are totally opposed to the practice ever taking place in this country. The Bill would be a very great help to all those people who, through health education campaigns in the countries concerned, are trying to free women from this violation. There can be no doubt that they have a lengthy task ahead of them, because the custom is so deeply ingrained. Only the women of those countries can rid themselves of this terrible violation. But what we can do to help them, and at the same time to support the dignity of women everywhere, is extremely important. Therefore, I support the Bill unequivocally.
6.43 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have done so before me, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for, and congratulate him on, introducing the Bill. In a report of the World Health Organisation on female circumcision it is stated that at one time it was performed among various communities in all continents of the world, both old and new. Today it has long been abandoned in many places. Herodotus tells of female circumcision practised by the Phoenicians, Hittites, and Ethiopians, as well as by the Egyptians in the fifth century BC. Although its origins are obscure, it seems evident that circumcision was first performed on the male, and then on the female.
I think that one can readily understand the social pressures on women when one realises how long circumcision has been practised. The problem has worried me for many years. During some of that time I have lived in and visited a number of countries—in both sides of Africa and in North Africa—in which the various forms of mutilation commonly, but mistakenly, known as female circumcision prevail. In most of these countries Islam has been the prevailing religion, but neither female, nor for that matter, male circumcision is mentioned in the Koran.
There is however a traditional saying that the prophet Mohammed was born circumcised, and that Abraham, whom Moslems reckon as a prophet, was circumcised at the age of 80 years. So far as I can discover, there is no religious sanction whatsoever for either the circumcision or any other mutilation of women. There are however other forms of mutilation of different parts of the body, tattooing, and scarring of the face. However, these are no longer practised.
Over a long period I have met women who have suffered agonies of pain from this practice in one form or another. The Minority Rights Group Report No. 47 on female circumcision, excision, and infibulation, has confirmed what I learnt long ago. In Moshi Hospital, on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, in the present Tanzania, an African nurse told me of her fears for her small daughter. She lived with her mother, since her husband had left her, and was constantly pressed by her mother to have her daughter circumcised. She was

691
equally determined that it should not happen, having herself been circumcised and suffered many problems.
Precisely such a case as that is mentioned in the report. It relates to the mother of three daughters who had been born in France while she and her husband were there. They returned home to their own country. While the mother worked, her own mother used to have the children to stay with her. One weekend the mother returned to fetch them, only to find that they had been excised and infibulated, the grandmother having arranged it, knowing that it was against the parents' wishes.
While I was in Moshi a woman was brought down the mountain. She had been in labour for two days in great pain before it was decided to take her to the hospital. She died as she arrived, and the baby with her.
My husband and I lived in many parts of East Africa, and in West Africa. I encountered these problems not only on that continent, but in the United States as well. In New York State, where my husband was lecturing as professor of African history, one of his students came to us in great distress. She was a Somali girl, who had been infibulated. She did not realise that she was different from the majority of other women until she became unwell and had to visit a doctor, who had never before seen an infibulated woman. When he asked what on earth had been done to her, she realised that she could not explain, as she was only about 18. So she ran away and eventually came to us, since she was aware that we knew members of her family.
Only last year when we were in Nairobi, President Daniel Arap Moi announced his intention to legislate against female circumcision following the deaths of at least six young girls in the bush at the hands of unqualified practitioners.
The fact is that great changes are taking place in Africa as elsewhere—changes as great as the abolition of the slave trade in the last century, for which my noble ancestor Lord Grenville was responsible, when Prime Minister in 1807. The struggle against slavery was a struggle against ignorance on an international plain—to put it in the mildest terms. Slavery was an obsolete institution and a violation of the dignity of man. So, too, are the various forms of mutilation practised upon women, which this Bill is intended to prevent in this country. May it, with parallel legislation in Kenya, be an example to other countries.
My Lords, my fervent prayer is that the present young married women doctors and nurses in Africa and Arabia, who are against it, will be able to help future generations to forego this mutilation and so help to end it worldwide.
I have given these examples just to show what a distressing and damaging practice this is, not only physically but psychologically, too. In view of the recent publicity given to this subject, I hope that the Bill, when amended as necessary, will have a rapid passage through Parliament.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, to me, this is a somewhat bizarre experience. It is now nearly 21 years since I was declared a prohibited immigrant and
692
deported from Sierra Leone on account of an article that I had written in the New Statesman which stated the simple fact that female circumcision still took place in that country. I knew that it took place because it occurred in the women's secret society which met about 50 yards below the garden of the university campus where I was living. I never dreamt at that time that I would be standing here able to discuss this subject in open forum.
Frankly, at that time, only 20 years ago, female circumcision was a taboo subject in Africa. In this country, it was almost totally unknown. When people came to me and asked me why I had been deported from Sierra Leone and I explained to them, they did not know what female circumcision was. I have no doubt that a large percentage of our present population is equally ignorant. But for this reason and for this change in attitude of Parliament, I am deeply grateful. I shall lend every possible support to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has had the courage to draft and introduce this Bill.
It might be supposed that when this incident took place in Sierra Leone, which was widely publicised across the world, there would be a conspiracy of silence in that country. Not at all. In fact, one of the most encouraging outcomes of the incident was that there was an immediate public and national debate. The two leading African nationalists of the time, Wallace Johnson and Siaka Stevens, both came publicly to my support and attacked the then Government of Sir Milton Margai on the grounds that, if they could not answer my argument, they had no right to try to silence me. I regarded that as an extremely encouraginging sign, because there had previously been no discussion and no debate. The subject was taboo. Nevertheless, I would point out, as is only fair and honourable, that the Prime Minister, Sir Milton Margai, a medical doctor, had attempted, 10 years earlier, to stop the practice of female circumcision and had failed. He was therefore particularly sensitive but he had made an honourable attempt, as both a doctor and a politician to stop the practice in his own country. I wish President Moi well. I hope that his efforts will be more successful than those of Sir Milton Margai.
That was not my first encounter with the subject of female circumcision. Ten years earlier, I travelled down the East coast of Africa with a World Health Organisation team which had been sent out to investigate the practice of female circumcision. It was led by a Belgian doctor. That team finished its task as puzzled at the end as it was at the beginning. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts made in this debate by Baroness Cox and Lady Kinloss to investigate the origins and the concepts behind the practice of female circumcision. I do not believe, and I do not think that they would claim, that there is any simple answer or, indeed that there is any single answer. I tried to discuss this very subject with Jomo Kenyatta. Frankly, it was a dialogue with the deaf. Those of your Lordships who have read Jomo Kenyatta's book published in the mid-1930s Facing Mount Kenya, will recognise that one of the purposes of that book was to explain among other things the part that female circumcision had in Kikuyu tradition.
