Sitting of 5 December 1983

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

    Trunk Roads (Essex)
    Dr. Michael Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to improve the major trunk roads from London to south-east Essex.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Our revised plans for the trunk road programme were announced in September. They include six schemes for the improvement of the Ala between London and Tilbury, an improvement of the Rayleigh weir junction on the Al27 between London and Southend, a bypass of Chelmsford on the A12 on which I hope to announce a decision very soon, and the M11 to Hackney link.
    Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. When may we expect work to start on a flyover at Rayleigh weir and when will it be finished and in use?
    Mrs. Chalker: The addition of the scheme to the programme was announced in May. The White Paper this year indicated that, following satisfactory completion of statutury procedures, we should commence construction in the period following April 1987. Further than that I cannot say at the moment.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been waiting for 21 years in Chelmsford for a decision on the A12—since I was adopted as candidate for Chelmsford? As many people are suffering from planning blight, and as there is a great deal of uncertainty, will my hon. Friend, who I know is studying this matter, give me a combined 21st birthday and Christmas present and announce it before 25 December?
    Mrs. Chalker: I think my right hon. Friend knows that the inspector's report has been received by my Department, but it was a long report running to 400 or so pages and has raised a number of complex questions. I hope very much, as I said last month, to announce a decision and I shall try to make it a 21st anniversary and Christmas present for him.

    Port of London Authority
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much financial assistance he envisages giving to the Port of London Authority in the current financial year.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): So far this financial year the Port of London Authority has received £21·9 million in severance grant. The final figure will depend on the number by which the authority reduces its manpower surplus. In addition, grant of £9 million is being paid to meet the costs falling due this year of loans covered by the Ports (Reduction of Debt) Act 1983.
    The Government have also guaranteed the authority's overdraft facility up to £5 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) announced last year that grants to meet deficits would not be available to the PLA after the end of 1982, and that remains the position.
    Mr. Smith: What useful purpose is served by the continued existence of the PLA?
    Mr. Ridley: Apart from anything else, the PLA has a number of important statutory functions, including the conservancy of 95 miles of the Thames and the provision of navigational facilities. Its abolition would not be practicable, because those tasks must be performed.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that the terms of the auditor's qualification in the last annual report of the PLA make it quite clear that the Government are encouraging the sale of PLA land in order to sustain revenue? Is this not a questionable financial procedure for any body, let alone a public body for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible?
    Mr. Ridley: It is true that the Government have allowed the PLA to keep the proceeds of land sales. If we had not done so the financial crisis would certainly have struck the PLA before now.
    Mr. Moate: In view of the many rumours about this subject, does my right hon. Friend expect the PLA to face a financial crisis in the near future? If there is to be a further financial reconstruction or the like, does he agree that a major objective should be to reconstitute the PLA now so that the conservancy and riverside functions that he mentioned earlier can be completely separated from the freight handling operations at Tilbury?
    Mr. Ridley: I am expecting from the PLA a review of its financial position very soon indeed — I hope this week. It will be on the basis of considering that review that the Government will take further decisions on the future of the PLA.

    M1 and M6
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the control by motorway reconstruction contractors of coning and lane closures on the M1 and M6.
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall continue to seek ways to cut down the number and extent of land closures during maintenance work.
    Mr. Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her apparent success in reducing the number of cones on motorways. As she knows, I am one of those hon. Members who complained consistently about this issue. Will she keep up the pressure, bearing in mind that, with winter conditions approaching, the need for safety and security on the roads is all the more important?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We shall continue to try to reduce the number of cones, but I am sure that hon. Members realise that when we place cones in position for safety they are there for a good reason.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister recall telling me about a contract for gritblasting the underside of the M6 at spaghetti junction which was let at a cost of £440,000 for 30 weeks, but which cost £1·4 million over 78 weeks? Does she agree that it would have been more prudent for that contract to have gone out to re-tender?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties that there have been with the midland motorway links. I have replied to him and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) on the subject over the months. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not let up in my surveillance of what is happening on the midland motorway links.
    Mr. Higgins: As the cones appear to be breeding at a quite horrifying rate, will my hon. Friend say whether the
    4
    Government have a strategic plan for the reconstruction of the M1 and M6 and, if so, over what period that is likely to be completed?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed we have a plan for the reconstruction of the M1 and M6 to make them into stronger motorways. They were built to lower standards in years gone by. At the progress of 70 to 80 miles per annum of renewal, we still have some way to go. We must make this asset good by doing the work now rather than leaving it to get into a worse state.

    British Rail
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his recent statement of objectives for British Rail was principally based upon the recommendations set out in part I of the Serpell report.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): No, Sir.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister take this opportunity to say categorically that Government policy will not be based on the Serpell report? Three weeks ago the Secretary of State gave as an example of efficiency on these Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Will the Minister now give an example of efficiency on the railways, for which he has responsibility?
    Mr. Mitchell: The content of the Government's statement of objectives for the railways was based not on Serpell but on BR's five-year plan, though speeded up. The House will be aware that the Serpell committee took much evidence from BR and that BR was involved in much of the preparation and ideas; so to that extent there is in the first part of Serpell an element of BR's own plans. As for examples of efficiency for which the hon. Gentleman asks, I might mention automatic ticket machines, level crossing automation, driver-only operations and radio signalling.
    Mr. Adley: Does the criterion of profitability in the matters to which my hon. Friend referred apply to London commuter rail services? Is there any other city in the world where this criterion is, or is expected to be, put into operation?
    Mr. Mitchell: The public service grant provides a substantial sum towards the commuter railway system, and my hon. Friend can be assured that we do not expect the southern region of BR to make a profit.

    Heavy Lorries (London)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the Greater London council's proposed ban on lorries over 7½ tonnes in the London area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: The quarter to which such representations should be—and are being—directed is the GLC itself, but I have received over 100 letters expressing concern from members of this House, organisations and individual firms likely to be affected. I have made it clear to the GLC that I share the view of the Select Committee on Transport that a general ban would severely damage the commercial and industrial life of the capital.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in the borough of Thurrock about GLC's proposals? Is he further aware that they will increase road haulage costs by about 175 per cent. and mean that there will have to be about three and a half times the number of lorries? Does he agree that the correct way to proceed is to get the M25 completed as soon as possible and have selective lorry routing, rather than impracticable blanket bans?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposal has caused an enormous amount of, in my opinion, justified alarm. It seems absolutely right that we should, first, get the M25 completed and then, if there is a case for restrictions or bans in certain areas or during parts of the week or day, consider those on their merits. But great care must be taken to preserve the commercial and industrial life of the capital.
    Mr. Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is almost three years since the GLC refused to implement a lorry ban in the Enfield, Finchley and Barnet areas of London, and that that was a purely political decision? Will he urge the GLC, with the coming of the opening of the M25 from South Mimms to the M11, to look again at that option and, if necessary, bring strong pressure to bear on it?
    Mr. Ridley: Practically evey decision of the GLC nowadays seems to be politically motivated. I shall look at the point that my hon. Friend raised — I am not familiar with it—and write to him in response.

    Seat Belts
    Mr. Hayesasked the Secretary of State for Transport when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to estimate the effect of seat belts legislation on the number of fatalities.
    Mr s. Chalker: In the first five months of compulsory seat belt wearing, deaths and serious injuries to front seat occupants of cars and light vans were down 20 per cent. on the same period last year. The wearing rate was about 94 per cent. I would not expect the first full assessment of the legislation before the end of next year.
    Mr. Hayes: I welcome those encouraging figures. Will my hon. Friend make an early statement on the full effect of the legislation? Will she also undertake to issue guidelines for the use of seat restraints for young children?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree that the figures are encouraging and I hope that they will get even better. We shall need a full report when the regulations come back for debate in about two years' time, and for that we must conduct a thorough monitoring exercise. I shall be giving reports about the monitoring exercise on a quarterly basis, but a full assessment cannot be given, as I said, until next year.
    As for restraints for young children, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the leaflet "Child Safety and Cars". That has been available all this year and contains guidance about the best ways to keep children safe in cars.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: In view of the undoubted success of the seat belt legislation, on which I congratulate the Government, is it not time to extend it to coach and lorry drivers?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have seen a number of lorry and coach drivers and even some front-seat coach passengers wearing
    6
    seat belts. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are at present looking into the question of the strength of seats in coaches, an aspect which must be important in terms of restraining passengers in the event of an accident. I shall be looking at all these matters in the course of the whole review.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Bearing in mind the good news that my hon. Friend has given the House, when does she expect to introduce legislation to require seat belts to be worn by passengers in the back seats of cars?
    Mrs. Chalker: I believe that it is sensible for those who see benefit in wearing seat belts in the rear of motor cars always to do so. We have, since October 1981, required in new cars anchorage points for rear seat belts. However, there are people who need to travel by car who feel that they cannot wear a belt, and for those people I think that hon. Members would wish to retain the option that they should be able to travel unbelted, although in my view they would be safer if, in their own interest, they wore a belt.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Office has published a document containing full statistics about what has happened in Scotland? Why cannot her Department produce similar statistics for England and Wales?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I said, my Department produces notices on a quarterly basis. The figures in the Scottish notice are a comparison with the six months August 1982 to January 1983 and are not directly comparable with the statistics that I gave in my main answer.
    Mr. Jessel: Is the figure that my hon. Friend gave of a reduction of 20 per cent. over a five-month period regarded by her Department as statistically significant? If so, does that not completely and utterly vindicate all those who fought over the years to bring about this measure?
    Mrs. Chalker: There is no doubt that a 20 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries is significant. Those who felt that this would be the right way to proceed have shown that it is important always to wear a seat belt in the front or rear of the car. However, we must not believe that the reduction is due only to the measure We must be careful about the conclusions that we draw from the statistics. I wish to wait until we have further data before I make any real judgment.
    Mr. Prescott: It is good to hear the Minister reflecting a Government view in favour of seat belts and saying how many lives have been saved, but does she recall that in Committee the measure was proposed by a Labour Back Bencher, and opposed by the Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions on compulsory seat belt wearing were put into the 1981 Act in another place. When the Bill went into Committee in this House there were divided views, but the House has accepted the measure. We now have the regulations and they are doing good. It is right at least to encourage people to wear their seat belts at all times.

    A1 Hatfield
    Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on improvements to the Al at Hatfield.
    Mrs. Chalker: We shall start work on the major Roestock to Stanborough development round Hatfield on the A1(M) next spring. It will be a very significant bypass road for Hatfield; almost three quarters of a mile of it will be in tunnel.
    Mr. Leigh: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on the start of work on the A1(M). However, does she accept that for millions of people living in the eastern counties the Al is the principal link to London? Does she further accept that they find it unbelievable that for so long there has been only one lane at Hatfield? Will something be done immediately to rectify that?
    Mrs. Chalker: I realise the importance of that principal trunk road for those living on the east coast of England. However, it is a three-lane carriageway, not a single-lane carriageway. When the improvements of which I have just spoken are completed, it will be a dual carriageway for the whole of its three-mile length.
    Mr. Murphy: In view of the inconvenience caused to all my constituents by the construction of the motorway at Hatfield, can my hon. Friend give me an idea of the definitive completion date?
    Mrs. Chalker: At present I cannot give my hon. Friend a fixed time, but completion will probably be in about three years. It is a large contract, and there is a cut and cover tunnel, which means that it will take a great deal longer to construct than an ordinary surface road.

    Motor Insurance
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on negotiations on details of the proposed European Community directive on motor insurance, following the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 26 October.
    Mrs. Chalker: There was a further meeting of the Council of Ministers on 25 November. A substantial measure of agreement has been achieved on outstanding problems, and compromise solutions are being considered urgently in respect of two remaining points of difference.
    Mr. Chapman: I hope that the negotiations will be speedily concluded, but will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government agree that all motorists involved in an accident should be required to give the appropriate details to the insurance company, as opposed to the present situation, in which only motorists involved in a personal injury accident are required to do so?
    Mrs. Chalker: The real solution to the problem that my hon. Friend outlined is to extend to property damage the safeguards in the Road Traffic Act that already apply in respect of personal injury. They oblige motorists to be insured against liability for personal injury and to provide details of their insurance cover when involved in an accident when there is personal injury. The insurer is obliged to satisfy any judgment against his policy holder, whether or not he has reported the accident to the insurer. It would be wrong to have a statutory requirement of notification, as there can be one only if there is insurance for property damage in the first place.

    Railways (Investment)
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the Chancellor's autumn economic statement will have on investment in British Rail.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The external financing limit announced in the autumn statement will allow room for the increasd investment that British Rail has forecast in its corporate plan.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome the fact that there will be a modest increase in investment, but does the Minister accept that the basic under-financing of British Rail means that it will be unable to invest in new technology? That in turn will lead to a reduction in the services available to the public and will prevent British Rail from being able to reduce its unit costs. Does the Minister agree that he is condemning British Rail to a lingering death? What is the figure for investment this year on the roads compared with the railways?
    Mr. Mitchell: I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman when he says that there is basic under-investment in British Rail. We have provided in this year's external financing limit all that British Rail asked for. During the past four years about £1,500 million has been invested in British Rail. We expect that over the next five years £2,000 million will be invested in it. Those are substantial figures. I think the House will agree that as a result an ample opportunity should be provided for British Rail to carry out the investment that it judges to be necessary.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless something is done to increase investment in British Rail, especially in respect of the neglected commuter lines to London from south Essex, where difficulties are experienced daily by thousands of commuters, increased investment in roads will be needed, because of the current desertion of commuters from the railways to coach and bus services. Does my hon. Friend not feel that the time is ripe for a completely new approach to railway and road finance, especially in the context that I mentioned?
    Mr. Mitchell: I assure my hon. Friend that no limitation is imposed by the Government on British Rail's investment projects in the areas to which he referred. It is for the board to identify what would be worth while and to come to us with proposals. We shall consider them sympathetically and carefully. We are turning down no such proposals at present.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the Minister deliberately neglected to answer the question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) about under-investment in British Rail compared with investment on the roads? Is it not true that our railways suffer from under-investment, compared with the rest of the countries in the Common Market? Is it not a fact that in France, for instance, there is massive investment in the railways compared with the investment on them in this country? The Minister said that it was £2,000 million, which sounds a lot, but it is over a period of five years, which makes it much less.
    Mr. Mitchell: One cannot make comparisons between the railway system in this country and that in other countries, where the distances are much longer between stations, and the operation —[Interruption.]There are

    9
    far greater distances in the railway network in France, which is provided with enormous opportunities which we do not have here. I utterly reject the suggestion that there is under-investment, as the hon. Gentleman implies.
    Mr. Ward: Will my hon. Friend ensure that any further increase in investment in British Rail comes from increased efficiency and not from the long-suffering taxpayer, who already pays too much?
    Mr. Mitchell: We are looking to British Rail to bring forward proposals for investment that will help to increase efficiency. We shall encourage it in that direction.

    Railway Workshops
    Mr. Robin Cookasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to visit the railway workshops at York, Shildon, Derby and Swindon.
    Mrs. Dunwoodyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to visit the railway workshops at York, Shildon, Derby and Swindon.
    Mr. Cowansasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to visit the railway workshops at York, Shildon, Derby and Swindon.
    Mr. Mitchell: I have visited Crewe, Eastleigh and Derby and am visiting York and Swindon in response to suggestions from my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Gregory) and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).
    Mr. Cook: When the Minister visits the York and Swindon workshops, will he discuss the emerging crisis in their order programmes? Is the Minister not aware, despite his answers to the previous question, that in the past nine months the programme for electrical multiple units intended to service the Essex area has been cut to one third of its previous level, and that the programmes for inter-city coaches and for engineering and freight wagons have been scrapped in their entirety? Does the Minister realise that if the orders are cancelled and the capacity to meet such orders is shared there is not a hope of British Rail providing either passengers or industry with the modern rail network enjoyed by the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Mitchell: Orders for the workshops of British Rail Engineering Ltd. depend on the investment that British Rail identifies as worth while. Orders are not an end in themselves. They have to be justified on investment grounds.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister must be aware that BREL can more than justify its work programme. As only 300 of the 1,800 diesel multiple units have been completely stripped of asbestos, will the hon. Gentleman have urgent talks with the management of BREL to ensure that the stripping of asbestos continues? Is the Minister aware that if a bad accident occurred and the skin of a coach is split, as could have happened at the recent Paddington derailment, many members of the public would be at risks from asbestos?
    Mr. Mitchell: An agreement exists between the management and the unions to the effect that asbestos stripping will be completed by 1987. There is no reason to believe that the programme will not be completed exactly as planned. The BREL programme is geared to the investment submissions that we receive from British Rail. There are later questions about that on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to the Minister for linking these questions, but I feel that he would have shown courtesy to the hon. Members who asked them had he informed them of his intention. I notice that Shildon, for some strange reason, is missing from the list of workshops that he is to visit. Is the Minister aware that BREL has recently won a £2·5 million contract to supply electrical multiple units to Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that if Government approval is forthcoming further orders can be won in Northern Ireland? When the Minister eventually visits Shildon, will he explain to the workers how the policy that he outlined to me in November of accelerated redundancies and factory closures will help them? Before it is too late, will the hon. Gentleman reverse that policy, and instead of speeding up the rate of closure, will he speed up Government approval, which will produce work, and investigate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Gentleman has had a very good run.
    Mr. Mitchell: I discerned two questions in what the hon. Gentleman said; one involving my visit to Shildon and the other involving investment. Shildon is not on my visiting programme. An announcement has been made that the works will close and agreement has been reached between the management and the unions on the closure programme. It would raise false hopes and be grossly unfair to the people involved if, by visiting Shildon, I gave any hope that there would be a return of British Rail work there.
    We have recently announced the approval of the electrification of the Tonbridge-Hastings line. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today approved British Rail's proposal to purchase 149 electrical multiple units.
    Mr. Gregory: In trying to get back on to the right tracks, may I say that I am mindful of the quality and importance of BREL at York. However, has my hon. Friend made a decision on British Rail's submission for electrical multiple units, which I know was made in April?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have announced that we have approved the purchase of 149 electrical multiple units and I understand that they will be built at York.
    Mr s. Beckett: When the Minister visited the workshops in Derby and elsewhere, did he not see a skilled, well-equipped work force, successful in winning orders from overseas? The threat of redundancy hangs over its head only because of the Government's obstinate refusal to invest properly in the future of the industry. Will the Government reconsider their investment programme when considering improving the services of British Rail?
    Mr. Mitchell: On my visits to the various BREL, workshops I have been most impressed by the skill and dedication of the work force. British Rail has had to carry out closures not because any blame rests with the work force or management, but because of overcapacity within the railway engineering industry. As to the refusal to sanction investment, I announced today the approval of a second major investment programme. It is for British Rail to propose investment and for the Government to agree or disagree when they receive the proposals.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend accept that news of his impending visit to the Swindon railway works on 16 January 1984 is keenly welcomed, not only by

    11
    management but by the unions? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's approach this afternoon, which is designed deliberately to create scare stories, is totally unhelpful to the future of the work force at those works?
    Mr. Mitchell: I deplore the way in which the workers at many BREL workshops have been frightened by the suggestion that the Government are not prepared to approve investment proposals made by British Rail. In the past month we have announced two major investment approvals, and I look forward to more proposals being made.
    Mr. Snape: Is it the Government's intention to run down BREL as far as posssible so that they can sell off the remnants of the industry to the private sector at the lowest possible price? Is it not sadly typical of Tory Britain that an industry with which, as with many others, we once led the world is being destroyed to prove the virility of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Mitchell: No, Sir. There is no intention to run down BREL. The rundown is due to past investment proposals being carried out successfully, resulting in there being less of a requirement for heavy maintenance work, because of the efficiency of modern equipment.