Where does this leave us in this country? I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing with, I think every

693
speaker, that we must say that this practice cannot be practised within our shores. I wish to add the hope that the message will also go from this House that this is not because we are attacking the customs of other people. It is very important that this should be emphasised. There are lots of customs and traditions in this country that people outside this country do not understand and that they disapprove of. You try explaining our practice of beating schoolchildren. There are many countries of the world whose people do not believe that this can be equated with a civilised society.
A good deal has been stated tonight about male dominated societies. It is less than 50 years ago that women were given political equality in this country. I do not accept that we are attacking in any way the traditions and customs of other societies in this Bill. We are saying that in this country female circumcision is regarded as of the utmost cruelty and that we will not tolerate it here. In doing so, as has been stated by previous speakers, we are lending support to the very brave people, particularly women, who are trying to undermine this practice in societies where, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, stated, it has been the custom for more than centuries, for millennia. We must understand this. We must not put blame on societies that continue their traditions.
The women who perform this vile operation are not sadists. They believe that they are contributing to the preservation of their traditional society and, in so doing to keeping the unity of their people. Of course, they are wrong. Of course, it is a cruel act that they are performing but they are certainly not performing it for the motive of sadism. Having said that and having added, as mentioned by a number of speakers, that it is mainly the women who are anxious to preserve this custom, I would take issue with those who have suggested that this is the outcome of a male dominated society. Those with knowledge of virtually every African society are aware that men and women have a different role from that which has been recent practice in this country. That does not mean that those societies are dominated by men. Indeed, there are many men who are assisting the women's leadership against the continuation of female circumcision. We shall be assisting them if we pass this Bill into law.
I sincerely hope that the words that were spoken by the Government spokesman at the beginning will be translated, first, into the consultative action which he promised but I hope he will be able to persuade his colleagues to go further and to find Government time and Government support so that this Bill is not lost during this Session but becomes law with, as I believe it will, the total support of Members of both Houses of our Parliament. Thus, we shall give our assistance to those who are trying to undermine this practice overseas and we shall make it quite clear that this violation of the basic human rights of a woman will not be allowed so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am glad to say on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches that we totally support the Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having brought it before us tonight. There are, of course, some criticisms, but I believe that a
694
Second Reading is not the time for detailed criticisms. I am sure that the points that have been raised by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and elsewhere can be taken care of by means of amendment. It is very important that the Bill should proceed to its Committee stage.
It is very significant to me that not one noble Lord has spoken against the principles of the Bill. I was very glad that the noble Lord the Minister said that the Government would not seek to oppose it. However, there are just one or two points that I want to make. I point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am trembling with fear as I try to understand and ask him a little more about the present legal situation. As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord made it clear that already the 1861 legislation dealing with malicious wounding and grievous bodily harm would cover these cases. But what I have not been able to find out is how many people have been brought to trial under the 1861 Act for committing the offence of female circumcision in this country.
I was even more confused when, doing some homework, I looked up references in the House of Commons. I must say that the junior Minister who replied to a similar question is nowhere near such a luminary in the knowledge of the law as our Lord Chancellor. I must ask the House to bear with me while I quote an extract, because it seems to me to be very important. On 9th November 1982, at col. 132 of the Official Report, for the House of Commons, Mr. William Hamilton asked the Secretary of State for Social Services,
"whether he will introduce legislation to make unlawful the practice known as female circumcision."
Mr. Kenneth Clarke replied:
"I fully share the abhorrence of this practice which has been expressed by a number of representatives of the medical profession. The report which appeared in The Observer newspaper on 10 October 1982 referred to female circumcisions being carried out by doctors working in private clinics in London. Unethical practices by doctors are a matter for the General Medical Council to consider, and we have written asking the council what action, if any, it proposes to take over these allegations. We shall consider urgently in the light of its reply whether any additional steps are needed.".
That seemed to me to throw the onus back on to the General Medical Council, which I understand has taken no action in the cases which were referred to in the Observer of 10th October and which were apparently correct allegations. The Minister in another place did not refer to the law at all. He did not mention the 1861 law. It is for that reason that I hope that the proposed legislation will go through, because it will strengthen the views which all of us share and will help to clarify what seems to be a rather confusing legal situation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting, I do not want there to be the smallest doubt about this. I was speaking as Lord Chancellor, and I thought it my duty to tell the House what I thought the law to be. My belief is that in all circumstances except in fairly rare cases where there are medical indications—possibly of cancer—to save life, this practice is already against the criminal law. Anyone who participates in it is liable to prosecution and severe custodial punishment, whatever the General Medical Council or anybody

695
else may say. I thought it my duty to speak as Lord Chancellor. I was not speaking as a member of the Government at all; I was speaking as Lord Chancellor.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I very much appreciate the robust and clear reply that the noble and learned Lord has given. I very much hope that Mr. Kenneth Clarke will read in Hansard tomorrow what the noble and learned Lord has made so clear and which was not made clear in another place.
I shall not repeat the arguments in favour of this Bill and against this practice. In fact, I have only one quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and that is about the title of his Bill. The word "circumcision" is associated very much in the public mind with a far lesser procedure that is found among Jewish boys and men. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has pointed out from his clinical experience, we are dealing now with a form of mutilation which is totally and completely different in every way from the male procedure. I am sure that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will be helpful, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is to have discussions with them, because these are points which can be dealt with in Committee.
I saw a very interesting BBC film on this subject, and I was very impressed by an Arab woman doctor in a family planning clinic who is one of the brave women who is trying to end this practice. She put forward another reason. The mutilation is causing great difficulty in family planning. When a woman is not able to take the pill, as this doctor explained, it becomes almost impossible to have a coil inserted or to use a Dutch cap or other means of birth control, which are so desperately needed. Many of the women themselves, after five, six or seven babies, are all too anxious to get help from the family planning clinics. When a distinguished doctor from that part of the world herself explains on our television the difficulties with which she is confronted, I think we should take it seriously.
If I am correct, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to there being only a handful of cases. There may be only a handful of cases that we know about because it is very difficult to find out what is happening. Women to whom this has happened will not let down their families and their friends by making public the procedures that have happened to them in this country. There is, of course, a great deal of pressure on them, first, to have the operation carried out and, secondly, not to say anything that would get anyone into trouble as a result of the practice. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made clear, they would be in serious trouble. Even if only a few people are involved, surely we do not want to wait until this becomes a growth industry in this country. Let us rejoice at the "fewness", if that is the truth of the matter, and say at once, "This must stop in this country".
I have been very moved by what several speakers, with knowledge of other parts of the world, have said about the bravery of men and women who are trying to resist the pressures to continue this mutilation. If the noble Lord's Bill were not to go through, it would be a great discouragement to all those men and women
696
who are trying to put these practices behind them into the darkness of the past. Therefore, for all these reasons—and we have had a very good debate, especially with Members, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, speaking with professional wisdom and experience—I think your Lordships must agree that an unanswerable case has been put before us tonight.
I very much hope that the Government will find time for this measure to get on to the statute book before the next election, whenever that is. No noble Lord can say that this is a party point. I do not think that it is likely to be in anyone's election manifesto. I only hope that, because of the agreement on all sides of the House and taking into account the wisdom of our professional colleagues, we shall shortly hear good news from the Government, and that this Bill will go through all its necessary stages. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall detain the House only a minute longer, as I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said most of what I would have wished to say. As is very often the case, the House has brought forth a wealth of background knowledge and experience about this horrible matter—it does so whether or not the matter under discussion is horrible. But the amount of background that has been filled in today has been very marked.
Perhaps I may express my personal gratitude to all those who have spoken about the matter. I should like to make just one or two detailed points. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Jeger, referred to a recent television programme. I say this because I want it to go into Hansard. It was a recent BBC documentary in the "Forty Minutes" series on BBC2 and, in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of most of those who saw it—it was just, accurate and harrowing, all three.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, also referred to the matter of the Title of the Bill. I accept that it is not ideal, and I shall be more than happy to try to amend it at the Committee stage. Despite her kind words, I should like to say a few words to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. If she looks at Hansard tomorrow she will see that the point I was making about Jewish women was not at all as she stated it. I did not say that Jewish women are, by custom or tradition, circumcised, as are Jewish men. The point was quite a different one.
Lastly, I should like to deal with the extremely clear intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He told us, with all the tremendous authority of his office, that under English law—and I repeat, English law—it was his opinion that these operations were already illegal. I emphasise "English" law because, of course, Section 20 of the 1861 Act does not apply to Scotland. The noble and learned Lord went on to say that this fact, which he stated from the Woolsack, may be an argument for the Bill or it may be an argument against it. He did not commit himself on that.
A minute or two afterwards I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the Government, acknowledge the case for a firm statement in legislation about these

697
operations. Of course it would be open to the House to decide not to go any further with the Bill at the moment, and to wait for a prosecution in England under existing law. But I should not recommend the House to do that. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is right in seeing a case for a firm statement in legislation.
Let me repeat the statement that I made earlier, that I and my friends in this matter will be more than willing to take all the Committee points and to advance all the amendments, which I feel sure can be found, in order to get rid of the worries, particularly those of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Problems of Unemployment
7.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to deal with the economic problems confronting the unemployed and their families and the effect of those problems on their morale.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The current incidence of unemployment in our nation is probably the most disgraceful episode in British history since the end of the war, for two reasons: first, that it exists and, secondly, that the disastrous high level that it has now reached need not have happened at all, and that is probably the greater disgrace.
My Motion talks about the economic problems and the morale of no fewer than 4 million of our fellow countrymen, and that probably means a couple of million of ordinary British families. It is perfectly true that this ogre of unemployment first peaked at around 1969. Under the Heath Government it was speeded up until it reached 1 million. In all fairness, I am bound to say that in the other place, where I served at that time, there was deep concern on all sides and a great deal of frustration. It continued into 1974 and it continued under the Callaghan Government until its last quarter, and then unemployment started to decrease.
Then came the general election. Within the first few months of the present Administration being in office unemployment continued to decrease, and then this Government's policy of monetarism—on which they are totally hooked—started to bite. When it started to bite we lost our competitiveness; when it started to bite we saw industry and commerce frustrated; when it started to bite we saw the loss of jobs, and the only thing that spread, in a vicious way, through this nation of ours was the unhappiness and tragedy of unemployment. Because it is a tragedy.
It is not merely a question of statistics. You cannot only say that 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of our people are unemployed. When one man has lost his job, he is 100 per cent. unemployed, and with it goes all the agony that accompanies this appalling curse; and, as I say, much of it need not have happened.
The Government have always sought excuses by looking elsewhere, gaining comfort from the fact that there are millions of Americans out of work, millions of German and French people out of work, and therefore believing that there is no reason why there should not be millions of Britons out of work. What an attitude! What an appalling, total lack of human compassion!
I want to say straight away that much of the data that I would like to give I shall not have time to deal with, but I have collated it from the media, from newspapers of all sorts of political opinions, 95 per cent. on the Conservative side and the remaining 5 per cent. on the Opposition Party side. All of them together have condemned and given instances of what unemployment really means and what the economic problems are facing unemployed families.
I also want to pay tribute to the massive researches of which I have read done by Dr. Fagan and Professor Brenner and also refer to my own contacts with unemployed people in areas where they have contributed so much to the wealth of this nation of ours. This is another part of the bitterness. We all know that if it had been some bigger fact than Galtieri that threatened us there would have been no closing of steelworks, no sacking of miners, no rendering of engineers redundant. The call would have been, "Your nation needs you". Well, that threat did not happen so the nation does not want them. That is what they think, and with some degree of justice.
I have to say this, too. Perhaps one of the most frightful episodes in this whole incident of unemployment is that it stretches from school-leavers right through to those attending technical colleges and universities. When they finish their studies to be engineers, doctors, quantity surveyors, bricklayers, electricians, even skilled labourers, when they have finished their training in school, hundreds of thousands of them are not required. Many live in homes that ought to have been pulled down years ago and yet we have tens of thousands of construction workers in the dole queues.
There are many other aspects. We have to acknowledge, in this measure of unemployment, the equally bitter example of small businessmen, little family firms who have made their contribution to the country, their little contribution to gainful employment in a variety of trades and professions, where they have crashed. If I may say so, speaking in parenthesis, many times in this Chamber I have pointed to the appalling figures of unemployment, the disastrous figures of small firms going bankrupt. They share the agony, the frustration; they are compelled to endure the bitterness of the men they have had to get rid of in their little factories.