    London Transport
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the proposasl to create a new authority for London Transport operations.
    Mr. Ridley: We have received a number of comments in response to our White Paper which we have taken into account in preparing the Bill now before Parliament.
    Mr. Dykes: Notwithstanding some of the parameters of the published legislation, can my right hon. Friend say why public transport, land use, planning and highways planning should not be kept together and co-ordinated on a London county-wide basis in future?
    Mr. Ridley: I think that that matter has been covered. The Bill is the Government's response to that situation. More will take place when the Greater London council is abolished and further transport responsibilities are taken into account.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the fact that he is to be the first Tory Minister to nationalise London Transport will enable him to reduce financial support for it by increasing fares by as much as 22 per cent., reducing services and threatening concessionary fares for Londoners? What representations has he received from London ratepayers, who have seen their possible share of the cost rise from 55 per cent. in the first Bill which was published on Friday morning to 66 per cent. in the second Bill? Over the weekend, did the Secretary of State reflect further about the percentage? This much-heralded new Bill for Londoners is more about the Treasury's financial needs than about the transport needs of Londoners.
    Mr. Ridley: There is no reason why taking over London Transport should lead to any significant fare increases, in real terms, next year, and I utterly repudiate what the GLC has alleged on that score. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that concessionary fare
    12
    schemes are a matter for the local authorities involved. Over the next two years—and we have two years—the London boroughs will no doubt come forward with schemes to supply bus passes for pensioners. I tried to help the hon. Gentleman by giving him a copy of the Bill, which was restricted and classified—
    Mr. Prescott: No, it was not.
    Mr. Ridley: —because the House authorities did not get the Bill printed on time and I am surprised that he should have taken the dummy figure in the original Bill and not understood its purpose. The hon. Gentleman should get into his wet suit and flippers, swim across the river and tell the GLC that he misinformed it on Friday.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Prosecutions
    Mr. Canavanasked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions he has personally conducted since he become Attorney-General.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Eight, Sir.
    Mr. Canavan: Are the streets of Britain safer or more dangerous as a result of the Attorney-General's failure to secure the conviction of the two London detectives, who gunned down an innocent unarmed man in the street, shooting him five times and then pistol-whipping him? Those men then admitted in court that they would do the same thing again in similar circumstances. Does not that case demonstrate the need for a change in the law or, at the very least, a change in the regulations on the police use of firearms?
    The Solicitor-General: The law in relation to that case is clear, and the verdict returned by the jury was clear. I do not think it proper to make any further comment about that case.
    Mr. Adley: Did any of those eight cases— and I assume that the answer is no — involve shoplifting offences? Has my hon. and learned Friend any qualms about the state of the law, particularly in view of the recent Woolworth's case and the recorder's comments?
    The Solicitor-General: None of the eight cases involved shoplifting. The content of the law relating to shoplifting is—as for the whole of the criminal law—a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, my hon. Friend will know of my views on that matter from earlier exchanges when I had other ministerial responsibilities.
    Mr. Alton: When the Attorney-General next considers initiating a prosecution, will he think of prosecuting those councillors who boasted this weekend that they had blackmailed and bludgeoned Group 4 Security away from the plant in—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well wide of the question.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the considerable concern that surrounds many aspects of the recent conspiracy case in Cardiff, at which a substantial number of defendants were acquitted? Will he examine some of those matters and, in particular, the

    13
    prolonged incarceration of many of the defendants—a subject that I raised, I believe, more than a year ago with the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor—and the need to bring cases to trial within a period that is more in line with that in Scotland? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the immense cost of the trial and consider whether there are any lessons to be learnt from it?
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will certainly examine those points. However, I think it is common ground in the House that the sooner a criminal case can be brought to trial, the better. There are a variety of reasons for the delays that sometimes occur and not all of them are connected with the congestion of the courts or delays on the part of the prosecution. If the Scottish rule were applied here, it would be unlikely to improve matters.

    Rape Prosecutions
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Attorney-General on how many occasions he has led for the prosecution in a case of rape since he became Attorney-General.
    The Solicitor-General: None during my right hon. and learned Friend's term of office.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I appreciate that it must be for the Attorney-General to decide in which cases he wishes to prosecute, but has my hon. and learned Friend noted that last year in England and Wales a record number of cases of rape were reported to the police and that the average sentence served, or given to rapists in England and Wales, is less than three years? Do not those figures suggest that the judiciary is being unduly lenient towards those committing that dreadful crime?
    The Solicitor-General: I have not done that research myself, but I entirely share my hon. Friend's abhorrence of the offence of rape. The law reflects that and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice in particular have said that, save in the most exceptional case, the proper penalty will always be one of immediate imprisonment. The power to sentence a rapist to life imprisonment is by no means neglected by the courts in practice.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the Solicitor-General very concerned at the decision last week of Judge Michael Argyle to impose an 18-month suspended sentence on a rapist? What can Parliament do, and what legislation and initiatives can we propose, to prevent judges from taking such stupid decisions?
    The Solicitor-General: The only comment that I would make on that case is that the report that I read of it—which was limited to the Daily Express—made it clear that it was an attempted rape. The sentence was 18 months suspended. Every case depends on the facts and it is very seldom possible for a newspaper, with the constrictions on its space, to do full justice to all the facts involved. I have no further comment to make about that case.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the traumatic experience faced by any woman in making a rape allegation and in the subsequent trial? Will he consult the Home Secretary so
    14
    that the necessary improvements in the investigation of rape allegations are continued, especially bearing in mind the television programme last year about the Thames Valley police? Will he ensure that a more sympathetic approach is maintained and universally applied?
    The Solicitor-General: I very much sympathise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opening remarks. He will know that in March this year the then Home Secretary issued a circular to chief police officers setting out the guidelines for the investigation of complaints of rape made by women, and stating that there was a particular need to ensure that such complaints were dealt with sympathetically and tactfully by trained officers.

    Legal Aid (London)
    Mr. Leighasked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied with the operation of the legal aid scheme in London regarding the conduct of criminal cases.
    The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor is constantly open to receive suggestions for improvement.
    Mr. Leigh: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware—perhaps from his early days at the Bar—that some solicitors who brief counsel in magistrates' courts provide them with little, if any, instructions, expecting counsel to take instructions at the court? Does he agree that that is an abuse of the system, and will he look into it?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a practice that is fairly prevalent in London. It is open to a solicitor to brief counsel, even where the certificate for legal aid assigned only a solicitor. The claim for costs will then be assessed and paid by the Law Society on the basis of the actual 'work done by solicitor and counsel respectively under the 1982 regulations. There is a duty upon a solicitor to provide proper briefing for counsel. If a solicitor claims for work that he has not, in fact, done, it is a fraud on the legal aid fund.

    Conveyancing
    Ms. Harmanasked the Attorney-General whether Her Majesty's Government have proposals to end the conveyancing monopoly.
    The Solicitor-General: The Government are considering these restrictions in the light of the divergent recommendations of the two Royal Commissions for legal services in England and Wales and Scotland respectively.
    Ms. Harman: Does the Solicitor-General agree chat although having a monopoly for conveyancing is in the interests of solicitors, it is not in the interests of those who want to buy or sell land? Should not the Government abolish the conveyancing monopoly? Do not the Government have an excellent opportunity to do that in the shape of the Bill proposing the abolition of the conveyancing monopoly which has been presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)? Will the Government support that Bill?
    The Solicitor-General: The problem is always to see how competition can best be encouraged without jeopardising consumer protection. Although the hon. Lady's view, which she has expressed with her usual forceful eloquence, can be held, the contrary view can also respectfully be held. The Government have not yet concluded their examination of the problem.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Voluntary Service Overseas
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him, or to British embassies, concerning the work and activities of Voluntary Service Overseas volunteers.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I have received no representations from overseas Governments, although discussions about the programme are held with them from time to time by me and by our embassies. I receive a good many letters from supporters of the programme in this country.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister explain why Belinda Coote, who was a Voluntary Service Overseas volunteer in Mindanao in the Philippines until August this year, was pressurised by the British embassy in Manilla, and why the British embassy brought pressure to bear on VSO so that she should not have her stay in the Philippines extended?
    Mr. Raison: I understand that we put no pressure on VSO to dismiss Miss Coote.

    Afghan Refugees
    Mr. Moynihanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional assistance Her Majesty's Government are making available to Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
    Mr. Raison: In October we announced further contributions of £1 million food aid and £2 million cash for relief agencies working with the refugees. This brings the total value of our commitments for Afghan refugees since January 1980 to over £19·8 million, including £7·4 million as our share of European Community contributions.
    Mr. Moynihan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the continuation and seriousness of the problem—there are now more than 3 million refugees in the north-west frontier of Pakistan and another 100,000 are moving into the Punjab—the Government of Pakistan should be given the fullest credit and support for the work that they are doing in that serious and difficult area?
    Mr. Raison: I agree that the Government of Pakistan have worked hard in that respect. The essential thing now is the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: How does the assistance that the British Government give compare with that given by other countries?
    Mr. Raison: I do not have the figures for other countries, but I believe that our record is very good. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to substantiate that.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston), will my right hon. Friend ensure that all the Governments that have condemned the Soviet annexation of Afghanistan make appropriate contributions to the relief of its victims and will he inform the House accordingly?
    Mr. Raison: I am not sure that I have the power to ensure that other Governments make a contribution. However, I shall try to satisfy my hon. Friend's request for information.

    Crown Agents
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the options for the future of the Crown Agents, before any decision on their future is taken by the Government.
    Mr. Raison: The loss by the Crown Agents of the investment management of the Government of Brunei's funds has resulted in a substantial reduction in their income. The board of Crown Agents, after thorough examination of the options, including closure, submitted to Government proposals for substantial reorganisation to enable them to achieve financial viability. I hope we shall be able to reach a decision very shortly.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House so that we can consider the options before the Government make a decision? When he makes such a statement, will he make clear and acknowledge the vital role that the Crown Agents play in our export business? They handle 70,000 orders a year which, last year, were worth £300 million. Does he agree that they have a fine record, which we must do our best to protect?
    Mr. Raison: I certainly intend that the House should be informed of the decision when it is made. How it is informed is a matter to be settled at the time. The facts that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned form part of the consideration of this difficult matter.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that no one else can do what the Crown Agents do today without many years of preparation?
    Mr. Raison: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. That is one of the facts that must be taken into careful consideration.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister also take into consideration the fact that some of us have somewhat different views about the Crown Agents, as a result of their practice during the past decade or more? If the Crown Agents' debt is to be written off again—the second time in less than 10 years—will the Minister convey to them the fact that there wll be no more meddling in property or setting up of nice little organisations on the side so that they can speculate at will with someone else's money and then ask the British taxpayer to bail them out? I am sure that the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not favour that. Will he ensure that they do the job that they are supposed to do?
    Mr. Raison: Of course I am anxious that they should do the job that they are supposed to do. Because things went wrong in the 1960s and the 1970s, that does not mean that the same thing is happening now.
    Mr. Lawler: I do not often find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, among the options that are being considered is the abolition, or at least the hiving-off to the private sector, of many of the Crown Agents' activities? Will such an option form part of my right hon. Friend's review?
    Mr. Raison: Yes. As I said in an earlier reply, that possibility is being considered.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister will be aware that there is considerable anxiety about the Crown Agents' record and about their future. Can he make a statement about the options that the Government are considering before a decision is taken so that the House can properly consider and express its view on them?
    Mr. Raison: I cannot go beyond the reply that I have already given on this matter.

    Grenada
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Afairs what requests for assistance he has received from the authorities in Grenada; and what assessment he has made of the most urgent needs of its people.
    Mr. Raison: A team of advisers from the British development division in the Caribbean visited Grenada to assess priority needs. Having studied its report, on 28 November we offered to provide up to a total of £750,000 to meet requests mainly for police training, advice and equipment, and social and economic infrastructure. So far, the only formal requests received here have been for advice on police matters. Requests in other sectors are expected soon.
    Mr. Spearing: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that requests that might be received from the provisional council of Grenada are not subject to previous negotiations and that they arise from the council? Is there any prospect of a Commonwealth force, not necessarily one that has a British contingent, replacing American security forces on the island?
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's second question is not really one for me to answer. I did not understand what the hon. Gentleman was getting at in his first question. I repeat that we shall consider requests as they are put to us on their merit.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to co-ordinate, and co-operate with, efforts being made by other aid agencies in regard to Grenada? Is the council set-up in Grenada yet capable of submitting to him the requests that he expects?
    Mr. Raison: As to co-operation, it is right that those on the ground should work together to meet the needs of Grenada. On my hon. Friend's second point, I shall carefully consider what he said.
    Mr. Cohen: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the re-emergence of the notorious and murderous mongoose gangs,? Will he ensure that aid given for law and order is conditional on the outlawing of those gangs?
    Mr. Raison: I have not heard of the re-emergence of the mongoose gangs but if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence on this matter it would be appropriate for him to pass it on to my right hon. and learned Friend.

    European Community Development Council
    Mr. Bowen Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new policy decisions were taken at the recent European Community Development Council meeting.
    Mr. Raison: The development council on 15 November approved new policy guidelines for food aid and for continuing aid to non-associated developing countries.
    Mr. Wells: Will these new arrangements mean less food aid and provide more constructive aid to help develop the indigenous production of food?
    Mr. Raison: We have been trying to get away from the idea of food aid as a means of disposing of Community surpluses and to make aid of more value for development purposes.

    Victoria Dam, Sri Lanka
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on the Victoria dam, Sri Lanka, including the Government's financial and technical contribution to the project.
    Mr. Raison: Progress on the Victoria project is running close to the original programme. It is expected that the reservoir will start filling next April and that the power supply will start to flow in July.
    The British Government have spent about £87 million to date; we expect to spend about £26 million more before completion in early 1985. We are assisting the Sri Lankan Government by training the staff who will operate it on completion.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this project represents the objectives of British aid overseas? It is a large and generous amount for a project, the benefits of which can be seen by millions of people, which will last for many years and draws upon the engineering and design skills of British firms and construction workers.
    Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend that this project shows every sign of being one where British engineering and other skills will make an enormous contribution. The project will be of great value to the people of Sri Lanka.

    Oral Questions
    Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the point of order relate to Question Time?
    Mr. Wells: Yes. It seems inappropriate to have questions relating to Overseas Development following questions dealing with Transport and those to the Attorney-General. Will you bring your influence to bear to ensure that there is a more sensible arrangement of questions so that they are dealt with in conjunction with related Departments, such as Trade and Industry and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs?
    Mr. Speaker: That matter can more appropriately be taken up through the usual channels.

The Lebanon
3.31 pm
Mr. Denis Healey(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Lebanon.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): On 3 December antiaircraft guns and missiles were fired at United States reconnaissance aircraft over the Lebanon. Early on 4 December United States aircraft bombed Syrian military targets in Lebanon. Two United States aircraft were shot down. Syrian losses have been reported as two dead and 10 seriously wounded. Last night eight United States marines were killed by shell fire. United States naval vessels then opened fire in response.
We are in close contact with other contributors to the multinational force. We share the objective of helping the Lebanese Government restore stability and create conditions in which the Lebanese people can themselves sort out their differences free from outside interference.
All the parties welcome the role of the British contingent, which has the vital task of guarding the meetings of the Ceasefire Commission. The safety of our men is kept under constant review.
It is vital that all parties in the Lebanon show restraint and work together to make further progress towards national reconciliation. The cycle of violence must be broken.
Mr. Healey: I think the Minister must be aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the cycle of violence must be broken. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that all justification for the presence of the multinational force in the Lebanon has disappeared now that President Reagan has formed a military axis with the Government of Israel against Syria and the Soviet Union in the middle east and intervened on a massive scale in the internal conflict in the Lebanon, while refusing a reasonable request from President Gemayel for help in revising his unequal agreement with Israel which he regards as an obstacle to the type of settlement which the hon. Gentleman said he favours?
Will the Government therefore remove the British troops forthwith from a position in which they are serving no useful purpose and are at increasing risk? Will the Minister seek the agreement of the French and Italian Governments to withdraw their forces, since the new United States middle east policy—its third this year—is totally inconsistent with the policy which the Prime Minister and other European leaders adopted at the summit conference in Venice not long ago?
Mr. Rifkind: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the multinational force is there for peacekeeping purposes. The United States Government have said that the incidents during the past couple of days have been in self-defence under the terms of the mandate agreed when American forces went to the Lebanon.
The right hon. Gentleman has called for the withdrawal of United Kingdom forces. I remind him that all sections of the community in Lebanon not only welcomed the arrival of the British contingent but continue to emphasise that it forms a desirable component of the peacekeeping
20
force. Not only do all the communities in the Lebanon welcome the continuing presence of the British force, but so do all the Governments in the region.
Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Israeli Defence Minister, while visiting Washington to make the agreement with the American Government to which I referred, said that they had been discussing joint military action against the Syrians? In the light of that statement, how can the hon. Gentleman believe the American claim that there has been no collusion between the United States and Israel on this matter?
Mr. Rifkind: I have no details of the discussions that may have taken place earlier this week between the Israelis and the United States. The House is concerned about the developments during the past 48 hours. On Saturday, the Americans found their forces under attack. They have emphasised that their response was in self-defence in accordance with the mandate between themselves and the Lebanese Government.
Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be more appropriate if I asked the right hon. Member to respond at the end of questions on the statement.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that on this occasion the concern about the situation of British forces is not limited to one side of the House? Whatever role they are or are not fulfilling —I am not referring to the conduct of our men, who are doing a splendid job—no one reading the newspapers could call it peacekeeping. In those circumstances, would it be better to have second thoughts about the role of the peacekeeping force? What is the present position of the Italians? The latest news is that they have announced that they are withdrawing their forces at the conclusion of the Geneva talks, irrespective of the outcome.
Mr. Rifkind: We all share my hon. Friend's anxiety, and the primary concern of the British Government is the security and well-being of the British force. It is only if and when we come to the conclusion that British troops cannot perform a useful role that the question of their withdrawal will become relevant. I have emphasised that all the communities in the Lebanon believe that they continue to play an important role.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Athens at the moment with the Foreign Ministers of two of the other countries that are involved, and he will have an opportunity to discuss with them their contributions to the peacekeeping force. On Thursday there will be a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the NATO countries, and there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter on a slightly wider front.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Government take steps at the earliest possible opportunity to dissociate this country from the insanity and inhumanity of American actions in the Lebanon?
Mr. Rifkind: Where actions are taken for proper reasons of self-defence we would have no hesitation in giving our support. If British troops were in danger and the need for self-defence required a response, it would be proper for the British forces to take such action.
Mr. Dennis Walters: I fully understand the American concern for the security of its peacekeeping