When one realises what this means because of the economic conditions, there is the sudden realisation that the dole will not pay the mortgage; when they have been out of work for a few months and the last demand comes from the gas corporation or the electricity board, of from the local authority for rates, then people start arriving at the frontier of understanding. I say to everyone in the House this evening, supposing they were to go home and on Monday morning came a notice from the building society saying "If we don't have some contribution to

699
catch up on the repayments which you have failed to honour, we shall have to repossess".
I must now state the next awful, frightful element, the element of suicides which, as Professor Brenner has shown, is increasing; it is something that ought to make us dreadfully ashamed of what is happening. We go through another level of Professor Brenner's report—I hope I may have the attention of the Front Bench. I am shattered and shocked to discover that the suicide of some of our people may cause some amusement; I find that terribly hard to endure. Nevertheless, let us look at another example. In Professor Brenner's report it is shown that when he talked to schoolchildren of the unemployed families, in places where there is mass unemployment, he found a form of camaraderie. But in instances where the unemployment was only marginal, in interviews school children said that they felt ashamed that their daddy was not capable of holding a job; then they had to point out that their mother had to go to work to keep them all.
It is these things that I believe we must consider in depth. This is the aspect of the morale of many of the families in our country. When you realise, too, the crass absurdity of this abysmal monetarist policy, you realise also that once the family is out of work first of all the rent or the mortgage has to be secured and so there are no holidays this year. I hope this gets to the holiday firms because if there should be the disaster of another election and the present Prime Minister gets back, they can forget about their adverts over next Christmas; but that is the first thing. The unemployed have a system of priorities of what they have to do without, and what they have to do without immediately is the idea of holidays.
Then follows—I know, because I have experienced it—no more new coats or new frocks for the youngest or the middle children; they will have to do with the hand-downs from the elder children. That is economics for you, my Lords. When millions do that the reflection—as has been proved beyond all peradvanture—is immediate on the clothing industry and the clothing industry starts contracting. No new suit. Keep sending that one to the cleaners; patch it; sew it; tidy up the unravelled sleeves. These things in my judgment—and I ask your Lordships to consider this—show that it is not only an evil policy to create unemployment but a disastrous economic policy as well.
I believe that we might have found a way similar to the one that has been found on previous occasions. There has been much experience in the system under which we live of booms and slumps; and we find there always seems to be a level of the community which is immune. The level of the community which has been immune over the past few years has had larger salary increases than a family man gets in dole. That is one of the reasons. Ally this to the youth who no longer know they can get jobs; put these things together and one can see the vanishing of discipline within the home. The youngsters are on the streets and not merely is there vandalism but we experience the sort of things that we have seen in many of our major cities—in Liverpool, London and other great cities. It
700
is in the main all part of the effect on family discipline and morale of unemployment.
I believe that it is not too late, that we ought to try to do something positive. I hope I am not going to be regaled with some civil servant's brief, pregnant with statistics and not one word of understanding or sorrow or unhappiness, merely so-called facts and figures. I appeal to your Lordships, we cannot go on in this way. We can read every day in our newspapers, for example, that young couples are seeking medical methods which will ensure that they will not be burdened by giving birth to future Britons. Does that seem a good thing? It is not merely distasteful; it is disgraceful. I think one must also have a look at some of the activities of management, where they have been making absurd contributions and taking risks to create even more unemployment. One reads, for example, of the abysmally absurd attitude of some managements driving workers to desperation, so that we could have, as in the case of British Leyland, an absurd strike caused by a management that is not fit to run a whelk stall in the East End of London. They are irritating skilled craftsmen, and annoying them.
I have some sympathy with the working men, and I will tell you why. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will know this story. Pithead baths were not given. No kind employer hauling the coal of Britain came along and said, "I will provide nice baths so that you can go home all nice and clean to your dingy little cottage". I can remember the days when my grandfather would come home, strip to the waist under one tap outside the cottage and swish off the muck and filth before he went into the house.
Things have changed. To think that some bright managerial spark at British Leyland hit on the mummified idea that, "We can squeeze them a bit more by pinching the couple of minutes they need to wash before they go home". In the media, quite rightly, they have to show both sides. I ask for the sensible approach in this House, to see that the blame does not always lie on one side. If we can do so in this House, let our message go out. I am of the opinion that there is not an occupant of a Bench in this Chamber that has not got natural sympathy and deep compassion for those who now form the unemployed. I believe that each one of us individually would like to see it erased from our society.
We have had certain economic measures which they have said will do this. But we have been having them month in and month out. In the couple of years that I have been in your Lordships' House I have heard the stories from the Front Bench opposite. The great dream is that next month there will be an end of the recession. As we have been told of the great dream each month, it has turned out to be a horrid nightmare. Up and up has gone the unemployment figure, down and down has gone production; and then has come all the misery in those families that I have been talking about. I believe it can be changed, but I believe it can only be changed when good men everywhere, of all parties, come to the aid of the unemployed, because by coming to the aid of the unemployed we come to the aid of our nation.
I have asked your Lordships in previous debates to consider that when this ghastly incidence of

701
unemployment confronted Europe and the United States of America all the well-known economists throughout the world did not seem to have the answer. It seemed to me at that time, and it still does, that if you put all the economists in the world from end to end they would never arrive at a conclusion. But there were two men who are still scorned—Kenneth Galbraith, a Scottish-Canadian, and Keynes. When the President of the United States of America decided that these two had something different to proffer he launched, on the principle of "spend and prosper", the new deal. That new deal was emulated in this country, and we saw unemployment begin to fade away in the USA and begin to fade away in Great Britain.
I believe that we have got to have something like that. I want to see a new deal for the unemployed, which will mean a new deal for commerce and industry and for all the great services of our nation. These two great new deals could create a new society—a new society of Great Britain which could, I believe, command the admiration of the world.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has certainly raised an important subject in his Unstarred Question this evening. I think we are in danger of creating two nations: those with a job and those without a job. It is difficult for those of us who have a job to understand fully the situation of the three million unemployed—
A noble Lord: Four million!
Lord Banks: — the three million who have no job. We tend to forget that low-income families suffer from a higher inflation rate than the community as a whole. In February, the Low Pay Unit's index indicated that low-income families (among whom, of course, the unemployed are predominant) had a rate of inflation of 6·8 per cent., or 1·4 per cent. high than the rate for the rest of the community. Another worrying thing about the present situation as far as the unemployed are concerned is the degree to which the unemployed today rely upon means-tested supplementary benefit.
There are overall, including everybody, 6·5 million people on supplementary benefit today, which is a record. That figure has increased since 1979 by 1·75 million, which is also a record increase. Of the unemployed themselves, 63 per cent. now rely on supplementary benefit and 53 per cent. rely solely on supplementary benefit. They are not receiving national insurance at all because their national insurance has run out and they are now entirely on supplementary benefit.
I wonder what the Government's view is of that situation. Are the Government happy that so many people should be on supplementary benefit; and have they any plans to get the unemployed off supplementary benefit? One of the virtues of the tax credit scheme which my party supports (and to which there was some reference made in the press today) is that it would do just that. Some unemployed are on supplementary benefit because their unemployment benefit, their national insurance, is inadequate. At least the 5 per cent. abatement is to be restored, but they have to wait until November for that. But the present Government
702
abolished the earnings-related supplement which helped to cushion the fall from the rate of income that an individual had in work to what he received when he became unemployed.
I want to ask the Government whether they are opposed in principle to the concept of an earnings-related supplement or whether they abolished that merely as an economy measure. We know that it was part of an economy package. Was it solely because of that, or was it because they have an objection in principle to any attempt to relate the first stages of unemployment benefit to the income which an individual was earning before he came on to unemployment benefit? Incidentally, the supplementary benefit rates themselves are inadequate, which is a view just reiterated by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The child additions to unemployment benefit have been reduced, with no compensating increase in child benefit. That is a matter which we have debated in this House, and which is a matter of concern to many people.
The Government recently extended the long-term supplementary benefit to the over-sixties, including those who are unemployed, so that they could go on to the long-term rate straightaway. But the long-term rate is still not available for those who are unemployed and under 60. While we welcome the one improvement, I should like to ask whether there is any prospect of the other, because we feel that everybody who is unemployed long enough should go on to the long-term rate, like other people.
These are a few of the matters which it seems to me are raised by the Question the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has asked this evening, and I shall certainly listen with great interest to the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is to make in order to find out what the Government have in mind to deal with these problems and to remove so far as possible the very real economic burden which is borne by the unemployed.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, there are two topics in your Lordships' House which I find irresistible, or nearly so. One is the question of war and peace and the other is the issue of unemployment. That is why I am presuming to take part in this debate tonight. These two issues have a number of things in common. They are both apocalyptic in one sense; they are unprecedented and there is no point is looking back as if to find in a history book the kind of evidence which can supply the answer to a contemporary problem.
These are unprecedented conditions promoted by our scientific capability, and in the matter of unemployment it does not seem to me that it is reasonable to anticipate that there ever will be a time again when what our fathers rather ambitiously called mass employment will be recoverable—and for a number of reasons. It is in that particular environment of thought that I am the more impressed by the form of words in which this particular debate is couched. We are to ask Her Majesty's Government,
"what action they propose to take to deal with the economic problems confronting the unemployed".
I would heartily wish to see the transformation of unemployment into creative leisure, and I think it is a

703
possibility. But I take it that the inner meaning of this particular debate is: what do you do with a situation which at the moment is irreversible or any rate at the moment cannot be fully answered? It is to that point that I wish to address what I have to say.
I will chide the Government, if I may, not for their innate hostility to compassion—I think that would be impudent—but for a lack of understanding of what really constitutes the problem that is promoted by an economic stricture and expressed by the word "unemployment" Your Lordships will allow me, as a social worker of sorts for the past 50 odd years, to make a comment here which has been beaten into my own experience in no uncertain fashion and which is that the personal sufferings of an unemployed family are particularly individual. You cannot add them up and say that the suffering is twenty times greater if 20 families are victims of unemployment problems. But one thing which is central to this whole argument is the quite devastating effect that unemployment has in as so many of the relationships which are necessary for the amenities and the well-being of a decent family life.
There is no doubt at all that dignity is one of the first things to suffer. As the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has pointed out, it is quite right that children can be unconsciously very cruel and can divide families by the kinds of comment they make and the imputations they suggest. These are not matters of irrelevance to the general question, for the over-arching problem is: what do you do in a society when you no longer require the manpower which made it possible, at least for all who had some technical achievement, to find a reputable job and where, in the higher echelons, the younger sons could go either into the Army or into the Church?
It is this problem that I find almost unanswerable unless we are prepared to limit, for the time being at least, our anticipations of what can be done. It is the intention of the Labour Party, so far as I understand it, so to promote a general increase in public spending as to remove from the register in the next year or two one million of those who are now on the register of the unemployed, which is another way of saying that there will be three million left. If we in your Lordships' House imagine that this problem is one capable of a speedy solution and a return to the mass employment which we cherish as a memory of past days—though it is an illusion, as I said before—we are deluding ourselves and contributing nothing to the practical outcome of a debate like this.
I would adduce two areas which I would suggest that probably the Government do not know very much about. One is an area in which I have been interested and, your Lordships might think, addicted to for a very long time now: namely, the consequences of unemployment in the field of alcohol. I would take it as generally to be regarded as credible at least that the "working classes", so called, are not so susceptible to the temptations of alcoholism when they are out of work as are those of what we are pleased to call the "upper middle classes" and the managerial class. I could give your Lordships evidence, if it were desired, of almost innumerable cases where the impact of unemployment has been to increase the tendency
704
towards alcoholism, which is running at an alarming rate today and, as I have said so many times before, when we begin to discover what is in the upstairs wardrobes in the nature of drink we shall have a better appreciation of the scourge that alcoholism represents today.
Nothing could be more practical for a government concerned to alleviate the evils of unemployment than to apply themselves with greater diligence and greater generosity to those measures which are now current and of which I have some knowledge and experience, in which it might be possible to reduce the impact of unemployment in relation to these alcoholic influences, which are more destructive than almost any other of the particular addictions to which I refer.
It so happens that earlier today I had the opportunity and the privilege of launching a handbook under the title Unleash, which is designed as a comprehensive reference work, covering all aspects of pastoral work being undertaken by the Christian churches and other voluntary organisations. This is primarily directed towards the homeless young and the single homeless. Unfortunately the vast majority of the single homeless are indeed unemployed, and I think that is relevant to the discussion in this House tonight.