21
force, but will the British Government exercise all the influence at their command to prevent the Americans from escalating the conflict with Syria and warn them that if a further escalation takes place we shall have to withdraw our small peacekeeping force?
Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government consider the proper role of the multinational force to be that of peacekeeping and that we would not support the use of British or other forces in the multinational force for other than peacekeeping purposes, in accordance with the original mandate.
Mr. Ken Weetch: Does the Minister agree that United States neutrality in the middle east was flawed right from the start when it attempted to prop up the Gemayel regime, which was one of the factions in the civil war? Does the Minister further agree that, with the further agreement with Israel and the shelling of the Druze positions by the United States, American neutrality is now a complete travesty?
Mr. Rifkind: The Government's main concern is to ensure peace and the removal of tension from the Lebanon. We believe that the multinational force has been instrumental to a substantial degree in reducing tension in much of the Lebanon. The British contingent in particular is making an important contribution to the safety of the ceasefire mission. We believe that all members of the multinational force should concentrate their activities on that aspect.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are all proud of the way in which our forces are performing, as is shown by the fact that they received nothing but acclaim from all sides? However, does he recognise that both sides of the House are deeply concerned about their safety because those 100 men are in an isolated position? Can he tell us something about the back-up role of our forces in Cyprus?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the safety of the British troops is the Government's paramount consideration. Following incidents earlier this year, steps were taken to increase the security of the British contingent. HMS Fearless is stationed off the Lebanese coast and is a useful measure of support for the British contingent.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to Cyprus. Buccaneers are based there, and they could be used to assist the British contingent in the Lebanon if necessary.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the present turmoil in the Lebanon stems from the aggression of the state of Israel and that the situation has been made worse by American unilateral aggression against Syria? Is there any point in keeping British forces in the Lebanon as a cosmetic cover for an alleged peacekeeping force?
Mr. Rifkind: Most fair-minded people will accept that the causes of the present troubles in the Lebanon are far more complex than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The British contingent has been welcomed by the various communities in the Lebanon. There is precious little upon which all the factions can agree, but they are unanimous in their view that the British contingent is playing an important and useful role. I am sure that both sides of the House will take that fact into account.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As the United States Administration appear determined to use
22
their role in the multinational force to drive the Syrians from the Lebanon, what action is the MNF taking to remove the Israelis from the south of the country?
Mr. Rifkind: The Government could not support the use of the MNF to remove the Syrians or anyone else from the Lebanon. Its purpose is to help to keep the peace within the Lebanon. That was its original purpose and can be its only legitimate function.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister accept that the whole purpose of President Gemayel's visit to the United States was to set aside the accord forced on the Lebanese Government? Unless that accord is set aside, the conciliation talks — which the Minister says our troops are protecting — have no chance of success. Rather than launching attacks on the Lebanese people, should not President Reagan stress to the Israeli Prime Minister the need to ease the pressure on the Lebanese President?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has gone slightly wider than previous comments. The British contingent is involved with the protection of the Ceasefire Commission. The communal talks in Geneva do not come under the responsibility of any part of the MNF. We hope that the talks will make further progress.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us fear that there are two American forces in the Lebanon—one as a part of the MNF and the other acting in a trigger-happy way on its own? Is my hon. Friend entirely satisfied that the level of consultation between the American and British Governments is sufficiently close?
Mr. Rifkind: It is appropriate that the MNF is answerable to the national Governments who sent it there, in with full consultation with the Lebanese Government. The British Government are in consultation with the American Government, but it is important to remember that in operational matters the situation in the Lebanon moves quickly from hour to hour, as well as from clay to day.
Mr. Russell Johnston: In the current difficult position, will the Minister assure us that if the Government finally contemplate withdrawal of the British contingent —which many of us fear they will have to do—they will not do so without having the fullest consultation with our Community partners, the French and Italians?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to emphasise that unilateral action would be harmful to the interests that hon. Members wish to protect. There will be a continuing opportunity for the closest discussions, not only with the Americans, but with the Italians and the French.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, while it is always desirable to march in step with the Americans, British troops are in the Lebanon to help the Lebanese and no one else?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The British troops have two specific functions — to help protect the Ceasefire Commission and to take part in reconnaissance in Greater Beirut. Those are the specific functions allocated to them, and it is right and proper that they should concentrate on them.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the Minister ask the Foreign Secretary to make it clear to the United States that taking sides and then seeking revenge in the complex Lebanese situation, and establishing a strategic arrangement with Israel and stockpiling material in Israel, are recipes for disaster, not only for Syria and the Lebanon but, in the long-term, for America and Israel as well?
Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that for any member of the MNF to take sides or to seek revenge would be a gross and serious mistake. I must emphasise that the United States Government have stated categorically that their action during the weekends was in self-defence, arising from attacks on their forces.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have wholeheartedly supported the United States in Europe, and are close friends of the alliance with America look with horror at the American bombing in the Lebanon? Can my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Foreign Office urge upon the American State Department that it must give up the Israeli alliance—which is disastrous for Israel, the Middle East and the world — and try, by sensible diplomacy, to detach Syria from the Russian influence?
Mr. Rifkind: We naturally share the concern about any loss of life as a result of actions by any of the parties in the dispute. I agree that the best way to make progress in an issue as difficult, complex and tense as that in the Middle East is by diplomatic means, not by military action.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to ask a straightforward question of fact. At what point in time did British Ministers first learn of the American air strike? Was it before, or after, the event?
Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom was informed shortly before the initial intervention by the United States.
Mr. George Walden: I agree that insufficient tribute has been paid to the achievements of the British troops guarding the Ceasefire Commission. Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are genuine concerns on both sides of the House about their present and future safety? Will he tell us more about their specific functions. What proportion of the 100 troops are guarding the Ceasefire Commission, and what proportion are doing other things?
Mr. Rifkind: As I said earlier, the British contingent has two main functions—the protection of the Ceasefire Commission and reconnaissance in Greater Beirut. I cannot give specific figures, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives information about the numbers involved in each of the tasks.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that the cycle of violence will not be broken if retaliation is constantly followed by counter-retaliation, and if peace-keeping is used as an excuse for playing an active and enthusiastic role in the hostilities? Will the Government now try to bring some collective European influence to bear on the United States to counter the obviously dangerous influence of Israel?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a policy of retaliation followed by counter-retaliation would be negative and harmful to the prospects in the Lebanon. We have specifically encouraged all parties in the Lebanon
24
to eschew violence as a means of solving the problem and to concentrate on diplomatic means gradually to achieve a greater degree of consensus among the various communities which would lead to the withdrawal of foreign forces.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is there not a sickening inevitability about American policy in the Middle East in the run-up to yet another American presidential election? Is my hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members fear that the British contingent in the Lebanon is being used to add a cloak of respectability to American policy, which many of us regard as dangerous and stupid? Will my hon. Friend note the strong views expressed by Conservatives as well as Opposition Members?
Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of the strong concern on both sides of the House about the physical safety and role of the British contingent in the MNF. I emphasise that the United States and other countries in the MNF must have as their sole objective the restoration and preservation of peace in the Lebanon. Anything that is conducive to the achievement of that objective should have the support of the whole House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, private notice questions are an extension of Question Time, but I sense the mood of the House that this is a matter of considerable interest and importance. Therefore, I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising to ask questions, but I ask them to have regard to the business that is to follow.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that both sides of the House are deeply worried about the situation, and will the Minister reflect that in his answers? Is it not clear to the whole world that the role of the Americans in the Lebanon is interventionist and intimidatory, and that the presence of Gemayel and Shamir in Washington makes many of us think that an attack on Syria by the Americans is now imminent? Is there not a danger of bringing the other major power into this situation? Is it not clear that that is what we are all frightened of?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is justified in saying that there is real concern and worry on both sides of the House—and, indeed, throughout the middle east and the world—about what is happening in the Lebanon. It is a tense and difficult situation. Not only the British Government but all the parties involved in the Lebanon must take into account, in considering any action or responses, whether their actions are likely to increase or reduce tension. We should all seek to concentrate our activities and initiatives on aspects of policy that will reduce rather than increase tension in the area.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my hon. Friend reassure those of us who are worried about the presence of British troops in the Lebanon that the criticisms voiced by some leading Lebanese politicians about the American retaliatory action will not be extended and get worse and thus undermine the whole credibility of the multinational force?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that the presence of the multinational force in the Lebanon can

25
arise only in the context where the Lebanese Government themselves want it to continue to play an important role in peacekeeping in their country. It is very much in accordance with the wishes of the Lebanese Government and the various communities in the Lebanon that the United Kingdom is at present involved in that country. Clearly, if their wishes were to change significantly that would have a profound effect on the utility of any United Kingdom contribution.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the British Government were informed before the American attack took place, were we asked for our views, did we object, and did a conversation take place between the Foreign Secretary and his American counterpart?
Mr. Rifkind: The information was received by the United Kingdom on the Military network very shortly before the action commenced.
Mr. Michael Latham: Does it remain our diplomatic objective to bring about the removal of all foreign forces from the Lebanon? If so, how can there be any talk of abrogating the 17 May agreement?
Mr. Rifkind: It remains our objective to have all foreign troops removed from the Lebanon, and we are willing to give continuing support to any measures that may play a part in contributing to the achievement of that objective.
Mr. Jack Straw: May we take it from the answers that the Minister gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that we were informed only a few minutes—by the sound of it—before the attack took place, and that the Americans once again treated their principal ally with contempt and failed to consult us in any way? As our men were bound to be militarily at greater risk from any further American escalation, is it not outrageous that the Americans did not consult us and allow enough time for us to express our view?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's question is fundamentally absurd, because the various forces in the multinational force have an inherent right of self-defence, and that right is specifically mentioned in the mandate. When the forces of any member state in the multinational force exercise that right, it is an operational matter. The situation in the Lebanon changes from day to day and from hour to hour. If the American forces are used for proper means of self-defence, that is an operational matter which it is for the American forces and authorities themselves to determine.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend makes a lot of the statements of the United States Government and their purported motives. May we deal instead with the realities? Can my hon. Friend tell the House how we can detach ourselves from the mistaken and dangerous policies of the United States, the anti-Arab policies of the United States, in the region, without at the same time endangering the fabric of the NATO Alliance?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend should appreciate that Her Majesty's Government will support American policy when it is in accordance with our own views about the proper way of resolving international problems. [Interruption.] We share the United States' desire for
26
peace in the middle east. The particular manner in which that should be advanced has to be considered on its merits in each case. We shall take into account British interests in the British perspective and if that coincides with the American perspective we shall give that policy our full support. If it does not coincide, we shall not support it.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to the Minister's last answer, do the Government share the phobia of the United States Government that the Syrians are the agents of the Soviet Union in the Lebanon? Or, notwithstanding the presence of Soviet advisers and arms in Syria, do we take the view that Syria is performing a policy in the Lebanon to suit its own national interests? If it is the latter, and if we want to distance ourselves from the United States, is it not better that we intimate, albeit in harmony with our European colleagues, that it is our intention to withdraw our support from the international peacekeeping force?
Mr. Rifkind: There is no doubt that the Syrian Government receive an enormous amount of material and logistic support from the Soviet Union. I assume that the Syrian Government will apply their interpretation of Syrian interests in pursuit of their policies, as would most Governments. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's final question is that I have said before that the presence of the British contingent is welcomed by all sections of the community in the Lebanon. It is welcomed by the Syrian Government and by other Governments in the region, and anyone who is interested in genuine peacekeeping in the Lebanon has to take that into account.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend accept that even those of us who had considerable sympathy with the Americans when they found that an unarmed reconnaissance plane was being fired on feel that, nevertheless, the action that was taken marks an escalation, and that there must inevitably be greater pessimism that the peacekeeping force will not be able to keep the peace? Does he further accept that an early and immediate decision may therefore have to be made to pull out our contingent? Can my hon. Friend assure us that if that happens, sooner rather than later, that decision will be speedily made?
Mr. Rifkind: We would not welcome any escalation of tension in the Lebanon. We are in constant contact with the other member Governments in the multinational force. If it were ever believed that the British contingent in the multinational force could no longer perform the role for which it was sent to the Lebanon, our withdrawal would of course become a prime objective of British policy.
Mr. Kevin Barron: As it is likely that the escalation will carry on in the Lebanon, what will the British Government's reaction he if our troops suffer loss of life similar to that of the Americans in the past four days?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the heavy loss of life that the Americans have suffered, not just in the past four days but in the past few weeks. Clearly we are all anxious to ensure that the security of the small British contingent is of a kind to guarantee their physical safety, in so far as that is possible.
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister has mentioned American self-defence four times. Will he tell us how he can describe the actions of the

27
United States air force, its bombings and its raids, as self-defence? Does he not accept, after this series of questions, that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not see the American action as self-defence?
Mr. Rifkind: The United States Government have emphasised clearly and unequivocally that their action over the weekend was—[Interruption.] It is not my job to explain—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is attempting to reply.
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me about the explanation that the Americans have given —[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to answer in my own way if he wants me to outline the explanation that the Americans gave of why they reacted as they did at the weekend. The American Government's view is that it was self-defence following the attacks on their aircraft.
The precise details of what took place over the weekend are matters that the American Government themselves have taken into account. When we are considering the proper means to ensure the defence of our troops, we shall take into account those actions that are thought to be necessary to ensure their physical safety. The American Government have taken into account the factors which they believe are essential for the security of their men. It is for them to explain and justify to the world whether that is a proper course of action.
Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the view that the United States has embarked on a catastrophic course in the Lebanon is now held unanimously? Not one right hon. or hon. Member has expressed a different view in the last half hour. That view is widely held in Europe, by a large body in Israel, and even in the United States. In the light of the United States' failure once again to consult its major ally and to give Britain any opportunity to express a political view on military action which was bound to have a direct consequence on the safety of British troops in the Lebanon, the Minister's defence of the American action is profoundly repugnant to hon. Members on both sides and all too reminiscent of the Government's initial reaction to the invasion of Grenada. Will the Government now abandon their doormat diplomacy, stand up for British interests and protect British lives?
Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has got that off his chest. Any self-respecting Government, when taking into account the needs to protect the physical safety and well-being of their troops, will apply the criterion that a measure of self-defence is necessary. That is exactly the approach that this Government will apply and we should not expect any other Government to apply a different criterion.

Greenham Common
4.3 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the success of women this weekend in penetrating the cruise missile base at Greenham common."
The matter is important because it demonstrates once again the terrible threat that the installation of cruise missiles poses, first, because we can be the subject of early strike by our enemies. The magnificent, courageous, self-sacrificing women at Greenham common have brought to our attention a further reason for concern—that missiles or missile heads cannot be protected all the time and could fall into the hands of our enemies or terrorists. By that I do not mean the present Government because they have declared a lack of interest. That was confirmed by a Ministry of Defence spokesman at the weekend who, in the Sunday Telegraph, had the audacity to say:
"All we know is we arrested the women at the place as stated. They could have roamed around the base, we just do not know."
On one of the towers someone had painted the important notice "Greenham women are everywhere".
The matter is specific because it relates directly to events this weekend at the Greenham common cruise missile base. The matter is urgent because events this weekend demonstrate the failure of the Secretary of State's policies. It is urgent because it demonstrates how wrong it is arrogantly to ignore the opinions of the British people as shown in opinion polls. It demonstrates how wrong it is to believe that the military can defend such bases 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The matter is urgent because the Secretary of State should resign since he is completely ignoring our wishes. The Secretary of State's incompetence is putting our lives in jeopardy. He should order United States commanders to collect their forces and missiles together and get the hell out of Britain.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 to discuss a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent attention, namely,
"security at Greenham common."
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Ordered,
That, the Occupiers' Liability Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That, the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the National Health Service in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Orders of the Day

  Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill that we are considering has one simple purpose —to help the ratepayers of Scotland. In 1983–84 they are paying about £1·4 billion to Scottish local authorities. This is a substantial sum. While the rate bill for some householders may be relatively small, it is a considerable burden for many domestic ratepayers. It is also a heavy burden on business and commerce, which pays over half of the rates in Scotland.
  It is not surprising that rates are a substantial sum since they help to support a wide range of important and valuable local services, which are now largely taken for granted by the population as a whole. However, it is enough to say that, since there must be local government services, local authorities are entitled to raise whatever taxes they like to finance them. It is essential to ensure with sums of this scale that very close attention is paid to how much is raised, the way it is raised, and the effect on those who pay.
  This Bill reflects the White Paper "Valuation and Rating in Scotland: Proposals for Reform" published in August and the comments I have received on it. It may be asked why, in the light of the comments and proposals, we have not proceeded to abolish rates altogether. Rates are a long established method of taxation but, like all forms of taxation, they are naturally unpopular, not least because they are, in the current jargon, highly perceptible. In practical terms this means that individuals are very well aware of what they are paying each year in rates. That, rightly, colours their attitude.
  The Government recognised this dissatisfaction when we published our Green Paper "Alternatives to Domestic Rates" in December 1981. We set out the other possible methods of raising revenue locally and invited comments from all concerned. We hoped that, if there was wide dissatisfaction with rates, a generally acceptable alternative would emerge from the consultation. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Opinion was much divided on the merits of the main options—local income tax, local sales tax, poll tax and assigned revenues.
  We took the view that there was little point in replacing rates with an unfamiliar and untried system having little support from the outset. We therefore decided to make reforms to the rating system, which we consider basically sound, to eliminate some of the anomalies that have caused concern recently.
  I recognise that there will be disappointment among those who argued in favour of each of the various other possibilities. However, I believe that the consultations show that there is no basis for radical change.
  The rates paid by ratepayers are the product of two figures—the rate poundage set by the local authority and the rateable value of the property. In this Bill we are

  31
  tackling both of the elements making up what the ratepayer has to pay. The rate poundage set by the authority is heavily influenced by the authority's level of expenditure. While an authority's capital expenditure generates loan charges, which have to be paid for by rates, the expenditure which rates defray is very largely the current expenditure on services.
  When the Government came to office in 1979 we made it clear that we thought that local authorities were spending more than the country could afford. The 1960s and 1970s —if we except the IMF crisis which hit the Opposition when they were in government — had seen a steady growth of about 3·5 per cent. each year in volume terms in local authority expenditure. Plainly such figures could not continue indefinitely. I made it abundantly clear to local authorities in 1979 and every subsequent year that there had to be a reduction in expenditure. So far, that has not happened. The growth may have been checked, but this year local authorities are still budgeting to spend more in real terms than they did in 1979–80, the year of the rate support grant settlement that we inherited from the Opposition. What I have just described is a denial of the empty rhetoric of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of the suggestion that
  "This legislation has been conceived in haste and born from prejudice".
  I believe that those were his words. They were very good, but the figures were an effective denial of that phrase, however good it may have been.
  It is not as if we were asking for the impossible. Individual authorities, both regions and districts, have reduced their expenditure. For instance, in real terms four regional councils have budgeted to spend less per head in 1983–84 than they spent in 1979–80, and 15 district councils and one island authority have done the same.
  If all authorities had been prepared to co-operate in that way, and if certain individual authorities had not pushed up their expenditure and rates in a wholly unreasonable way, it would have been unnecessary to take selective action and probably even to make general abatements of grant. It is not open to anyone to say, and be believed, that it is impossible to meet the Government's target, because they have been met by a great many authorities.
  I have no doubt that the selective action powers that I have had to employ three years running have fully justified themselves in operation. For the benefit of hon. Members who may have entered the House only this year, I repeat that these selective powers are not new; they have been on the statute book since as long ago as 1929 and, in case it is claimed that the Opposition took real offence against them, they re-enacted them in 1966 and they were modified in 1981 to be prospective rather than retrospective in their effect.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although I did not enter the House last year, while the Secretary of State is dealing with the 1920s legislation, will he study the special problem of Edinburgh zoo which, I admit, is rather an anomaly? His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and I spent a morning with Mr. Roger Wheater and his colleagues at Edinburgh zoo. This is a special case, which puts Chester zoo and other zoos in England at a great disadvantage. Will he consider the position under the 1920s selective legislation?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about this. I have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) that this is a matter of great importance. I shall study what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that Edinburgh zoo receives 50 per cent. mandatory charitable rate relief under the 1962 Act. It is open to Lothian region, at its discretion, to relieve as much of the remainder of the rates burden as it wishes. I should have to study whether other zoos receive local authority relief of rates or some other form of assistance. I shall consider the matter and communicate with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend.
  As I said, these selective powers are not new. They were re-enacted by the Opposition in 1966, apparently without a qualm of conscience. They were modified again by the Government in 1981 to look forward rather than backward in their effect.
  Mr. John Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman keeps claiming that these powers were enacted by the Labour Government in 1966. How many times before the Government came into power were they used? That is much more important.
  Mr. Younger: That is an extremely valid and interesting point. The complaint made by the Opposition is that these powers are objectionable. They had the chance on many occasions, and certainly in 1966, to abolish them if they wished.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is making one of his excellent speeches from a sitting position. They are usually better than those of his other colleagues.
  Mr. Maxton: The Minister has not answered my question.
  Mr. Younger: They have not been used until this Government had to use them, which is why we have the Bill today. The background to the Bill cried out for them. I shall have more to say about that in a few minutes.
  The selective powers deal with the authority planning excessive and unreasonable expenditure. They make it possible to return the savings made directly to the ratepayers. A few figures will illustrate that clearly. In 1982–83 Lothian regional council proposed a rate of 116p in the pound. Selective action was initiated, but the electorate's decision — I am glad to say — made it unnecessary to complete that selective action. That is an interesting point. The rate came down from 116p to 100p. This year, Lothian region again planned to increase its spending. Selective action was again taken and the rate was reduced to 86p in the pound.
  It might be interesting to note that Lothian is still spending, even after that, more per head than all comparable regions, so there is no suggestion of services being destroyed, abolished or abandoned, although the ratepayers have had a reduction in their regional rate of more than 25 per cent. in two years because of Government action to help them.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: We have been through this before. The Minister conceded the last time the subject was debated, just before the summer recess, that one of the important factors in the Lothian region was the major capital expenditure that had taken place, such

  33
  as the new sewage works, which involved substantial ongoing revenue costs. Does the Minister recognise that 4,000 jobs have now been destroyed in the Lothian region? We are seeing real reductions in the services. There is a massive reduction in the number of home helps, for example.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is half correct. If Lothian region were spending vastly less than any other region and its services were practically non-existent as a result of this, he would have a point, but that is not so. In spite of all those reductions, it is still spending more per head than all other comparable regions. That does not meet the test. Many local authorities have to face heavy capital expenditure. Those authorities in other parts of Scotland that have had heavy capital expenditure would take it amiss if Lothian were placed in a special category.
  Similar action in Stirling resulted in the freezing of its rate for 1982–83 and bringing it down this year. The savings that have been made have been welcomed by ratepayers.
  I mentioned a moment ago the electoral effect which was clearly seen in the Lothian region, and which was admitted by the previous Labour Administration, who made it clear that they realised that the electorate had rejected them as a result. In Glasgow, a department store, for instance, would have seen its rates bill cut by about £4,000 this year; and because of the regional rate in Lothian, the reduction was even more striking in Edinburgh — about £16,000 as a result of this year's action. The cumulative effect of such action for a similar Edinburgh store would have been to cut its rate by £84,000. That is the result of reducing Lothian's rate from 116p in 1982–83 to 86p this year. Therefore, it must be admitted— it is admitted by most people in the area, whether they agree with it or not — that the Government's action has brought substantial relief to ratepayers, who were finding it difficult to meet the higher rates imposed on them.
  When the action was first taken there were in Lothian and Edinburgh city clearly documented cases of small businesses facing extinction. Indeed, many of them went out of business because of the rates imposed on them. Therefore, the figure for jobs that have been lost which the hon. Gentleman quoted must be set against the undoubted number of jobs that had already been lost because of the excessive rates imposed by Lothian regional council.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State seems to say that had he not taken selective action many stores would have closed. Will he tell us how Graham and Morton, the long-established family business in Stirling, was able to remain open during the high rating period but has had to close since he has effectively reduced the rates?
  Mr. Younger: I am glad to hear the appeal from the hon. Gentleman that I should have been more severe on Stirling district than I was. He is probably right that I was, as always, too kind to it. However, his timing is a little wrong. He cannot believe that a business concern can suffer three or four years of severe rate increases and then suddenly survive when relief is given. Those two or three years of high rate increases probably caused difficulties for such a business, although I am sure that there were additional reasons for the closure.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State seems especially worried about department stores. He will know that department stores are a special case because they are more highly rated in Scotland than in England. Will they be helped by clause 13 of the Bill?
  Mr. Younger: I shall deal with that point in more detail later, but whether clause 13 will help them will depend whether, in a specific case such as a department store, no other rental evidence is available. As the hon. Gentleman realises, other rental evidence will probably be available, in which case it will be fair for the rating system to operate as it does. But in other cases, which may or may not be department stores, where there is inadequate rental evidence, the Bill will help them.
  Selective action has been widely criticised. The questions raised by hon. Members today show that they are still disposed to criticise that action, but they cannot escape the fact that this has substantially helped some ratepayers. Obviously, I would prefer not to have to use the powers, but they have been of benefit to ratepayers, and any general abatement of grant affecting authorities as a whole has been less than it might otherwise have been because of the effect of selective action.
  The ratepayer's bill is the product of the rate and the valuation of the ratepayer's property. The Bill also tackles the problems that have arisen on valuation, particularly since our previous revaluation in 1978. I remind the House that the next Scottish revaluation will take place in 1985.
  Scotland has its own valuation system, which is separate from that of England and Wales. However. from time to time anomalies arise that can have important consequences for individual ratepayers, especially those where there is competition between similar businesses north and south of the border. In the Bill we seek to deal with some of the unfairness, always with the aim of helping the ratepayer. The main valuation provisions of the Bill have three principal objectives: first, to put an end to two specific anomalies; secondly, to extend considerably the opportunities for a ratepayer to appeal against his valuation; and, thirdly, to improve the appeal system to allow quicker and more authoritative settlement of appeals.
  I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 would remove what is widely seen as unfairness in the present arrangements for grant abatement, and I hope that it will be supported on both sides of the House. When it is necessary to reduce rate support grant during the year as a result of the overspending planned by local authorities generally, the grant reduction falls on individual authorities according to their original share of grant. Thus it is unrelated to their overspending as measured against the guidelines. Within existing statute we have made some limited arrangements to protect authorities within or close to guidelines. However, for the bulk of authorities the penalty bears no relation to the overspending. Since we do not use the block grant system that is applied south of the border, there is no predetermined penalty that an authority knows that it will incur if its spending reaches a certain level. This clause will make it possible to relate grant loss directly to overspending measured against current expenditure guidelines. It will bring greater pressure to bear upon high spenders, and will recognise the efforts of

  35
  more moderate authorities, which will be widely welcomed by those who have felt ill-used in recent years because of the unfairness of the system.
  I am delighted to tell the House that, in 1982–83, the last year for which we have final figures, no fewer than 25 local authorities brought their spending within the guidelines, which again shows that it is by no means a difficult or impossible target.
  Clause 2 would make it possible to streamline the selective action procedure. As I said, the power to take selective action has produced measurable benefits for ratepayers. At present, I must lay an individual report before Parliament for each authority that is the subject of selective action. That report must be the subject of a separate debate and vote. Clause 2 would make it possible to lay a combined report covering several authorities and thus speed up the procedure.
  Clause 3 would give me the power to control the rate levels of all authorities. As I have made clear to the House—
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that opposition to the rate-capping proposals in clause 3 is not confined to Opposition Members? Is he aware that many Tory councillors, including Councillor Brereton the leader of the Tory group on Edinburgh district council, are opposed to the proposals? I understand, too, that many Conservative Members of Parliament south of the border are afraid that the proposals will be imposed later on their local authorities. Is it not a pity that the gutless Scottish Tory Members do not have the same spine, and do not defend their local authorities? Is it not significant that, excluding the payroll vote and the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State, only five Scottish Back-Bench Tory Members are here today for this Second Reading debate? Is that not an absolute disgrace?
  Mr. Younger: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's close links with Conservative Members, but if I wish to undertake a survey of Conservative Members I shall listen to my hon. Friends rather than to the hon. Gentleman. We must await the view of the House on these measures, and I shall pay special attention to the views of ratepayers on the prospect of a fall-back position, which the Government can introduce if there is a likelihood of difficulty, so that there is some limit on general rate increases, which have caused much concern to ratepayers.
  Clause 3 would give me the power to control the rate levels of all authorities, and I have made it clear to the House and to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that I hope that I never need use that power. It may then be asked why it is to be used only if authorities fail to respond to other actions and to the exhortations that have been addressed to them so often since 1979. I am encouraged by the fact that rate increases have fallen, but the total expenditure of local government is still too high. The possibility of rate limitation should, therefore, be an incentive to all authorities to which it could be applied to moderate spending and rate levels in the interest of the difficulties faced by ratepayers.
  If the power had to be used, local authorities would be given good warning, probably in April, in response to unacceptably high rates and budget proposals for a particular year. I would make use of this power in the
  36
  following financial year. General rate limits for each class of authority would be set, subject to parliamentary approval, in the autumn before the financial year to which the control of rate levels would apply. Individual authorities would apply to me for exemption from the general limit, and that exemption could be granted if there were exceptional circumstances.
  I accept that this would, if it were used, limit the freedom to set rates that authorities have at present, but authorities would still have the full freedom within the limit to set their rate and their own expenditure priorities. I reject the idea that this clause would spell the end of local government in Scotland as we know it, and all such statements that have been made by some people in recent weeks.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: The right hon. Gentleman claims to believe in local democracy, and his party's great slogan for many years was "set the people free", but what example is this, and how will the people in Scotland be set free? As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said, though the Secretary of State may not accept this, even Tory Members and councillors are objecting to this proposal applying to Scotland, in case it should apply in England as well. How is this setting the Scottish people free?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but it depends on whom one means by the people. The one group of people that the hon. Gentleman has left out of his calculations is that of the business ratepayers, which is a numerous group. No doubt there are many in his constituency. They have been actively canvassing for some form of relief from the extra burdens that they have had to pay at a difficult time, when all family and business budgets have been under pressure.
  Clause 4 introduces a statutory requirement for local authorities, before fixing their rate, to consult their non-domestic ratepayers, which are responsible for paying 60 per cent. of the rates. This clause aims to ensure that local authorities inform their business ratepayers of their expenditure plans and themselves are fully aware of the consequences of increasing rates for the businesses in their areas. For all businesses rates are a substantial outgoing and for some they are very significant. For some businesses there may be a clear equation between level of rates and number of jobs. It is essential that local authorities are aware of this especially as, once out of business, a firm is not there to pay rates. I shall be consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and representatives of industry and commerce on the details of how this will take place with a view to drawing up a code of practice.
  I note that the Scottish CBI and the Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce have combined to set up the Scottish business rates committee. At its request, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for home affairs and the environment in the Scottish Office met the committee last week, and I welcome the initiative taken towards working out arrangements for effective consultation. I shall want there to be full consultation, in particular with the convention, before the code of practice for consultation is drawn up.
  Clause 5 improves the position of the disabled. Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, institutions for the disabled have all of their rates rebated if used entirely

  37
  to provide accommodation, facilities and services for disabled persons and purposes ancillary thereto. Rebate cannot be given if any part, even a small part, of the premises is used for other purposes. It is all or nothing. An institution may not qualify, even though it may be substantially similar to another which receives full rebate. Therefore, we consider that it would be more satisfactory if the qualification were widened. The measures proposed in clause 5 will replace the "all or nothing" system by a threshold of 50 per cent. use by the disabled and a rebate pro rata to that use. I hope that that will not only be welcomed by everyone concerned with the disabled but also by both sides of the House, as I am sure that it will be.
  I turn now to clause 6. Housing expenditure has always been treated separately from other items of local authority expenditure. A significant proportion of a district council's rates — about one third — is accounted for by the contributions that ratepayers make to the housing account. Clause 6 would give me, therefore, the power to impose a limit by order on the contributions that local authorities estimate to make from their rate fund to their housing revenue account. This would replace the present administrative system of housing expenditure limits, under which an authority's capital expenditure allocation is reduced if it chooses to budget for a rate fund contribution above the level set by the Government. Under this system, however, the contribution from the rates to current housing expenditure has continued to grow; the result has been that capital expenditure has been reduced unnecessarily. This clearly cannot continue, and the new power will permit greater accuracy in planning the component parts of housing expenditure in Scotland, while enabling a greater share of the resources available to be directed towards capital investment, something that I hope all hon. Members will welcome.
  Part II deals with valuation. On this, as on the rating clauses, I have to record my thanks for the views that we have had on the White Paper and the discussions held with COSLA and other bodies in recent weeks. The main valuation provisions have two principal objectives. First, we are aiming to improve the structure of the valuation appeal system so that, following future revaluations, appeals may be settled much sooner than was possible after the last revaluation. That should be greatly to the benefit of both ratepayers and local authorities. Secondly, we are providing the means whereby several valuation anomalies can be removed from the Scottish system, and ratepayers with genuine grievances can have greater access to the appeal system to ensure that future problems are more likely to be resolved at their inception than has been the case to date.
  Clause 7 would make it possible, after the next revaluation, for a new proprietor, tenant or occupier of any lands and heritages, for his first six months as such, to have a right of appeal similar to that which his predecessor had at revaluation. This may not benefit large numbers but it will certainly remove serious problems for some ratepayers and a general feeling of inequity where ratepayers face burdens arising from rateable values that they consider unfair and against which they would have appealed had they been in occupation at the time of revaluation.
  As regards improvements in the structure of the appeal system, in clause 8 I have accepeted the advice of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council that the Lands
  38
  Tribunal for Scotland should be used as an alternative to local valuation appeal committees to hear particularly important or complex appeals, in the first instance. Appeals would still be lodged with the local committee which would be able to refer cases to the Lands Tribunal if these raised particularly difficult issues, or were likely to form test cases that would have implications for many others to follow. This should allow these important cases to be heard authoritatively much earlier in the appeals cycle than has been the case in the past, and so settle the rating liability for the ratepayers involved and allow many consequential cases to be settled. Apart from being speedier justice, this should bring greater certainty to the cash flow position of businesses and local authorities alike.
  In clause 9, the Bill also introduces a provision designed to streamline appeals to the lands valuation appeal court by allowing it to consist of only one judge in cases where that judge believes it to be appropriate. A three-judge bench would still be available where necessary, and this should bring some improvement in the timing and handling of appeals.
  As hon. Members know, there have been many assertions that particular classes of property in Scotland suffer in valuation terms by comparison with properties elsewhere. While the valuation methods used in Scotland may lead to higher valuation than in England and Wales in particular cases, we have identified only two problem areas where the difficulties arise from specific statutory provisions relating to a particular class of lands and heritages.
  Clauses 10, 11 and 12 contain provisions relating to caravan sites and reed beds. In future both will be treated broadly as in England and Wales. Individual caravanners would have the right—which many have sought—to have their static leisure caravan valued separately from the remainder of the caravan site in which it is situated. The power is being sought to enable the caravans remaining in the composite entry to receive an element of derating along the lines applied administratively in England and Wales. The level of any derating to be prescribed is a matter on which I shall be consulting the representatives of the caravan industry and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. When I have decided what derating might be appropriate, the necessary order to implement that decision will be brought before the House for approval by affirmative resolution. Reed beds will be exluded from valuation in future as they are now in England and Wales.
  Mr. Dewar: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman may not have made up his mind on this, but I would be interested to know what range he is thinking of. It has commonly been said, for example, that a 40 per cent. discount is extended in England. Is that the figure of which the right hon. Gentleman is thinking and putting out for consultation?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. It is not my intention to prejudge the consultation by making a firm decision at this point. The general objective in deciding what level of derating would be appropriate would be to produce a rough parity of treatment between caravan sites in Scotland and those south of the border. That would be the general objective but, naturally, I shall want to receive views from those whom I consult before making firm decisions.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am glad that clause 12 excludes reed beds from valuation. Only one company in Scotland has been the subject of the suggestion that rates should be paid on reed beds. Those rates were imposed as a result of the reversal by the Appeal Court of the decision of the local valuation appeal tribunal that such rates were appropriate. They have never been paid because this has been a matter of dispute and now is a matter of legislation. I do not ask for an assurance at the moment, but will my right hon. Friend seriously consider whether it would be equitable to make this claim retrospective—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—as it is a theoretical anomaly and as it is recognised that it would be wrong, if it were ever applied in Scotland, that there should be a historic payment of rates?
  Mr. Younger: I well appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's interest in this matter, which he has raised with me continuously. I know that he will be glad that we are at last taking action. I shall consider what he has just said but I find it somewhat surprising that my hon. and learned Friend of all people should be advocating retrospective legislation. Without prejudice to that, I shall consider the points that he has made.
  Clause 13 is relevant to subjects that are at a disadvantage by comparison with competitors elsewhere. It would open up the appeal system to enable valuation methods to be adopted that could lead to more equitable results. That is not to say that it will be necessary to fight appeals in every case to get an equitable valuation. It will certainly be necessary to lodge appeals in some cases; but I hope that, once it is reasonably clear in practice what might be achieved on appeal, assessors will operate so as to produce values with which appeal committees would find no fault and ratepayers would not contest. In practical terms the success of these provisions depends on the assessors' readiness to work in accordance with the spirit of what will be approved by Parliament. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has recently met the assessors to discuss the provisions of the Bill with them.
  Perhaps the most significant change in clause 13 is that what we propose should benefit all types of specialised premises ranging from heavy industry to sports stadia. This is the proposed right of comparison with hereditaments in England and Wales. Where rental evidence is not available in Scotland—that is generally where there are particularly specialised premises — it will be possible to cite English values as comparable rents. Due account will have to be taken of the lapse of time since the English revaluation to which these values relate; and it will be for the appeal committee or the Lands Tribunal, as the case may be, to consider the evidence led by the parties to any case in deciding what allowance should be made for movement in rents. Some will also benefit from the removal, by clause 14, of the restriction whereby in Scotland downward movement in rents is not accepted as a material change of circumstances. Certain depressed sectors of the business community at present see their competitors in England and Wales being able to have their rateable values reduced because of a general downturn in rents. In Scotland this has not been possible. Clause 14 would make it possible to take into account movements of rents as a reason for changing valuations between general revaluations. Since we are talking in terms of a downturn in rents since the time of the last revaluation, I should
  40
  mislead the House if I said I expected that this would benefit large numbers; but it will benefit those who are in the most difficult situations where business has declined.
  Mr. Dewar: These are detailed matters that will be considered carefully in Committee. But on the subject of comparators with rental values in England, I am not being sarcastic when I say that I know the Secretary of State will be familiar with the case in 1964 of the Portland Cement Manufacturers Association v. Assessor for East Lothian, in which Lord Kilbrandon made it perfectly clear that if there was a shortage of Scottish comparators rental comparators from England could be taken in. In what way does clause 13 depart from or enlarge on Lord Kilbrandon's judgment, which is certainly the law of Scotland at the moment?
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point and I shall try to make it as clear as I can. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the law at present allows other rental values to be taken into account. If other rental values are available in Scotland, that is fine. But the change that is proposed in the Bill will make it possible to cite English values or non-Scottish values as if they were rentals. Therefore, they could be used as comparisons in the case of Scottish subjects. That is the answer and I should like to proceed unless the hon. Gentleman has another point.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that valuations in England can be brought in as comparators. Is it not unhealthy and peculiar if a valuation, which has been evolved under a different legal framework, is suddenly imported into the Scottish legal framework where it is an alien implant? If we want to achieve this, would it not be better to change the basis of Scottish valuation law?
  Mr. Younger: The answer is that the position is already difficult to deal with because the subjects concerned are competing with other subjects outwith Scotland in the same type of market. If the hon. Gentleman reads this part of the Bill, he will find that these provisions are precisely designed to bring equity where, alas, there is no equity at present. This is a material change. We have introduced it for that purpose because at present the position is highly unsatisfactory.
  Clause 14 also proposes to allow court decisions altering the value of comparable subjects to be taken into account in subsequent appeals. This will avoid the serious inconsistencies that have arisen recently, where appeals concerning one group of properties have been successful but other, similar, neighbouring properties have not been able to be brought into line.
  Taken together, the valuation measures in the Bill are not so much an instant panacea for all problems as a means whereby the appeal committees and the courts, strengthened by the introduction to the appeal system of the Lands Tribunal, will be freed to allow changes in particular aspects of the valuation system which have been giving the most trouble. The final decisions as to what is right and fair will rest with the courts while the main responsibility for ensuring that the spirit of the legislation is brought into practice as efficiently as possible must rest with assessors and with individual ratepayers prepared to appeal.
  Clauses 15, 16 and 17 are the usual clauses dealing with amendments and repeals, financial provisions and citation,