What is the way in which those who are under the stress of unemployment can to some extent find some kind of relief and some kind of usefulness? The answer is that there is now a proliferation, very largely sponsored by the Christian Churches, of intentions at least to do something in this field. Those intentions have now been collated. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that he looks at Chapter 7 in this particular document, in which he will find to what extent there are already remedial processes whereby those who are unemployed can find something to do in an atmosphere which does not reproach them but understands them. Here is a marriage, again, of statutory and voluntary obligation which does not relieve us of the problem of unemployment as such, but does direct our attention not so much to the far-off day when this problem will be solved but to the fact that you cannot wait for next year's harvest of grain when people are hungry today.
The personal application of concern which is so often the intention of good-hearted people has been frustrated by their inability to know where to turn and what to do. I could relate to your Lordships many occasions on which unemployed people have come to me with their problems and, had I known what is now in this handbook, I should have been much better equipped to do something about it. I quite realise that these are very much measures that belong to an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff, rather than a fence at the top. Therefore, I shall turn for a moment to what is implied and what has been stated in the speech of my noble friend Lord Molloy.
I entirely disagree with the proposition that a vast infusion of public money into necessary and desirable public works would be disastrous. Nobody knows whether it would be disastrous, but there is at least one concept in which I believe it would be fruitful. What we are now doing, by preventing 4 million people from becoming contributors, is denying ourselves the creative capacity that they could, in their turn,

705
produce, and, in producing it, add to the sum total of general wealth. I am not a competent statistical diagnostician in these economic matters, and I have an increasing suspicion of those who attain what they assume to be that omniscience.
I take the view that I find recorded in the conversation which Mr. Schacht is supposed to have had with Mr. Hitler in his early days. He is supposed to have gone to Hitler and said,
"We are in a desperate position and there is nothing we can do about it, except to recognise the desperation in which we find ourselves."
Hitler is supposed to have said:
"You go home, Mr. Schacht, and write out a statement that we arc in a very much happier position. Tell me next week that we are doing very well and we will go on from there."
That may be a little naìve and simplistic, but I wonder whether it is true. In fact, I am sure that it is true.
The one asset we have is the creative capacity of human beings. When we utilise that creative capacity, we create wealth. It may be that in the short term inflation will increase, but I infinitely prefer to see an inflationary spiral with many more people at work, than a reduction of inflation and the condemnation of 4 million of my fellow creatures to the kind of idleness which I so much deplore. I do not believe that it would be a financial or a social disaster. In any case, such is the desperation of the situation which has been so eloquently put to this House by my noble friend Lord Molloy, that I believe it would be infinitely worth while to try it.
Let me finish by saying this. The curse of unemployment is not that you have nothing to get. It is that nobody wants you to give anything. That is the curse of unemployment. We must create the sense of community which is the very opposite of privatisation, and bring into the family and the group the warmth of a social conscience. This is not a piece of last Sunday's sermon, although it might well have been. It is a part of what I firmly believe and would offer to your Lordships' House tonight. Here is the opportunity for a moral transformation which in its turn, because it is morally right, could never be politically or economically wrong.
7.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, it is late and I shall be very brief, but I should like to say one word about the subject of the implications of the knowledge and understanding of the things we are talking about tonight—the effects of unemployment on people—for industrial relations. That may sound rather strange, but what I mean is this. I think it is clear that bad industrial relations are a factor in the crippled state of our economy, and that better industrial relations would contribute to our economic health. But one of the problems about improving industrial relations is that, so often, the motive is not there, because the sides concerned are so bound up in the mistrust that has been created between them that the motive does not get through to achieving something better.
It seems to me that the realities of what is happening to the people who are not in work are something very new to our generation, and something very terrible, as has been talked about tonight. They should be brought home, wherever possible, to those who have to do with
706
finding better relationships and therefore better ways of doing their business in industry, in terms of what the combination of bad industrial relations and a bad economy is doing to 4 million or 5 million people.
This is a new sort of humanitarian motive, a motive which could settle on to people's consciences—and people have consciences—in their general business of trying to get better understanding together about making our industry and our economy work better. I suppose that there are departments of the Government which have to do with industrial relations, and it is not fanciful to think that that might be an aspect of things which they could impress upon people, and which those of us who have contact with people in industrial concerns at a local level could also do.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be indebted to my noble friend Lord Molloy for having put down this Unstarred Question tonight. We shall be looking forward to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has to say in reply. But, first, we on this side of the House should like to express our appreciation of the noble Lord, who has been engaged today on the British Shipbuilders Bill, then had another session and is now going to reply to this Unstarred Question. We should not like the occasion to pass without paying some tribute to the noble Lord's hard work which started at the beginning of this afternoon.
I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, does not merely set out a catalogue of the various things which the Government have done in amelioration of the economic situation as it now exists. We are all very well aware of them—the small business schemes, the efforts to reinforce regional funds, aids and so on—and are deeply grateful for them. So if the noble Lord intends to read out a lot of the Government's actions that have already been taken, may I at once say that they have no real impact on the main problem, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has envisaged circumstances where even the current astronomical level of unemployment is still due to increase. It is the actions that the Government propose to take in relief of the basic situation that really concern us.
The right to work is surely one of the basic rights and liberties within a free society. The right to work, to create things for consumption or for the service of one's fellow human beings, under conditions of dignity and freedom, is surely an aim to which any society or any Government should direct itself. It should be the first priority. Indeed, it is a matter of common sense, in one way, for my noble friend Lord Soper to say that, although he himself is not an economist and views economists with the deepest suspicion, with which I entirely sympathise, it does not make any sense for people to be paid to be out of work and doing nothing, when they are fully capable of producing goods and services which can be used by their fellow citizens. Whatever the economists may say, this is the plain common sense of the matter. It is irrefutable.
We want to know what fundamental steps the Government are going to take, bearing in mind their own commitment. I do not want to reproach the noble Lord in party terms too much, because he has been so assiduous today in the application of his labours, but

707
he will undoubtedly recall the election call of Mrs. Thatcher, stigmatising the Labour Party as the party of unemployment: "We are the party of employment". The noble Lord will recall the poster, with which he may possibly be reproached in June or October, which showed exactly what that meant.
One is well aware—it would be wrong to say otherwise—that in the main the members of the party opposite are quite compassionate, in their own minds, about the unemployed. One would not say, with certain exceptions, that the party opposite or the Government are composed of people who are deliberately cruel. But surely one has to examine not only the things they are doing but the motives which inspire them. The Government themselves eschew any formal economic philosophy other than monetarism, and they are beginning to abandon monetarism. In fact, their stance in front of the country is that this is quite the natural order of things: there is a world depression and, sooner or later, automatically, for some reason or , we shall all get out of it; as long as we are all competitive (I do not know what will happen if everybody is equally competitive throughout the world, for that produces another situation) everything will be all right.