  41
  commencement and extent. We shall be moving an amendment in Committee to widen the scope of clause 16 for technical reasons. I would also draw attention to the fact that clause 17 makes provision for two of the provisions to come into immediate operation after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Those are the provisions in clauses 1 and 2. This will enable the grant reduction of an individual authority resulting from any general abatement in 1984–85 to be directly related to its overspending. This means that the unfairness arising from the present arrangements will be removed at the earliest opportunity. It will also enable combined selective action reports to be laid in respect of any selective action taken in 1984–85, thus streamlining the procedure for that year.
  In debates involving the statutory provisions for selective action, there has often been criticism of the extent to which the original provisions have been amended and the consequent difficulty of understanding what they are. The hon. Member for Garscadden in particular has made this point effectively.
  The amendment of the 1966 Act by the Acts of 1981 and 1982 has made the 1966 Act difficult to follow. I am glad, therefore, to say that we have been able to bring these parts of the 1966 Act, as amended, together in one place in schedule 1. The minor provisions in schedule 2 are in part consequential on the main provisions and in part some technical tidying of the schedules. Only paragraph 8 will have noticeable substantial effect on the electricity boards as ratepayers and a very few local authorities. It provides that for purposes of rate payments certain special applications relating to public undertakings will be treated as valuation appeals. The boards would have to pay rates earlier than hitherto, but no earlier than other businesses.
  In commending the Bill, I am asking the House to reaffirm that rates should remain local authorities' main source of revenue; that industry and commerce should, as major ratepayers, have the right to representative consultation by local authorities before rate levels are struck; that the valuation system and opportunities for appeal by ratepayers should be improved; that penalties that may have to he exacted for high spending should be proportionate to each authority's level of expenditure measured against guidelines; and I am asking for power to exercise a general control over rate levels only as a last resort and to relieve the burden on ratepayers.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: In relation to rate-capping, my right hon. Friend says that rates are to remain the main source of revenue. Members of Parliament are elected to do one job and local councillors are elected to do another. How can it be right to treat councillors as though they were not elected to do that job? Surely rate-capping is an anti-democratic procedure. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend wants to introduce it for Scotland, but considering that many of us will not have it introduced for England, what he proposes cannot be right.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings on the subject, but he is omitting two important points to which I am sure he will want to give due consideration before other legislation comes before us. The first is that while he and hon. Members generally feel strongly that local authorities should be given the maximum autonomy to make their own decisions in their own spending matters, it has never been the view of any Government that local
  42
  authorities should run completely free of any statutory consideration by Parliament. Local authorities, whether or not we like to admit it, operate very much under statute laid down by Parliament, and that is the basis of everything they do.
  Secondly, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) will bear in mind the problem that arises—it is only in such circumstances that these powers are intended to be used —when local authorities as a whole go right against the essential national economic policy of the Government of the day, whatever the complexion of that Government. There is a great problem if the burdens that are put on the ratepayers, as a result of that, become insupportable, and my hon. Friend will want to consider that carefully before reaching a final view about what this legislation will do.
  I end—and I must end because my speech has taken a long time because of the number of interventions—by considering the main political arguments that exist between us on the Bill as a whole. It will not do for the Opposition just to oppose the Bill lock, stock and barrel and say nothing about what they would put in its place. The hon. Member for Garscadden can simply pick up the briefs that he has received from the various interested groups concerned and read them word for word, and he would be good at doing that, but—
  Mr. Dewar: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing?
  Mr. Younger: —if that is all he does and leaves his contribution at that, he cannot be credible for two reasons. First, it was the Labour party while in government—and his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) in particular—who first had to tackle the overspending of local authorities. That was where it all started. Admittedly it took the International Monetary Fund to force the right hon Gentleman to do it, but nevertheless he did it. He started it off.
  In 1976–77 the right hon. Member for Govan imposed a cut of £5 million on the aggregate Exchequer grant, and for the following year he reduced the rate of grant by no less than four percentage points. That still stands as the largest reduction ever made in the rate of percentage grant. It also resulted in a reduction in manpower of no fewer than 10,000 in one year, which still remains by a long way the largest manpower reduction ever forced on local authorities—and forced on them it was by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden was, I assume, supporting his right hon. Friend the Member for Govan at that time. Therefore, he cannot disclaim responsibility for what happened then.
  Mr. Dewar: Really!
  Mr. Younger: If the hon. Member for Garscadden is saying that he was not supporting his right hon. Friend at that time, I shall be glad to hear that. Then we shall really know that he is on the side of the angels. However, I suspect that he was supporting his right hon. Friend and that, therefore, he cannot get away with it now.
  Secondly, in view of that history, it cannot be believable if the hon. Member for Garscadden tries to maintain that in the light of the overspending that we have seen in recent years he would have let it rip and taken no action to curb it. Even if he tried to do nothing, no

  43
  Treasury of any Government could have been able to face such figures. And if it did, the IMF would have stepped in before long.
  The Opposition cannot oppose everything in this matter —reduction of grant, selective abatement and general abatement — without losing their right to be taken seriously. We have had to face up to the need to bring local spending reasonably into line with what the nation can afford at a time when a world recession has reduced the nation's resources, as it has those of everyone else.
  Although we have not yet succeeded in achieving a real reduction in local spending over what was being spent in 1978–79, we have greatly helped ratepayers in areas where unreasonable spending plans were drawn up, as the figures that I mentioned earlier show, and there are clear signs that many more local authorities are working closer to guidelines. As I said, last year in the outturn no less than 25 authorities—over one-third of the total—were within guidelines.
  This debate will be an interesting test of whether the official Opposition can be taken seriously or whether they will take refuge in mere opposition for opposition's sake —not only negative but in flat contradiction of what they did when they had responsibility and had to face up to the realities of the matter. Those are the reasons why we must allow for a general abatement that is fairer to local authorities, why we must have power to limit rate increases generally as a fall-back power, and why we must reform the rating system to remove some some of the anomalies that have caused such concern in recent years. That is what the Bill does and that is why I commend it to the House.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State has an unhealthy obsession with the past. I suspect that it is based on an understandable unwillingness to talk about the present and the Government's current policies and performance. I wish at the outset to make it clear that I do not oppose every clause in the Bill. However, taking the measure as a whole, I find it a miserable business which reflects little credit on the right hon. Gentleman, and even less credit on those on the Benches behind him who are mindlessly supporting him in this endeavour.
  What we are examining is the climax—or, perhaps more accurately, the nadir — of a dishonourable campaign that has been waged for a number of years to ensure a total shift in the balance between central and local government in Britain. The slogan that lies behind this piece of legislation is that the Secretary of State rules. In a simplistic sense that is true, but we should not create a situation in which local government is captive in the Secretary of State's train and local councillors are condemned year after year to carry out policies which they cannot influence, in a situation in which their room for manoeuvre, their right to exercise discretion, is "cabin'd and confin'd" in a totally unreasonable fashion.
  There are a few things in the Bill to which I do not object. It is short and almost all bad, but, for example, clause 5 makes a minor concession on the rating of premises used by the disabled, and nobody could object to that. A few of the valuation provisions—I say "a few" because I do not mean all of them—we shall look
  44
  on with a reasonably charitable eye. I also welcome schedule 1, which is a useful act of codification; at least it allows any ordinary human being to understand where we are in terms of local government legislation. It allows us to see the state that we have reached, and a harsh and brutal scene it is as a result of the Secretary of State's efforts in the last three or four years.
  The House must make an overall judgment of the Bill on its Second Reading tonight. Taking the Bill as a whole, it is wrong in principle and could be oppressive in practice. One of the key points is that it is unnecessary even if one accepts the doubtful assumptions on which the Secretary of State argued his case.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is unnecessary. Surely the only justification for that view is that those who say that they believe that the facilities of selective action and abatement that my right hon. Friend already has have been successful. Is that not the essence of the matter?
  Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that. It is interesting that the Secretary of State spent the first 20 minutes of his speech defending the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and hardly mentioned the additional powers that he is taking in the Bill. He hurried over them with indecent haste when he went over the contents clause by clause. I shall deal with that later.
  I shall not try to deal with every clause in the Bill, because that would try the patience, already sorely tried, of hon. Members. However, I shall examine one or two of the more objectionable clauses. Exhibit No. 1 is clause 6. It deals with rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account. It is a grey, anonymous and highly technical clause. However, in all seriousness I believe that it is full of menace for those in my constituency as well as others in every constituency in Scotland. We are handing a blank cheque to the Secretary of State, who is taking power to limit the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. The right hon. Gentleman is doing so in the most sweeping terms, because the Bill says,
  "in whatever way the Secretary of State thinks fit."
  The right hon. Gentleman is taking powers to limit the rate fund contribution, and in so doing council house rents will be put up at his whim and will. There is to be no messing about. The clause goes straight in with the bovver boots.
  Let me make clear what will happen. There are three sources of income on the housing revenue account. The first is the housing support grant, the second is the rate fund contribution and the third is rents. No one complains about this. The Secretary of State has complete control over the housing support grant contribution. He is now taking powers to limit, if he wishes, the rate fund contribution. If he controls two of the three, inevitably he controls the third and will be able to lay down exactly what rent levels should be. There is no escape from that unless one assumes that massive savings can be made, probably on the repairs and maintenance side of the housing revenue exchequer. However, with housing stock deteriorating, and faced with the problem of delivering a decent service, no wide-scale savings can be made in that department.
  Therefore, we are faced with a fearful prospect. The constant theme of Ministers over the past few years has been that rents in Scotland are too low as a matter of social judgment. Ministers are not saying, "Unfortunately, because of what the Treasury is dictating, we shall have

  45
  to put a hike on rents on a temporary basis." When the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and all the others who have passed unmemorably before our eyes, stood at the Dispatch Box, they said on all occasions that they wanted to force up rents.
  The figures are there for anyone to see. I did an amateurish thing, but it shows the general situation fairly accurately. I took the 1979–80 rating review and the same set of figures for 1983–84. On the 1978–80 housing revenue account, 48 per cent. of it was a contribution from rent revenue — rent that tenants paid to local district councils in Scotland. Some 35 per cent. came from the housing support grant and 16 per cent. from the rate fund contribution. In 1983–84 the contribution from rents rose from 48 to 67 per cent. The rate fund contribution was largely the same at 19 per cent. and housing support grant had collapsed from 35 to 11 per cent. Therefore, rents had to take a larger share of the burden when the average council house rent in Scotland went up by 115 per cent. in the four years of the previous Conservative Administration.
  We are on course for a grotesque distortion. The only alibi used by the Secretary of State, which was that in the end it did not matter how high rents went up because there would always be the rebate system or, more recently, the housing benefit system, has been undermined in the months when we have been considering the legislation by the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement.
  I have never seen such crocodile tears as those shed in the White Paper over, for example, the loss of capital for the housing account of district councils in Scotland. The Secretary of State has the confounded brass cheek to say, "We need this piece of oppressive legislation because we have seen housing authorities lose their capital grant as they have not raised their rents enough." Who linked rent levels to capital grant allocations? It was the right hon. Gentleman who did that. Having erected a piece of machinery which he knows is inequitable, indefensible and unjust, he says that it is disgraceful that we have ended up like this, so we must do something worse. That is the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It is a disgrace that we should he insulted by such a level of argument.
  On the rate-capping clause, clause 3, the right hon. Gentleman hurried through his argument. The Secretary of State is apologetic about the rate-capping argument. He says that it is a fallback position and that he probably would not use it without a year's notice. That is what he said to COSLA on 7 November. If we know almost every informed body of opinion that deals with local authorities is opposed to that provision, we are entitled to ask why we need it.
  This is where we come to the argument of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). Even if we assumed that there the situation was out of hand in terms of local government expenditure—I shall challenge that in a minute—and there was a problem to be overcome, we have in any event passed out of that phase. Rightly or wrongly, we have the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Even if one assumes that that state of affairs has to be dealt with, we have to look at the situation in this financial year and what is
  46
  happening now in local government. We must ask whether we need the rate-capping provision and the rate fund contribution limitation which I have already discussed.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: No.
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend has got the point. The answer is no. My hon. Friend is very sharp.
  In 1983–84 rates went up by only 2 per cent. If one argues on a slightly different basis, taking into account the water rate, the sums raised by selective action and so on, one can reasonably hold that the rates went down by 0·5 per cent. in 1983–84. I think that it will be common ground between the Secretary of State and me that in 1984–85 rate increases are likely to be around or under 5 per cent. Let us remember that this situation will be said to justify the most fundamental attack on local democracy for many years. In the 1983–84 budget there was an excess over guidelines of £121 million. That sounds extremely impressive, but £19 million was taken out by selective action and £45 million by general abatement, so that the excess, using current machinery, was £57 million on a budget of £2,665 million, or probably over 2 per cent. In those circumstances, there is no strong case for adding such oppressive measures to the statute book.
  Even if we assume that there had been spendthrift and profligate local authorities, we believe when examining the present position that such machinery should not have been used because it was based on a false premise. Even allowing for that premise, there can be no case for further oppressive machinery.
  Mr. Younger: The last thing that I wish to do is to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's peon of praise for the Government's successes in reducing local authority spending. Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said shows that I am correct in saying that I hope I shall not have to use these powers. How would the hon. Gentleman deal with the position that we faced a few years ago, when many people, including the Leader of the Opposition. were forecasting rate increases of 25 per cent.? If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to support the proposed powers, what will he tell the ratepayers?
  Mr. Dewar: I would not deceive the ratepayers by pretending that the local authorities are at fault. The ratepayers for whom the Secretary of State weeps copious tears have been faced with rate increases of more than 140 per cent. in the average rate bill because of the cuts in grant and support which have been brought about by the Government's policies.
  I shall refer the Secretary of State to some unpalatable facts facing Glasgow ratepayers. I agree that I am using an outlandish and unlikely example in talking to Conservative Members, because Glasgow is not represented by any Conservative Members of Parliament. If we assume that the 1983–84 grant being paid by the Government to Glasgow was at the 1978–79 level, the result would be equivalent to 18p on the rate poundage. If we take the same calculation for Dundee, the figure would be a rate poundage equivalent of 25p. These enormous and regrettable rate increases have been funded by local government because of the persistent undermining of Government support. There can be no argument about that.
  The Government also base their argument on the fact that local government expenditure has been out of control.

  47
  Scottish Office expenditure between 1981 and 1984—I am indebted to the Library for the figures—increased by 4·6 per cent., while local government expenditure increased by 0·4 per cent. If we examine the record of those bodies and apply a GDP deflater at market prices which gives the figures in real terms, we see that in that three-year period the Scottish Office has managed minus 0·4 per cent., while local government has managed minus 4·4 per cent. The Secretary of State appears to be disagreeing, but there is no evidence of runaway spending by local government in real terms, which is the only moral basis of the attack mounted by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Younger: That argument is so riddled with holes that I do not know where to begin. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that a large part of the Scottish Office budget is for the Health Service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not advocating bigger cuts in the Health Service. The hon. Gentleman must also be aware the Scottish Office has reduced its manpower by about 15 per cent. whereas local authorities have managed only 2 or 3 per cent. during the period to which he referred. The hon. Gentleman knows that his argument is rubbish.
  Mr. Dewar: I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. He is saying, "I could not make cuts because so many of my services are essential." That is exactly the argument advanced by local authorities with equal validity. There is no case for an increase in the punitive powers already on the statute book and available to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that such powers should be on the statute book at all, never mind being increased.
  I accept the argument, although I may put it a little crudely, that the Secretary of State is well known to be a gentleman, that he is meek, mild, awfully well educated, that he would never do anything beastly and that he is a reasonable man. However, even if we believe that claptrap, I suggest that there is great danger in putting weapons on the statute book and saying at the same time, "Of course, I do not intend using them". At same future time, someone may wish to use them. We cannot even guarantee—although I hope that it will not happen for a long time — that there will never be another Conservative Government.
  If I peer into the shadowy, murky and muddy pool of talent on the Conservative Back Benches—
  Mr. Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman once said in an article in The Scotsman that his mind was like a dirty pool frozen over.
  Mr. Fairbairn: It must have been in an edition of The Scotsman to which the hon. Gentleman contributed.
  If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is so dangerous for the Secretary of State to have such a power, if ever a Secretary of State for Scotland was nasty enough to use it, does he assure the House that if the Scottish people were ever unfortunate enough to have a Labour Government and he was chosen as the Secretary of State for Scotland he would immediately repeal such a power, lest he were ever tempted to use it?
  Mr. Dewar: I recognise that the Secretary of State believes in undergoing sin to ensure that he can with stand
  48
  temptation. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) that he has that pledge. We do not like this legislation.
  The Secretary of State may say that he does not wish to use the proposed power, but he cannot speak for the future. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his record does not inspire confidence. If I refer to one or two examples of what might be and what might have been if the powers had been available earlier, perhaps hon. Members will follow my argument.
  A provision in the Bill proposes to limit the rate fund contribution. Two or three years ago Scottish local authorities experienced the limitations which the Secretary of State attempted to impose on the rate fund contrbution with the existing machinery. In 1981–82 Glasgow was asked to impose a rent rise of 70 per cent. Because Glasgow increased rents by only 31 per cent.—I use the word "only" sarcastically—the city incurred a penalty of £11 million. In 1982–83 the demand was for a 32 per cent. rise, and the final penalty that fell upon Glasgow's capital account was £17 million. In 1981–82 and 1982–83 the Government asked for a limitation on the rate fund contribution which would have meant increases in council house rents of 70 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. Although in those days there was a little room for manoeuvre and discretion, expensive and painful though it was, we were able to cushion the impact. If the powers that we are now discussing had been on the statute book at that time — who can deny the possibility of the Secretary of State returning with similar demands—the prison door would have been slammed shut and the councillors of Glasgow and of many other districts would have had no option but to comply with the most unfortunate social consequences for the people they represent.
  If we examine the Secretary of State's record on housing support grant, we can see what he has done to local government and local government services. In the Government's first year of office the housing support grant was £213 million per annum. It has now fallen to £72 million, and I guess that it will fall—I can do no more than guess — next year to £52 million. The housing support grant during the first year of the Secretary of State's tenure at Bute House was £4.30 a week for every house in the public sector. The figure this year will have fallen to £1. Given such butchery, I have no confidence in assurances that the Secretary of State would be reluctant to use the powers that he is asking for and that he will not continue on his, at times, almost tyrannical course to curtail local government democracy.
  Clause 2 represents an extraordinary proposition. I think that the Secretary of State chose the euphemism of streamlining. Surely there must be some Conservative Back Bencher who has a slight prick of conscience about this proposition. That streamlining is a direct blow and a mean kick at parliamentary scrutiny. The powers are serious and severe. The Secretary of State said that he hoped he would never have to use them, but he has used them fairly frequently recently. When a local authority's rate support grant is cut in the middle of a financial year, the victim is not even to be given the courtesy of a separate order and debate. Anyone who believes, even only vestigially, in the importance of Parliament and of proper scrutiny as a check on the Executive must see the clause as a depressing little example of the contempt with which Governments tend to treat the House.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Were not the Lothian, Stirling and Dundee orders treated as a whole in 1981 rather than separately as we did in the summer, and did that not have the full support of Opposition Members?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will not remember the incident, because he was not there at the time. However, there was much argument then and the Government were rapped sharply over the knuckles by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments for the way in which they presented those measures. I am not making a party political point. The House should have the option, and if hon. Members think that the case for Kirkcaldy, Lothian, Glasgow or anywhere else should be examined in detail, they should be able to do that.
  I do not believe that streamlining is the only issue. After all, the debate on each of the orders can last for only one and a half hours if that is the Government's wish. I believe that the measure may represent an attempt to protect Ministers. All too often they know that they are on weak ground, and if all the orders are lumped into one debate they can avoid many of the important and difficult points by discussing subjects that allow for better diversionary tactics.
  Mr. Michael Hirst: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about Parliament having an opportunity to discuss separate orders, why were there practically no Opposition Members present when the Kirkcaldy order was debated in the summer, and why did not the Labour party force a Division?
  Mr. Dewar: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was around then. However, his intervention has made the point well. I believe that there were four orders that night which were all debated separately and there were separate votes on three of them. The point is that that option will no longer exist. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to speak in the debate, but I wonder whether he supports the proposition and whether he can honestly say that it is a great reform to use the time of the House to take away the right of hon. Members to scrutinise important orders that deal with individual local authorities.
  It has not been made clear, but I take it that we shall at least be given the courtesy of being able to vote separately on each of the local authorities, even if they appear on one order. When the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), replies to the debate, I want that to be cleared up. It would be somewhat contemptuous of Parliament and, indeed, plain insulting if four or five authorities had very different cases and we could not differentiate between them because there was only one vote. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to clear that up.
  Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply to that question at the end of the debate. However, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, and he is quite entitled to make that point.
  Mr. Dewar: I am glad that I am entitled to make that point. I am sorry that the Secretary of State could not immediately give an assurance that there would be a power to have separate votes. Indeed, it would be disgraceful if that were not so, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. The sheepish looks of his colleagues show that they know it too.
  50
  Ministers have got us into a fine fankle over the valuation law. Of course I want help to be given to those groups that feel they have a grievance. I should not be ungrateful if it was possible to help caravan owners or those who run hard-pressed football grounds or race tracks, but I am concerned about the way in which it is done. The whole thing is ill thought out. It is a bit of cosmetic window dressing and I doubt very much whether it will achieve the expected result.
  We are told that we can now bring in English comparators under clause 13 when sufficient evidence is not available in Scotland. Earlier, I referred to the case of Associated Portland Cement v. Assessor for East Lothian. From Lord Kilbrandon's judgment, it is certainly possible to take in comparators if there is insufficient evidence in Scotland of rent levels. The only difference that clause 13 would make is that it might—I stress "might"—give a right to extend that to valuations in England as well.
  We shall all have to consider the matter carefully, but my advice from those who work in the valuation courts is that clause 13 will not materially change the law of Scotland. Those who are now throwing their caps in the air thinking that the valuation of their football grounds will fall by about two thirds or that their race tracks will be saved may find that they are in a very false position. We need much more detail about that.
  We must also ask why football grounds should be helped but not tennis courts, indoor bowls or cricket pitches. Those who own such facilities have all made representations to us in great detail and have provided impressive statistical evidence to suggest that there is a great differential between England and Scotland. I am not sure that it will help the public's opinion of the rating system if we introduce a new anomaly by holding that there is sufficient evidence of rent values in Scotland, because there are a few more cricket pitches than race tracks, and that consequently the latter should be given help and others the former refused it.
  The Secretary of State will know that the Scottish Tourist Board is preparing reports to show that there is a great differential between England and Scotland when rate burdens are taken as a charge on each room in a hotel. Indeed, department stores have also been mentioned. Thus, it is not clear that clause 13 will help, unless a deal has been fixed with the assessors behind the scenes. That would be an unfortunate way of proceeding. If the provision is to help, it is possible that we will open the door much wider than the two or three specific anomalies mentioned in the White Paper.
  The Secretary of State may think that I am wrong, but I got my next point from a brief. I refer to a scathing memorandum from the Scottish Assessors' Association, which deals with the White Paper that has been embodied in the Bill. I agree with what it says. Paragraph 9.4 states:
  "It seems to the Association to be scarcely credible that valuation principles that have been approved by our own courts should be set aside in favour of methods about which little is known, merely because the Scottish valuation result is different from the English."
  The association's point is to ask why there is a difference and who is right. We should not say that there is a difference, and therefore an anomaly, which must be dealt with immediately in a piecemeal way. That point must be considered very carefully. I was amazed when the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross said that there should be retrospective payments to the proprietors of the

  51
  reed bed in his constituency. He said that it was quite wrong that they had been rated. It was not wrong. That was what the courts of the land decided was the proper valuation approach in Scotland. Nor was it wrong merely because people did not like it. If we conclude that it is unjust and inequitable, we change the basis of the valuation system. We do not change it in this breathless and populist way which will have uncertain results.
  Much of that part of the Bill that deals with valuation is an attempt to get something popular on to the statute book and to cover the disorderly retreat of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends from the prospect of rating reform in a wider sense. It is extraordinary to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that there is no public demand for radical change in the rating system. If the right hon. Gentleman had said, "We wanted to do it but we could not find a way in which to do it—all your scepticism about methodology proved right," I should have had some respect for his view, but to blame the poor public and say that they do not want change simply beggars the imagination. The right hon. Gentleman has consistently done that. Because he has failed he is now reaching for a few piecemeal reforms which are on extremely shaky legal foundations to stick into his Bill.
  As to the right hon. Gentleman's consultations with non-domestic ratepayers, the logic of his stance is a return to a business vote. He got near to that in his discussions with COSLA on 7 November. The right hon. Gentleman does not advocate a business vote, but he is introducing a half-baked attempt to placate people without giving them any real influence. The danger is that the so-called consultative process will lead to irritation and frustration among all the parties concerned.
  The Opposition do not object to consultation. Indeed, we do far more consultation in Scotland than the Scottish Conservative party. That is why we are considerably more in touch with Scottish public opinion. I find it extraordinary that the Secretary of State should preach the virtues of consultation to us. There has been a storm of criticism of his White Paper and yet there is almost no evidence of concessions on that White Paper in the Bill.
  There has been no response to the wide range of criticism that has come from across the political spectrum. There has been almost united opposition to the Bill from COSLA. On Thursday, a delegation from COSLA visited the House. One of the most effective and persuasive advocates of the futility of what the Government are doing was the Conservative leader of Edinburgh district council, Councillor Brereton. The Government Whips might be interested to consider the independent members of COSLA. One of them, Councillor Jameson, the convenor at Dumfries and Galloway, is one of the most able opponents of this nonsense. The only place where there appears to be no doubts, not a stir of conscience, nor a spark of independence, is on the Conservative Back Benches. It is significant that only the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) ably put the point of view of many Conservative councillors in Scotland.
  I recently talked to somebody who described Conservative Back Benchers as lickspittle toom tabards. Perhaps that person went too far. They are merely sadly anonymous time servers. I fear that they will prove that
  52
  again today. They now have a chance to redeem themselves. I hope they will listen to what Scotland is saying about the Bill and make it clear that there must be changes.
  I have talked much about the practicalities of the case. I have even tried to argue it on the assumption that the Government want the House to make. There is, however, another consideration—the Bill is wrong in principle. It is fundamentally wrong to put such provisions on the statute book. It represents a drive for centralisation in Scotland which will do a great deal of harm to local democracy.
  I accept that local democracy is not always popular because it is equated with local government and local government is not popular because it is at the sharp end. It witnesses its services being cut and its rates rising because of the depredations on the support it receives from the Government.
  I heard the Secretary of State mention to his satrap on his left that I had not mentioned the ratepayer. I should like to make it quite clear that I have a great consideration for the ratepayer. That is why I object to the figures that were quoted for housing support grant and rate support grant. They constitute a constant erosion of the basic support that is provided for vital services. That is the secret behind the higher rates that Scotland has faced.
  We might quarrel, as a matter of politics, about what the Government do with their support but nobody denies that they have a right to cut or increase—I hope that the latter will happen soon—the amount of local support that they provide. However, we do not believe that the House should be used as a means of imprisoning local government in a statutory framework which crushes out all room for local discussion and initiative. It should be clear that the claim of the Conservative party in Scotland that it is interested in local democracy cannot be maintained in the face of the Bill. The Government are making guidelines mandatory. The Bill gives the Government complete control over rents and rates.
  It is nonsense for the Secretary of State to tell COSLA, as he did on 7 November, that he believes in the importance of local government and has no wish to interfere. Such a suggestion has a hollow ring when we consider the Bill. It is a case of Younger's law of local democracy. The Government are telling the local authorities, "You have total freedom to do exactly what you are told to do and you have no freedom except to follow the dictates of the Treasury." We want none of it. We do not like the Bill at all. We shall protest about it in the Division Lobby tonight and, if we lose the argument here, we shall take it to the country. I assure Conservative Members who seem to be doubtful of the point that at the first opportunity we shall throw the Bill out as unnecessary nonsense.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I hope that when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) takes his argument to the country, as he certainly must after tonight, he will secure more agreement between himself and his colleagues than he did between different parts of his speech.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend had successfully persuaded local authorities to reduce their expenditure. [Interruption.] Have you noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how after an Opposition

  53
  Member sits down a continuous rumble starts to emerge from other Opposition Back Benchers? If they were peaceful and quiet and had a sense of courtesy, Conservative Members would make their usual brief, concise and useful speeches, whereas if they continue to rumble Conservative Members might find that they have more to say than they originally thought.
  The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend had successfully changed local government's attitude to expenditure. That is to be welcomed. He also said, wrongly, that my right hon. Friend was responsible for local authorities putting up rates. As I understand it, the amount of money that my right hon. Friend has provided in support of local authorities is greater in real terms than that provided at any stage by a Labour Government. It is not the Government's fault that continuing aspirations of higher expenditure by Labour-controlled local authorities have, in some extreme cases, put an extra burden on ratepayers.
  Mr. Ewing: I can give the hon. Gentleman an example of the Secretary of State being directly responsible for a 5p in the pound increase in rates. Falkirk district council had budgeted for a nil increase, only to be faced with the derating of external plant and machinery. When I led a deputation from that local authority to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland we were told that, because rates in Central region and Falkirk district were lower per capita than in other parts of Scotland—there is no point in the Secretary of State trying to tell his hon. Friend the answer because I am providing both the question and the answer. We were told that the rates per capita in the Central region —including the Falkirk district—were lower than in the rest of Scotland. The Secretary of State refused to make good the shortfall arising from the derating concession that he had handed to British Petroleum. As a result, Falkirk district council had to amend its budget and increase rates for the rest of the ratepayers by 5p in the pound.
  Mr. Henderson: I hope that anyone considering the length of my speech will bear in mind the length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I recollect that the Labour party supported us on that measure. It is clear that Scottish businesses were greatly disadvantaged before that change and that that had to be put right. It was put right, and we have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has girned about it ever since. That is very unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman took three minutes to make his intervention, which was an abuse of the House and of my efforts to make a short speech.
  I welcome the continuing efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to contain the burden of rates and taxes. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) remembered at the end of his speech to say a few words about ratepayers. He knew that if he did not, the Minister would, when he replied, remind him that, once again, the Labour party had not considered the ratepayer.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made one error in his speech. I thought that I heard him say that rates would continue to account for the main source of local authority income. Surely the rate support grant is the main source of local authority income. It must be borne in mind that rates account for less than half the total income of local authorities. The majority of their income comes from the taxpayer. However, when the taxpayer sees some
  54
  grandiose local authority scheme, he does not always think about that. Between a tenth and a sixth of local authority income comes from the domestic ratepayer, and herein lies one of the considerable problems about rating and local government finance.
  I confess that I am disappointed that it has not been possible to find agreement on a better way of financing local government than the rating system.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman vote with us?
  Mr. Henderson: If the hon. Gentleman mere to put forward an attractive scheme for financing local authorities in a responsible way, I should certainly support him. I have looked around desperately for such a scheme. I recognise that there has been no broad agreement on a major alternative source of revenue to rates because those who have wanted to be rid of rates are about equal in number—regardless of whether they are in favour of the income tax route or other routes—with those who want to retain rates. There has not been a clear, broad agreement about an alternative way of raising large sums of money to finance local government.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will support me in my proposal. If we retain rates—we are doing so — as the main source of locally-raised taxation for local government purposes, in addition to the funds that come through the rate support grant formula, I should think that there will be merit in basing the rates levy on guidelines or a nationally agreed measure. Local authorities wishing to raise more money from their locality should do so with a poll tax so that local authority expenditure above the national guidelines is directly paid for by those who have the votes to decide that local authority's future.
  Similarly, if the local authorities do not spend the full amount of the guidelines, they should be able to impose a lesser levy on their constituents. This combined with a broad-based property tax to raise a substantial amount of money would be an attractive concept. The Labour party has tried to infer that whether local government expenditure goes up or down a little at the margin there are no high spenders in local government. Any extra expenditure by local authorities at the margin should be paid by those who have direct control over who is elected to the local authority.
  I have always believed the introduction of selective action by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be a valuable measure. More than any other single act, it has created the satisfactory state of affairs to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred. We now have a greater sense of responsibility for finance by local government. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is bringing forward a fairer basis of abatement where that occurs. It is a source of aggravation in areas such as mine where the district council has been especially careful in levying rates that the council has been hit for abatement of its rate support grant simply because other local authorities have grossly overspent their guidelines. I am glad that the legislation will put that right, and that where there is an abatement it will at least be in relation to the extent of overspending by local authorities.
  There have been a number of severe anomalies as between Scotland and England. My attention has been especially drawn to the rating of caravan sites. I am glad