So what is the motive behind what the Government have done, what they are doing and where they propose to go? I thought it was rather revealing when the Prime Minister enunciated the other day her Victorian values. She announced them with some pride. They were incorporated in the Standard of 15th April, under the banner headline "The Good Old Days". I put it to the noble Lord, I put it to the House and, if I have the chance, I will put it to the country, that the main, compelling drive behind what the Government are doing lies in their nostalgic regard for the old values, for the Victorian values. Mrs. Thatcher said:
"I was brought up by a Victorian grandmother. We were taught to work jolly hard. We were taught to prove yourself. We were taught self-reliance. We were taught to live within our income. You were taught that cleanliness is next to godliness. You were taught self-respect. You were taught always to give a hand to your neighbour. You were taught tremendous pride in your country. All of these things are Victorian values. They are also perennial values".
I do not think I am being unfair to the party opposite when I say that among their serried ranks, particularly in the higher income levels, these values strike a chord. These are values which they would like to get back to, if they could. It is therefore necessary for us to remind ourselves of the consequences of the adoption of these Victorian values.
In Victorian times and, indeed, until the middle of the 1930s, one in every six individuals in the United Kingdom was employed in domestic service. In the Victorian era there was sweated labour. The Victorian era was the era of the Poor Law. The Victorian values of those days considered it to be morally wrong that when husband and wife went to the workhouse they should live together. They were segregated. These are part of the Victorian values.
I am not saying that the party opposite apprehends that it could ever get back to those precise circumstances, but those are the values, the selfish values and their expression, to which the party opposite would
708
like to hark back. It would suit them to have the restoration of privilege and power. I personally believe that nostalgia for the adoption of these values lies at the base of the Government's policies. They would like not a total restoration, because they could not get it, but a partial restoration of the kind of life they used to lead. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was kind enough to inform the House two years ago that the Prime Minister was the daughter of a grocer. Perhaps one ought to remind the Prime Minister that in Victorian days grocers had to use the tradesmen's entrance. These are all salutary matters to which one ought to address oneself, because those who will the means are at the same time willing the ends.
I was particularly glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln took part in this debate because I was educated in a little town in his diocese. The motto of my grammar school was, "Delight to be just". That motto has sustained me throughout my life and very largely lies at the root of my being a member of the party which I have the honour to represent in this House. The main trouble to which the right reverend Prelate referred, perhaps indirectly, in the course of his speech was that if 4 million people are going to be condemned indefinitely to unemployment, the Government will build up such a bitterness and hatred that it will poison industrial relations for another half a century, with all the disastrous consequences which the right reverend Prelate and upon which he touched.
This is not a situation which one can contemplate with any complacency, however much one may appreciate the various ameliorative items and steps which one likes to feel were introduced by the Government as a deliberate act of policy rather than as a response to public pressure and which no doubt the noble Lord will recite in the course of his reply to the debate. A much more radical approach which goes to the root of the whole matter is required. Unless an effort is made by the Government to go to the root of the matter and to take action of real significance, I myself—I say this with a sense of due responsibility—am fearful for the preservation of social cohesion within the democratic society in which we live and within a country of which we ought to be very proud.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for the kind remarks he addressed to me at the outset of his speech. I shall endeavour to return them by saying that every time I rise to this Dispatch Box it seems to be in reply to a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I hope that that at least is for your Lordships' edification.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, during the course of his remarks, implored me not to recite a list of all that the Government have done. But in replying to this debate I must address myself to the Question on the Order Paper and to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, when he asked his Question. I am sure that noble Lords in every part of this House are deeply concerned about the distressing level of unemployment. Where we disagree is, of

709
course, on the policies required to bring about the reduction in unemployment for which we all hope.
This Government's policies continue to be directed towards achieving a sustainable increase in output and employment through the creation of the right financial conditions to bring down and keep down the rate of inflation, and from measures to promote enterprise and iniative and to improve the performance of our economy. I know that a number of noble Lords tell us to try to follow the example of Governments of the 1950s and 1960s (and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred to the American Governments of the 1930s) and expand demand at home by spending substantially more and taxing substantiallly less. I am afraid that it would not work. It would not work because there is no shortage of demand. On the contrary, it is up by 4½ per cent. since the spring of 1981. The trouble is that too much of it is still being satisfied from imports; and that would happen all the more were we to set the printing presses working overtime. As we discovered in the 1970s more than 90p of every extra pound of "pump-priming" public expenditure primed prices and imports, not domestic output. The response would be as bad, or worse, today.
The continuity and firmness of our policies has already made a major contribution to reducing inflation—now down to an annual rate of just over 5 per cent.—and to bringing down interest rates. Bank base rates are currently six points below their peak in October 1981. The 1983 Budget, like its predecessors, was formulated within a stable medium-term financial framework for our public spending and borrowing plans. It brought positive help to individuals and businesses, including a further cut in the National Insurance Surcharge—the so-called "jobs tax".
We have also scrapped many of the regulations which stifled enterprise and initiative under our predecessors. Price controls, pay controls, dividend controls, hire-purchase controls, foreign exchange controls, industrial development certificates and office development permits have all gone; and we are pressing ahead with our plans to restore public sector industries, wherever possible, to private ownership, and to reduce the size of the public sector.
This Government have, therefore, already done a great deal to create the conditions for economic growth and a reduction in unemployment. But industry must recognise that it, too, has an important role to play if the recovery, already under way again, is to flourish and sustainable job opportunities are to be increased. We need to go on reducing the size of the pay increases we award ourselves if we are to improve our trading performance and secure a reduction in unemployment. Industry also needs to improve on quality, design and delivery dates, and all the other non-price factors of competitiveness, so that British goods are world-beaters, whether sold at home or abroad.
The latest statistics indicate that the United Kingdom recovery, after faltering early in 1982, as the impact of the world recession was felt, is now gathering momentum. Real domestic demand is increasing strongly—by some 4½ per cent. between the spring of 1981 and the fourth quarter of 1982. Consumers' expenditure increased by around 3½ per cent. during 1982 and continues buoyant as inflation and interest
710
rates remain at low levels. Industrial output in the three months to February was around 3 per cent. above its trough in 1981. In manufacturing industry, too, there are signs of recovery; the latest three months have seen an increase of over 1 per cent. on the previous three. And the CBI's March inquiry points to continued recovery in industry over the coming months.