  55
  that, at last, something positive is being done. This matter is of considerable importance to the tourist industry in my constituency which contains some of the finest caravan sites in Great Britain. Caravan site operators in Scotland compete with their counterparts in England, including, sometimes, those in the west country. The holidaymaker, when deciding where to go for the holidays, is influenced by the price. The Scottish caravan site operator is being unfairly treated, and I am glad that we are doing something about that problem in the Bill.
  I am a little worried about where anomalies may end. We ought to be clear about the type of anomalies that we are trying to correct. I believe that football clubs made a powerful and well-argued pitch for fairer treatment of football stadia in Scotland compared with England. I worked out that if Celtic's or Rangers's ground — I forget which—were based in Aberdeen, the club, on the figures presented to us, would pay £22,000 a year less in rates than it does in Glasgow and Strathclyde. That anomaly has not been created by the valuation system. There is an anomaly between a club governed by a local authority in which the substantial spender is Labour-controlled and one in which the substantial spender is Conservative-controlled. I do not know whether someone who chooses to go to a football match is influenced by the price of the ticket, which is marginally dependent on the rating of the stadium. I am a little sceptical of that and a little anxious about where that thinking might lead unless we have a clear concept of what sort of anomalies we want remedied.
  Another anomaly was brought to my attention only this week regarding the effect of rates on shooting in Scotland.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Oh, yes.
  Mr. Henderson: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman taking an interest at last. As none of my hon. Friends owns any shooting rights, I shall be glad to have the hon. Gentleman's help.
  My constituent wrote:
  "In England, rates are not charged unless the shooting rights are let. In Scotland we suffer the inequality"—
  Mr. Home Robertson: "Suffer"? What a load of rubbish.
  Mr. Henderson: I am quoting my constituent. He continued:
  "of having our shooting rated whether it is let or whether we use the alleged asset or not."
  That is similar to some of the anomalies dealt with by the Bill, and perhaps we should consider including it. The most important aspect of remedying anomalies is whether they distort the position in business between the north and the south of the border.
  I welcome the proposed improvements in the appeals procedure. I hope that when the Bill is considered in Committee we will look in depth at the methods being suggested. But I hope also that the changes in the appeals procedure will not allow the continuance of what has become the unfortunate and growing tendency of people appealing for no other purpose than to save themselves the interest on the money that they would have paid in rates if they had coughed up at the due time. A number of people who pay substantial rates to authorities such as Dundee, which makes extremely harsh demands on its ratepayers,
  56
  try to put off the awful day. Something must be done to discourage them from doing that. We must ensure that the appeal system is not used for improper purposes.
  My right hon. Friend's attempt to make the system fairer will be warmly welcomed by the great majority of those who bear the burden of rates.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) tried to make the best of a bad job because the measure is worthless. The Secretary of State said that it was intended to help the ratepayers of Scotland, but far from doing that it is a vote of no confidence in the whole set-up of Scottish local government. If it was a worthwhile measure the Secretary of State would not have been so keen to foist paternity on to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) by saying that he "started it off". If the measure was intended to be of great benefit to the ratepayers of Scotland, he would not have been so ready to share the credit.
  There is a great deal of disappointment with the failure of the Tories to match up to their commitment to abolish rates in their October 1974 manifesto. I concede immediately that that commitment was not repeated in 1979 or 1983. They now find it impossible to make such a commitment. How, therefore, could they make that commitment in 1974? We can only conclude that it was a baseless and empty promise to fool the electorate.
  The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, which the Government claim as a friend, wrote to the Scottish Office on 7 October, saying about the Bill:
  "Some of our Scottish regional chairmen did not wish us to make a submission in order to signify our disgust at your failure to reform rates."
  I do not intend to take up the time of the House by dealing with the Bill clause by clause. I share the disquiet already expressed by hon. Members about clause 6. The Shelter organisation has pointed out that the housing revenue expenditure is made up almost wholly from the loan charges, which is outwith the control of most local authorities. The net result will be that only rent will be available to meet the costs, and the tenants will have to pay. Of course, housing benefit is also being reduced.
  The Conservative manifesto for Scotland in 1983 stated:
  "In Scotland we are already effectively using powers to reduce the rates of councils which plan excessive and unreasonable expenditure. England and Wales now intend to introduce measures with a similar aim."
  On rating, as with so many other matters, the Tory Government are using Scotland as a guinea pig. If their poisonous experiments get by in Scotland, the remainder of the United Kingdom will receive the same medicine.
  I noted with interest that the Secretary of State's colleagues on the Back Benches appear to have been fitted with silencers. It took an English Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), to say that similar legislation would not be accepted in England. That should give the Government a lead in knowing what should be their duty to Scottish ratepayers.
  Mr. Henderson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has no objection to Scotland pioneering this legislation, as it has pioneered so many other things?
  Mr. Stewart: There are some aspects of pioneering that Scotland can do without. I do not want to be a guinea pig for unpleasant medicine. I am content to leave that to those south of the border. I would rather that it was not tried at all. I am not volunteering to try out any of the unpleasant measures that the Government bring before the House.
  The alleged failure of COSLA to stick to guidelines is less pronounced in Scotland than that of local authorities south of the border. The expenditure and rate levels of local government is no business of central Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Local ratepayers are the judges, and they can pass the necessary verdict on profligate councils—if any exist. Indeed, the Secretary of State said that what had occurred in Lothian had been corrected by the electorate. That is the way it should be done. It was done that way in the past and must be done that way in future if local government is to have any reality in Scotland.
  What happened to the Government's slogans "Less government", "Stand on your own two feet", "Local initiative", "Power to the grass roots" and so on? The Secretary of State for Scotland—the gauleiter of British Government in Scotland — is introducing further legislation to remove power from local authorities to fix their priorities, rates and level of services. As the Aberdeen Press and Journal stated:
  "Many people will come to the conclusion that local government will not only be a dangerous myth but also that there will be little point in councillors pretending to be local representatives when in reality they are Whitehall commissars."
  Scottish local authorities have been subject to tight control. For three years the Secretary of State has had the right to take action against councils, and that power is only now available in England. It is no wonder that the English Association of Metropolitan Authorities warns that:
  "The erosion in local autonomy that has already occurred in Scotland is soon to occur in England."
  At least in England the Government can claim a mandate. No such mandate exists in Scotland. The Government's dirty work is being done by the representative of a party that was decisively rejected by the Scottish electorate. [Interruption.] I am not attempting to pass legislation against the Scottish people, unlike the Minister and his friends. They are a colonialist Administration with no moral basis for their policies. They are the hyprocrites who preach that law and order must be obeyed. Yes, it must be obeyed, provided that those who make the laws do so with the consent of the governed.
  Scottish local authorities have been subjected to tighter control. The Secretary of State has had this power for a long time, and the fact that it was introduced from another source is not enough. I served for 20 years on local authorities —town and country councils, and on other authorities as well. The Secretary of State said that he did not want to hear that this Bill is the end of local government as we know it. I shall say it: the Bill is the end of local government as we know it. The power will pass from the people who elect local authorities to central Government.
  Another offence against local government is that many of the functions that local authorities will have to cut were wished on them by central Government — whether Conservative or Labour. However, they were amply funded, so the work was done. Now the cash is being
  58
  withdrawn. The public will expect the services to continue, but it will be beyond the power of local authorities to continue to provide them.
  This legislation is a betrayal of the Scottish tradition of local government in accord with local wishes. Those people who now serve in Scottish local authorities must ask themselves whether they can perform any independent functions, or whether they will simply be the tools of central Government. II' the Bill is passed, local government in Scotland will be a shadow. The substance will have been filched by a Government who are devoid of democratic principle.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting the Bill. It implements the pledges that I and my hon. Friends gave to the electorate during the general election campaign—pledges which, I am almost certain, contributed significantly to my election to this place to represent Stirling, where the authority has been wreaking havoc.
  There has been much bogus indignation on the part of those who oppose the Bill, both in the House and elsewhere. The fact that the Government's efforts to protect ratepayers are greeted in such an irresponsible way comes as something of a surprise to me. The need for control, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, is not new. Indeed, the power to withhold the rate support grant to authorities whose expenditure has been excessive and unreasonable is as old as the system itself. As my right hon. Friend said, it first came into effect in 1929. The fact that these powers have had to be used only recently says more about Labour-controlled councils than about anything else — much more than about the Government's desire to impose restrictions on local government.
  Mr. Ewing: Is it accurate to say that, following the hon. Gentleman's election as the Member for Stirling, he is on record as heaping the highest possible praise on the Labour-controlled Central regional council for its management of the local economy?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) for giving me the opportunity to confirm what I said at the time. I said that, compared with the district council, the Central regional council was a very responsible authority. Indeed, at the risk of damning it in the eyes of some Labour Members, I am happy to stand by that position. I shall say something later about the Central regional council.
  The extravagance of some of the more extreme Labour-controlled councils in Scotland has reduced parts of Scotland to wastelands. A city such as Glasgow has been blighted by the local authority and its policy on rates. Despite all the arguments about whether central Government are to blame, or whether the rateable values of department stores are to blame, the fact remains that Marks and Spencer in Glasgow pays twice as much per square foot in rates as does Marks and Spencer in Oxford street, the biggest and busiest shopping centre in the world. That is at the heart of Glasgow's problem and at the heart of Scotland's problem.
  The efforts of local authorities such as Stirling district have imposed an unfair burden of local economies. It is quite impossible for my constituents to pursue the vital

  59
  service industry of tourism when they have to pay two and a half times as much in rates as their competitors pay across the border in Conservative Perth and Kinross. The same Labour-controlled authorities and their leaders, who cry crocodile tears for the unemployed, are destroying jobs and businesses through their rating policies. There is much evidence of the link between unemployment and rating. The recent survey on the effects of the GLC's policies in London showed that for every £10,000 raised in rates one job was destroyed. I am sure that the figure in Scotland is considerably worse.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman compared the rate burden of his constituents in the Central region with those in neighbouring Tayside. Will he concentrate for a moment on the services that those rates pay for? Is he not thankful that the service of home helps for elderly people in the Labour-controlled Central region is twice as good as it is in the Conservative-controlled area across the boundary?
  Mr. Forsyth: The intervention of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is typical of the Opposition's mentality. The Opposition assume that because something is twice as expensive it is twice as good. Expenditure on those services is not a measure of the effectiveness of the authority. There are many other ways of providing the help in the home that all Conservative Members would like to see extended, particularly through the use of volunteers, which does not cost ratepayers a penny.
  Despite the rhetoric and the accusations of cuts, local government spending is up in real terms by 12 per cent. since 1978, although we are supposed to have a hard-nosed Conservative Government pursuing a war against local authorities. Spending has grown in real terms, and so have the numbers employed. In fact, local government in Britain as a whole employs 3·2 million people compared with 1·1 million in France, and 898,000 in Germany. I do not hear people in France or Germany complaining that they do not have enough people in local government or that their services are deficient compared with those that we enjoy—or otherwise—in Scotland.
  Employment in local government in Scotland has continued to rise at a time when businesses have had to shed people to pay their rates. There are now 25 per cent. more people employed per head of population in local government in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The only cuts that have taken place in local government are in services, not expenditure. We have witnessed the spectre of the hard-pressed ratepayer having to pay more and more for less and less. Services are the first thing to be cut by those who seek to frustrate the efforts of Conservatives who want value for money and economies in administration. We see waste and inefficiency, instead of the provision of sensitive services on which many people in our community depend.
  The rating system, as such, is proving burdensome in the extreme for those who have to pay the bills, and it takes no account of either ability to pay or profitability. I regret that we were unable to find an alternative to the rating system. However, that is not what is at issue in today's debate. Even if we had a poll tax, local income tax or some
  60
  other form of funding, the basic problem of over-expenditure and extravagance would remain. The revenue would have to be raised by another method.
  When we discuss alternatives to the rating system it is sometimes like shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. We are discussing a hole in the side of a ship. I do not wish to repeat well-rehearsed arguments. Instead I shall make suggestions for improving the Bill.
  The Opposition will go through the ritual of attacking clause 1. They must recognise, as many Labour-controlled councils do, that if clawback of rate support grant is necessary, it should come from the councils whose expenditure is excessive and not, as at present, from all, whether or not they are irresponsible. A feeling of injustice exists among low-spending authorities who are penalised for other councils' overspending.
  Clause 2 has been attacked because it is claimed that it reduces the opportunity to debate the individual circumstances of councils. I sympathise with the argument in favour of individual orders and debates, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said, we must remember what happened in the House when such proceedings occurred for all to witness. Not only did we have to put up with an excessive number of Front Bench speeches, but we had to endure the spectacle of the Chamber being emptied as Opposition Members made their exits to catch the night sleeper. I was rather sorry for the large delegations from Stirling and Kirkcaldy who came at the ratepayers' expense to watch our proceedings. They witnessed a debate when the House was at its emptiest and least likeable.
  I was amused to see the puzzled look on the faces of some representatives from Kirkcaldy who could not understand why no Division was called on their order. It was to the credit of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who had a heated discussion with his Whip, that a Division was called on the Stirling order. Although I have reservations, I can see the merit in a longer, better-attended debate, on the principles rather than the details.
  The details of the Opposition's case expressed in that debate proved to be a nonsense. We were told that when the councils came to implement the rate rebates the most appalling problems would result. We were told that it would mean that Stirling and Kirkcaldy would have to cut vital services.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman's interesting argument is based on a fallacy. All the orders can be taken together in one and a half hours if the Government wish.
  Mr. Forsyth: I have no doubt that that can be brought up later. My case is for a longer debate so that we can examine the principles involved.
  Mr. Henderson: Has my hon. Friend not come to the conclusion that if the Opposition made more sharply focused and relevant speeches in Committee we might reach agreement on sensible proposals but that that is difficult when faced with filibustering speeches?
  Mr. Forsyth: I wish that I had had the wit to think of that.
  Stirling and Kirkcaldy did not have to shed a single project when faced with the cuts, despite the protestations and anguish from Opposition Members. Indeed, Stirling now has too much money because it raised excessive rates

  61
  and is embarrassed by it. It seems that it has been able to find £75,000 for Christmas lights, resources for BMX cycle tracks and many other projects.
  Such authorities prove that the Secretary of State—as he admitted today—was far too kind and fixed rate repayment levels were too low. I warned him of that in the case of Stirling. He should have decided on 3p instead of 2p.
  Clause 3 is contentious. The arguments have been forcibly put by both sides. It has been the subject of substantial press debate and we have been lobbied about it. I represent the ratepayers of one of Scotland's most expensive district councils and I welcome the proposal in clause 3. People complain that imposing a general limit on rate increases ignores fluctuations in council accounts; that it is not only current expenditure that affects rate levels, but changes in RSG and interest rates. I accept that, but I reject it as an argument against the Bill's proposals. I have news for those who espouse that argument —commercial organisations face exactly the same difficulties.
  Manufacturers face fluctuations in raw material prices, labour costs and demand for their products and services—something which councils tend to ignore. Manufacturers do not expect their customers to cope with dramatic price variations and they do not expect prices to rise ahead of inflation year after year. That would be suicidal and they would go out of business. But local authorities do not go out of business.
  It cannot be beyond the wit of local authorities to arrange their affairs—particularly since many of them hold large balances to ensure rate cuts near election year—so that their rates rise, if they must, in a steady and orderly manner to enable businesses to organise their cash projections. The audit commission's annual report shows clearly that most authorities could smooth out changes in rates. In many cases I suspect that they do not do that for political and electoral purposes.
  I have a serious objection to the proposed new section 108B, which seems to give the Secretary of State power to limit reductions in rates. It is difficult to conceive of any circumstances when that could be beneficial to ratepayers, or appropriate for a Conservative Secretary of State. In the unlikely event of the Labour party taking office I can see how such a power might be used in pursuit of ever higher public expenditure. Serious consideration should be given to whether such a power should be allowed to remain in the Bill. All Conservative Members will welcome clause 4 and its intention to ensure that those who pay the majority of rates are at least consulted before the level of rate burden is fixed. I must draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the type of attitude — the hon. Member for Falkirk, East was good enough to mention the Central region—that commercial ratepayers have to face from local authorities. The Secretary of State will have received from the Central regional council, normally a moderate local authority—as I was happy to confirm—a submission on the Bill. I should like to read two extracts. Paragraph 1 states:
  "if the experience of this authority is typical, the most distinguishing characteristic of the consultations which have already taken place with the local business community has been the ignorance of, and indifference to, the problems and service needs of the local authority and the requirement of a secure financial base to meet these service needs."
  Paragraph 29 states:
  62
  "It is hard to believe that anyone who is engaged in consultation of this kind"—
  that is, with local business men—
  "could be expected to take it seriously, and the present Government would appear to attach much greater value to the opinions of local businessmen than anything which has been experienced in this community would justify."
  I fear that that attitude to clause 4 is typical. It shows a lamentable disregard by local authorities for those on whom local prosperity depends. The Central regional council may not agree with the opinions of local business men, but I should have thought that it would show some respect for them, because if local business men did not make the money and provide the employment there would be precious little for the authority to do and spend. I hope that in drafting the directive the Minister will seek the comments of business organisations so that the arrogant attitude revealed in the Central regional council letter is not allowed to render the exercise a meaningless charade.
  Mr Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is being downright unfair to Central regional council. That is not untypical of the hon. Gentleman, because he does not understand the background to the discussions and the attitude that the authority has, through the years, had to tolerate from the central Scotland chamber of commerce, which does not represent any business in his constituency. The central Scotland chamber of commerce was partly responsible for the rate fiasco that occurred, in Falkirk district in particular and the Central region in general, as a result of the derating of outside plant and machinery.
  Mr Forsyth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. In one debate, it is astonishing to be asked to confirm that I believe that the Central regional council is a good authority and later to be criticised for being unfair to it.
  I am familiar with the problems that Central regional council has faced. I have taken on board some of the points it has made to me about rating. In this submission and in its attitude towards the business community, I believe that it is typical of far too many people in local government and too many Scottish authorities.
  I am sure that there will be no dissent on the Conservative Benches about clause 6. The proposal, which clamps down on the blatant misuse of rates to buy votes by subsidising council rents, is long overdue. As long ago as 1981 the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was not then constrained by the cares of office, established that substantial numbers of Scottish council tenants received back from the council in rent subsidy more than they paid in rates. In a number of cases tenants paid less in combined regional, district and water rates than they received in subsidies. I accept that some progress has been made on that matter, and that the growth in rate-borne subsidies, which was spectacular under the previous Labour Government, has now been halted, but it is still far too high.
  This year, all but six of Scotland's councils are budgeting to subsidise rent by a total of £125·7 million. It is a burden without justification that domestic and commercial ratepayers have to meet. It is paid for by fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices. It does not help the less well-off. They receive rent rebates and cannot benefit. It is nothing less than a transfer of income from the rest of society to the better-off council tenants; from the elderly