An essential part of the strategy I have outlined has been a need to restrain the growth in public expenditure and, regrettably, social security benefits could not be excluded from this because the social security programme forms 29 per cent. of all public expenditure. But we have taken care to make savings in such a way as to protect, and indeed sometimes to improve, the lot of the poorest among unemployed people. Thus it is that supplementary benefit—the safety net—has been fully price-protected throughout the Government's term of office. More than that, it has been improved for many families with children by the changes in scale rates which we introduced in 1980 when we merged the rate for a child under five with that for a child under 11, at the higher rate, and did the same for children between 11 and 13 and those aged 14 to 16. Further help has been given to those families with children under five during our term of office, by our giving them automatic heating additions, now worth £1·90 a week.
Noble Lords will know that last year we changed the rules to enable unemployed people over 60 to qualify for the long-term scale-rate after one year in receipt of supplementary benefit. Some 40,000 claimants have gained from that change. This year we shall do better, by extending this higher rate to all claimants over 60, without their needing to serve a year's qualifying period, and this will give increased payments to a further 42,000.
Another significant improvement, which I explained to your Lordships in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on Tuesday, is that we have increased the capital limit for supplementary benefit from £2,000 to £2,500 and this will go up again to £3,000 from November—a 50 per cent. increase since November 1980. This will be a particular help to unemployed people who have received redundancy payments. At the same time, we will introduce a disregard of insurance policies with a value of up to £1,500, and increase the capital limit for single payments for supplementary benefit to £500.
We have, of course, made some changes which have helped unemployed people who are not receiving supplementary benefit. I have referred on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House to the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit, but your Lordships will know that that is to be made good this year; the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to this in his speech. Child benefit has maintained its value, and will increase in real terms this year and this is a gain for those unemployed who receive unemployment benefit without supplementary benefit. We have further helped people in this category by increasing the amount of earnings which they may receive before it affects their unemployment benefit, from 75p a day (a level which had obtained since 1972) to £2 a day. The new housing benefit scheme which came into full operation this month will also be of benefit to the

711
unemployed. Those on supplementary benefit will be passported to receive 100 per cent. rebates and those on unemployment benefit will receive rebates, depending upon what other income they may have.
A common complaint from the unemployed used to be that they were prevented from doing voluntary work or otherwise using their time to be of value in society because of the strict rules on availability which applied to benefits. We have relaxed these rules, making it much easier for unemployed people to take part in these activities, which are so good for morale. These changes include extending benefit to people who go on work camps for up to a fortnight.
We used to get complaints from time to time from people aged over 60 who had to sign at an unemployment benefit office in order to get credits to preserve their pension rights. As from this current financial year, we are awarding credits automatically to such people so that they no longer need to sign on for this purpose and their pension rights will be fully protected.
Benefit paid to unemployed people costs a lot of money. The overall cost of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit to unemployed people is £4,910 millions in the financial year just ended, representing 17·2 per cent. of all spending on social security benefits or 4·7 per cent. of public expenditure as a whole. I have only to quote such a figure to indicate why it is difficult to do more, given the constraints of which we are all aware.
One question often raised is whether we will pay the long-term scale rate of supplementary benefit to all of the unemployed. Lord Banks referred to that. I have already explained how we have done more than any previous Administration by paying this higher rate to the over-60s. To extend the rate to all unemployed people who had been receiving benefit for a year or more would cost £395 million, while to pay it after that time on benefit to families with children would cost £190 million in a year. The Government have made it clear that we accept in principle the case for this extension but the resources simply are not available at the present to enable this to be done.
While talking about costs, perhaps I may say a few words about the new version of the tax credits scheme about which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has spoken, and with whose name it was associated in the newspapers this morning. We will, of course, very carefully examine the new scheme. I am sure noble Lords would not expect me to respond in detail now, but even the Liberals themselves admit that their new scheme will involve substantial redistribution, with many losers, and indeed, for many, a marginal tax rate significantly higher than it is now. This new Liberal scheme, which is claimed to take the edge off the poverty trap, I must say seems to sit a little oddly with the SDP's scheme in their paper.
I have talked so far about the benefits received by unemployed people, but I think I should close by mentioning some of the special schemes which the Department of Employment have brought in and which help unemployed people in other ways. I would draw attention especially to two projects. The first is the Youth Training Scheme. This will guarantee
712
places to 16 year-old school-leavers who cannot find work, providing useful training which should stand them in good stead during their working lives, when, as we all hope, jobs become more readily available for them. The other is the Community Programme, providing 130,000 places for the long-term unemployed, enabling them to do worthwhile work and to be paid for it—perhaps not as much as we would wish, but no one will be worse off than on benefit and most will be better off. In all, the Government will be spending some £2 billion in 1983–84—despite the necessary curbs on public expenditure—on a wide range of employment and training schemes which bring direct help to some three-quarters of a million people.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred in his speech to a document which I think he said he had helped to launch today. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to have a copy of that; I would certainly very much like to study it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referred to the difficulties of industrial relations. Perhaps there is no better example of the effects of bad industrial relations—and I make no assignation of blame in this case—than the current situation at British Leyland, where, clearly, employment is threatened by the industrial action taking place there.
I want to end principally by refuting the suggestion which I think was implicit in some of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that we somehow did not care about the substantial number of unemployed people that there are at the present time. I do assure your Lordships that we do care. I certainly care. At one or two moments in my life I, too, have been unemployed. I can remember going to the Department of Employment in the town where I live and claiming unemployment benefit. It is something I hope I shall never have to do again. But the way to stop that is to get the economy really going again. I think we would be doing the unemployed people of this country a grave disservice if we were to follow some of the suggestions put to us tonight.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.

  FRAUD SQUAD: COMPOSITION AND COST
  FRAUD SQUAD: COMPOSITION AND COST
  FRAUD SQUAD: ORGANISATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND REVIEWS
  FRAUD SQUAD: ORGANISATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND REVIEWS
  H M PRISONS: WITHDRAWAL OF FORM No. 1095
  H M PRISONS: WITHDRAWAL OF FORM No. 1095
  PRISONERS' PETITIONS TO HOME SECRETARY: REPLY TIMES AND PROCEDURES
  PRISONERS' PETITIONS TO HOME SECRETARY: REPLY TIMES AND PROCEDURES
  HM PRISONS: MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSONS
  HM PRISONS: MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSONS
  ETHIOPIA: MONITORING OF AID
  ETHIOPIA: MONITORING OF AID