  63
  owner-occupier living alone on a fixed income to the council tenant, whose home may receive three or four incomes.
  Mr Dewar rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall not give way. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view on this matter. He spelt it out earlier.
  The £125·7 million is 30 per cent. of net rateable expenditure. In some districts it rises to 50 per cent. or more. Despite the Secretary of State's efforts, the subsidies are still unacceptably high and steps must be taken to reduce the burden of that blatant bribery. My worry is whether clause 6 is the best way to achieve that end. No doubt the Secretary of State will use the proposed power to protect the ratepayers, but I cannot be certain what the position would be if Labour Members were in power. It may well be that they would remove the restraints and unleash the Labour councils' wild men on the poor ratepayers again. Will the Secretary of State consider substituting a statutory limitation for rate fund contributions, with a fixed timetable by which it should be met? The contributions lack moral, social or practical justification. They add, on average, 11p in the pound to the rates of the Scottish ratepayer and they are a burden that our people should no longer be expected to bear.
  Three of the clauses in part II that relate to valuation appeals will no doubt improve the position of individual ratepayers in challenging valuations and speeding appeals. They do not deal with the unfair position of householders and tenants when appeals are heard. I have spoken to people who have experienced the ordeal, and I ask the Minister to consider revising the advisory booklet so that tenants are warned that hearings will be conducted along the lines of the courts, because the present impression is all to often given that the appeal will be an informal affair. The ordinary householder or tenant finds himself at a psychological disadvantage as compared to the assessor and his trained staff.
  I wish to deal with the rating of licensed premises. I am not an expert on valuations, but I understand that licensed premises are unique in being valued on turnover rather than square footage. When such ratepayers appeal, they can be put in a position whereby their turnover is publicly revealed. I see no justification for that. It does not seem a useful application of the rating system that we should have rules that seek to penalise success and discourage the most effective use of premises. Will the Minister study the position with a view to placing such premises on the same basis as other businesses?
  The Bill protects Scottish ratepayers. It removes some of the manifest unfairnesses of the rating system, but, as with all Bills at the start of their parliamentary career, the details can no doubt be improved. It will be widely welcomed by the vast majority of those who have had to pay the price of spendthrift councils such as Stirling, or suffer the unfairness of the present rating system. I hope that the Bill will not be mindlessly obstructed by those who seek nothing more than to further political advantage.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Hugh Brown: I assure the House that I shall be briefer than the hon. Member for
  64
  Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and more tolerant and understanding of the problems facing local government. He said that one reason why he won his seat was the Tory election manifesto, but the more electors get to know him and his sour cynical attitude, the fewer votes he will keep. He is a curious mixture. His opponents and supporters will note that he wanted rents increased substantially, and he seemed to suggest that there were too many old people getting home helps, who could be looked after instead by family and friends. It is a sour, sad note that he injects into local government.
  Mr Michael Forsyth: I was not for a minute suggesting that the elderly should get fewer home helps. I argued that the home help service should be expanded by involving more volunteers.
  Mr Brown: The hon. Gentleman can explain it in his own way, but I understood him to say that there were far too many paid home helps. Whether he wishes to qualify that now is another matter. If he continues with his sour, intolerant attitude as a Scottish constituency Member, he will end up representing a constituency in Northern Ireland — I apologise to those Members for Northern Ireland who are excellent.
  I was surprised that the Secretary of State cast aspersions on the working methods of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when he spoke about the possibility of my hon. Friend quoting extensively from briefs. No one has supplied me with a brief and my hon. Friend, who made an excellent speech, is as capable as any one of digesting the masses of material sent to us, not only from party sources — which the Secretary of State may consider to be biased—but from other authorities. It would be a pity, and unfair of the Secretary of State, to say that Labour Members were merely quoting briefs without understanding them, or opposing the Bill for the sake of it. I wish to quote from three or four sources, the first of which is from the Conservative party.
  The idea that we are witnessing a great reform of the rating system is a myth. I shall not consider all of the Bill, as we shall examine it in detail in Committee. In 1974 the Conservative party election manifesto said that the Conservatives would abolish domestic rating in the lifetime of a Parliament. There were no "ifs" or qualifications. One myth that is often put round, even in some Labour and trade union circles, is that the Prime Minister can at least be commended for always carrying out her promises. I have often questioned that. In October 1974, speaking as the official Conservative spokesman on the environment and before she made her bid for power, she said:
  "We have decided to take the historic step to abolish the present rating system over a five-year Parliament…With the full backing of a Conservative Government pledged to abolish the present rating system, that Committee will have an added incentive to present alternatives to Ministers."
  The Prime Minister also said:
  "As a sign of good faith we shall start by taking education from the rates to the Exchequer."
  That pledge also sank without trace.
  Mr Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. He will recollect that I lost my seat at that election, and that the Conservative party was not elected to Government. Therefore, perhaps it is not unreasonable that the party did not carry through those pledges.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that. He had better not defend such matters, because I am not drawing conclusions from them at present. I am simply putting it on the record that the Prime Minister made such statements in 1974.
  In case the first speech from which I quoted was an exuberant and slightly exaggerated speech, the right hon. Lady made a similar statement the following week. She said that she would
  "give immediate help to all ratepayers by transferring the cost of teachers' salaries and more of the cost of police and fire services from the rates to the Exchequer."
  She reaffirmed that she would
  "abolish the unfair system of household rates."
  Curiously, the 1979 Conservative manifesto stated:
  "Labour's extravagance and incompetence have once again imposed a heavy burden on ratepayers this year. But cutting income tax must take priority for the time being over abolition of the domestic rating system."
  That is nothing but a continuation of the commitment made in 1974. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who dealt with such matters in the Labour Government of that time, understands the point that I am making. Too many people in the Labour party have perpetrated the myth that the Prime Minister carries out her pledges. There was no change of policy in 1979, but an endorsement of the previous commitment, with the only qualification being that income tax cuts would take precedence.
  It is true, as the hon. Member for Stirling said, that the 1983 Conservative manifesto did not mention the abolition of domestic or other rates. The only commitment was a vague statement about reforming the rating system, with a few details set out in the Scottish manifesto. What happened between 1974 and 1979?
  Mr. John Corrie: Five years of Labour Government.
  Mr Brown: Perhaps a Minister might have had the grace to admit that the Conservative party was wrong. If not, it was trying to con the electors. Ministers have the choice, but they cannot say to the House that this is a great Bill that will come near to fulfilling their original intentions, or that it will make a great contribution to the vexed problem of how to finance local government.
  The change was obvious in the Green Paper of 1981, which stated that:
  "The Government is committed to the reform of the domestic rating system."
  After the 1983 election, the White Paper stated only
  "The Government have therefore decided to make reforms to the rating system which is basically sound."
  The latter words show a change of attitude.
  I do not impute dishonest motives to any individual, but there has been collective dishonesty on the part of the Conservative party. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has left the Chamber, since he was guilty of dishonesty in connection with Lothian. At present, there seems to be discrimination against of my good friends in Glasgow district council, only because there is no one in the Chamber to knock hell out of them. Stirling district council will get all the publicity in this Parliament from what I can see. It will have the new hard men of the Left in the Labour party, through the persistent misrepresentation of the hon. Member for Stirling. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary got his job through his attacks on Lothian regional council, but he made a name for himself by doing that.
  66
  Conservative Members give the impression that the Conservative party is the party of low rates. It is, in fact, the anti-local government party. All of us with any knowledge or experience of local government know this. Local government is not popular, and therefore anybody who knocks it will get kudos out of doing so. The Government have been doing that since 1979.
  Of all the comments that I have received, not one commends the Bill, although the Minister may want to trot out some examples of support for it. People might say that one would expect opposition from COSLA, as a local government body, because the Bill is an attack on the powers of local government, and seeks a diminution of them insofar as the powers go to central Government at the expense of local government. Therefore, COSLA, representing local authorities, should rightly be opposed to the Bill. However, what about the chamber of commerce in Glasgow? If I were canvassing Labour voters, I should not go to that body first. It says:
  "The Government has gone back on the Conservative party's manifesto pledge to abolish rates and after an exploratory Green Paper debate, the Scottish Office has issued a White Paper entitled 'Valuation and Rating in Scotland: Proposals for Reform' based on the premise that there is little point in replacing rates with an untried and possibly equally unfair system."
  The chamber of commerce did not support Labour. but it also does not think much of the Conservative party reneging on its general commitment and the impression that it had given that it would, some time, abolish domestic rates.
  I am sorry if I am signing on for the Committee, but I do not know whether too many other hon. Members will be doing so. I hope that this does not sound pompous or patronising, but in all the years that I have been here I have never seen as weighty a document from a professional body as the one that we have seen from the Scottish Assessors Association. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden dealt with some of the points in it, and I shall not go into its details. However, it is a bad sign for the Government when a responsible body such as this criticises them. It is a professional body with a difference, as I am sure hon. Members know. Its members are assessors appointed by local government but riot answerable to it. They have an independent role beyond anything like that of social workers or the police. Here we have a body challenging the generality of the Government's approach, as well as some of the details that we shall be looking into in Committee. I have never known that to happen.
  I am talking about what might be a minor part of the Bill, the so-called anomalies. I do not consider that the differences that have arisen because of the different systems in Scotland and in England and Wales for valuation and rating burdens are anomalies. All of us would want to sit down to assess and probe to see whether any injustices have crept in for one reason or another. That would be a fair-minded and basic approach for which all hon. Members would work. Even the Government might have wanted to do so, although they have not got it right. We all agree that there should be some kind of equality between rate burdens, despite the fact that there is a different system.
  I have never known a body as influential in its subject as the Scottish Assessors Association to come out so bitterly in its comments and criticisms without seeing whether it could reach a compromise with the Government behind the scenes. I do not say, cynically, that this is a

  67
  manoeuvre — it is part of the legitimate discussions between Government and professional bodies that have a professional knowledge and interest, away from politics. I have some sympathy with the Minister. He is having a comparitively easy ride on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill, for what that is worth. However, he will have a few heavy sessions in Committee if he takes it on single-handed. I can understand the Labour opposition to the additional powers that the Secretary of State is being granted. I hope that the Minister will clear this point up. That also applies to the arrogance of the Conservative youth from Stirling.
  I have been here long enough to know so much about procedure that I shall never give an opinion and say dogmatically that I am right. The procedures are so complicated that anybody who thinks that the answers are easy should think himself out of that position. I have never known five or six votes on one order. I may be wrong. Perhaps the Government have found out about this, and have consulted the Chair and the Clerks, and perhaps there is a procedure in the Standing Orders, about which I might not know as there are so many Standing Orders. If the Government know something that I do not, I should be delighted to hear about it, because nobody wants to waste time. I do not want to argue about whether there should be one vote or five votes, or whether we should finish in time to get to sleep early. That was another cynical remark from the hon. Member for Stirling. He has never been sitting in here, anxiously wondering whether he could finish in time to get a plane. He has not been here long enough to warm his seat, never mind do anything else.
  We shall be opposing the Bill tonight, and opposing, in the Committee, the parts of the Bill that require to be opposed. There are one or two parts with which we agree, but it is bad in parts and mostly it is thoroughly bad. I hope that hon. Members will reject it.
  6.48 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) had to say about the commitment given in 1974 by the Prime Minister. That commitment has not been implemented, because, although many plans were put forward, there was no consensus as to which should be agreed upon and there was no clear public support for one system and it was thought imprudent to embark on any one.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about Edinburgh zoo, which is in my constituency, and I thank him for coming to my constituency two Fridays ago and investigating the problems of the zoo. In the election, a commitment was given to abolish all anomalies, especially those between the English and Welsh and the Scottish valuations, where there was a grave difference. The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland is being treated most unfairly, by any view, under the present system. I am a life member of the society.
  Edinburgh zoo suffers a gross unfairness because it has a rateable value that is higher than that of any other zoo in Britain. It consists of about 32 hectares and it has a rateable value of £49,358. Whipsnade zoo, which has an area seven times larger, has the infinitely lower rateable value of £17,500.
  68
  London zoo receives £2·8 million from the Treasury, while Edinburgh in stark contrast receives a mere £12,000 from the Scottish education department for its specialist education work. In comparison, Edinburgh zoo receives virtually nothing. The argument for London zoo receiving £2·8 million is that it has a national collection of national significance. However, Edinburgh zoo also has a national collection of national significance and should be better treated than it is at present.
  Virtually all the significant zoos in western Europe are heavily subsidised by their respective Governments. The West Berlin zoo is an exceptional example because many of its facilities were built by the British Army after the second world war.
  Edinburgh zoo's rateable value is especially unfair and produces a rates bill of more than £31,000 a year. London zoo receives £2·8 million from the Treasury and pays far lower rates. Chester zoo, which is infinitely larger than Edinburgh zoo, pays no rates. Similarly, Twycross and Marwell zoos pay no rates. On any view, Edinburgh zoo is treated unfairly.
  I do not know whether Glasgow zoo is within the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, but Edinburgh zoo is treated most unfairly even in comparison with Glasgow zoo. Glasgow zoo's rateable value is £8,347 and the zoo is about a third of the size of Edinburgh zoo. Edinburgh zoo's rates would have to be reduced by over a half to bring them into line with Glasgow's rates. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have a zoo in his constituency although he has a race course, but I believe that Edinburgh zoo is every bit as significant as his race course.
  This is an issue of national significance because Edinburgh zoo has the most outstanding collection of animals in Scotland. It has 304 different species while Glasgow, the next largest zoo, has 99. Some of the species at Edinburgh zoo are well known the world over, not least the penguins, which were well advertised in "Pick up a Penguin". It is undoubtedly the best collection of penguins to be found in any zoo in the world.
  The zoo has an important pioneering education function. No fewer than 50,000 children have been taught educationally at the zoo and for many of them it was their first experience of handling animals. The classes have operated with the greatest possible success, and in formulating them the zoo has had consultations with the Royal botanic gardens, the Royal Scottish museum, teachers' associations and many other organisations of a very high standard. In addition, it plays a decisive role in zoo keeper's training. The programme caters for more than 250 student keepers. As well as the 50,000 children who are taken around the zoo on educational school visits, the zoo has shown round 60,000 pupils.
  The zoo has an important research role and has pioneered a great many research projects. Over the past 10 years it has worked on about 58. It helps expeditions which go abroad, especially those with a Scottish content.
  It is co-operating with other zoos and it is pre-eminent because it has a significant conservation role. Conservation will become more important in the final quarter of the century. It is co-operating with many other zoos in the breeding of various species and in maintaining viable groups for breeding. It is involved in conservation inside Scotland and outside Scotland with other zoos.

  69
  I hope that the Minister will give the most serious consideration to ensuring that clause 13 adequately covers the special position of Edinburgh zoo. It faced a great tragedy when it had to close its aquarium. The reason for the closure was a combination of mounting inflation and mounting fuel costs. The deficit increased each year. In 1980 it was £47,000, in 1981 it was £63,000 and in 1982 it was £81,000. At the same time it has been charged crippling rates, rates that are far higher than those charged to any other zoo.
  The zoo has done everything requested of it by the Government. It has employed hundreds of young persons under the Manpower Services Commission's scheme. When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was a Labour Minister, he kindly took the trouble to visit the zoo to see the scheme operating in practice. I stress that it operated very well. It has also employed 100 volunteers and paid them nothing. It has relied on self-help in exactly the way the Government would wish.
  The danger is that clause 13 does not properly cover the zoo's needs. The zoo has the foremost collection of animals in Scotland and it seems that there is the danger that its collection may be depleted year by year and whittled away as a result of a series of makeshift economies.
  On leaving the zoo the other day with the hon. Member for Linlithgow, we decided to pay a courtesy call to Maria. Maria is an orang-outang which the hon. Gentleman presented to the zoo. When we visited Maria it appeared that she had a spark of recognition for the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in the years to come a system can be devised to ensure that Maria and all those like her will continue to flourish.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been a Member of this House for nearly 20 years. However, this is the first time that I have ever sought to intervene in a debate on Scottish affairs. That is despite the advantage that my Christian name might give me in catching your eye in such debates.
  As this is such a momentous occasion in my life, I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks on zoos, no matter how interesting that subject may be. I shall restrict my comments to clause 3.
  I have three reasons for thinking that my Scottish colleagues should listen to me, an English Member. First, I promise faithfully to be very short. Secondly, I assure them that this is for me a one-off intervention in Scottish affairs. Thirdly, the only balanced, sensible and reasonable speech that I have heard from the Government Benches throughout the debate came from another Englishman. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) intervened in the speech of the Secretary of State and made it clear that he would not accept the content of clause 3.
  The Bill is a constitutional outrage. The outrage is being committed in one part of the United Kingdom, but if one attacks our constitution all right hon. and hon. Members are affected, whether they come from England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. That is why I have sought to intervene in the debate.
  On previous occasions the Government have introduced legislation for Scotland and subsequently translated that legislation to England and Wales. When they have
  70
  introduced legislation for Scotland they have said to us poor Sassenachs, "You do not understand that Scottish local government is entirely different from local government in England and Wales; it is far more centralised. You do not understand the system." When we have swallowed that, they have produced legislation for England and explained, "All that we are doing is bringing England and Wales into line with Scotland." That has happened twice since 1979 and I am certain, as the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said. that they are using Scotland as a guinea pig for a virus which they will use to infect the whole of the United Kingdom during this Session.
  It has been said that this is a pioneering measure, but this is precisely the type of pioneering in local government of which the Government have been guilty on two occasions during the present Parliament.
  The Bill is a constitutional monstrosity. We have in the entire United Kingdom an unwritten constitution. II is a dual franchise system. We are elected to the House as hon. Members of various parties and councillors are elected by almost precisely the same electors to district councils or regional councils in Scotland and to county councils in England. They have a mandate to carry out, just as we have a mandate to carry out. In those circumstances, it is entirely wrong and unbalanced constitutionally for one group of elected representatives to seek, in the way that clause 3 does, to limit the powers of another group of elected representatives, who are themselves responsible to the electorate.
  I was a Minister in a previous Labour Government and I appreciate that central Government have responsibilities over the total amount of money that they spend within the nation as a whole and also with regard to the grant that they give to local government. Conservative Members referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Govan (Mr. Milian) who, in 1976—I must share some of the guilt — was faced with the difficulty of trying to persuade local authorities to spend less money. We did not introduce anything as unconstitutional and draconian as clause 3 to say that the Secretary of State, whether of England, Wales or Scotland, could intervene in local authorities and tell them what their rate should be and how much they should spend. That is what clause 3 seeks to do and that is in no way a continuation of any policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan or of any Labour Minister in that Government.
  Local authorities are elected bodies and are responsible to an electorate. I am reminded of the old American constitutional cry at the time of the War of Independence, "No taxation without representation." The reverse is equally true. One cannot have adequate representation without a power of taxation. That is precisely w hat the Government are seeking to bring about in Scotland by this Bill, and, by design, subsequently in England and Wales.
  In local authority circles in England we call it not rate capping, but knee capping. Clause 3 is doing institutionally precisely what knee capping does to an individual. It is a vindictive and violent punishment. That is what the Government intend for local authorities. They are vindictive towards local authorities and they intend to punish them because they do not obey the dictates of central Government. Just as knee capping cripples a human being, so rate capping cripples a local authority and renders it unable to stand on its own feet. It has precisely

  71
  the same effect; no wonder we refer facetiously to the likely legislation for England and Wales as "knee capping".
  I assure the House that the proposal is implacably opposed by English and Welsh local government associations as, I believe, it is opposed by the relevant associations in Scotland. I am a vice-president of the Association of County Councils in England and Wales and of the Association of District Councils, both of which are Conservative-controlled. The Association of County Councils is heavily Conservative-controlled. I assure Conservative Members, with the full authority of those associations, that we will fight in every way the proposals for rate capping as outlined in clause 3. Sometimes, different local authority associations in England and Wales have varied in the ferocity of their attacks on what the Conservative Government were doing. That is particularly so of the Association of County Councils. But that is not the case with rate capping. They are absolutely opposed to this unconstitutional proposal.
  I promised that I would not speak for a long time. It is a pity that more English and Welsh Members have not been present for the debate. It is outrageous that some Conservative Scottish Members have taken the line that they have during the debate and I wonder how those Members will explain to their councillors at regional and district level why they supported the Bill or why they were not here to listen to one of the most important debates affecting local government in Scotland. When the bell rings at 10 o'clock — I use John Donne's famous words—
  "And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee"
  I say to my English and Welsh colleagues: it tolls for us as well, as for Scotland, unless the Bill is opposed and rejected.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. John Corrie: I wish to go down the path of the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). I came here with a specific remit from the Conservative councillors of my district council to support the Bill because they strongly believe in the Bill as it stands. Perhaps, as has already been said, there are Conservatives who oppose it, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives on Cunninghame district council have given me not only their permission to say that they support the Bill, but demand that I say it. I welcome most of the Bill, but I do not support parts of it and I shall return to those later.
  I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, if we are willing to bring forward controversial legislation such as this, we must face it head on. We cannot duck behind the hope that we will never have to use it. If we put proposals into a Bill we must face up to the fact that at some point we may have to use them.
  I was one of those to whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred who are disappointed that we have not scrapped the whole rating system. I think that it is an extremely iniquitous and unfair system which bears mostly on those who can least afford to pay. Many of my constituents along the coast of Ayrshire are old and live in their own houses. There are many widows and widowers living in those houses who are suffering now in
  72
  their old age because they can no longer afford to keep those houses up. The main burden of owning those large houses is the rates bill, which causes enormous problems.
  Part of the problem arises from the valuation of those properties. I can never understand the way the properties are valued. The valuer in some cases appears to pluck a figure from the air and then double it or treble it. A house that is slightly inland may have a completely different valuation and rent structure and therefore a completely different rate burden. If we are to continue with rates, we must consider how these valuations are carried out. I hope that this problem can be looked at under clause 13.
  Clause 7 says that if one buys a house, moves into it and then finds that there is a high rate level, one can then question the rating on that house. How does anyone moving into a house know that he can question the rate level? Will a circular be sent out so that people who change houses can know that if they want to question a rate bill they can do so?
  My area is committed to tourism. One of the major problems in the area is caravan parks. The situation there is extremely serious and therefore I welcome clauses 11 and 12. In many cases it is almost too late because a large number of caravanners have pulled out of Scotland. That particularly applies to the south of Scotland because, being reasonably close to the border and the north of England, caravanners can move to sites where their expenses are much lower than they are in Scotland, and I will give a few figures to illustrate the difference.
  The average 30 ft by 10 ft static caravan in my constituency is rated at about £120. In the Lake District the same caravan is rated at about £40. For an empty pitch —one with no caravan and therefore no income—the average rateable value in that coastal area which depends so much on tourism is £28 per pitch. The same pitch in England costs between £12 and £16.
  If we consider sites as a whole, the comparisons are quite frightening. A good park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—I am thinking of one with 240 caravans—is paying about £27,000 in rates. In the north of England a caravan site containing 300 pitches is paying £9,000. The incentive is for people to pull their caravans off the pitches in Scotland and move south. If we are to even up the situation as between England and Scotland, I am led to believe that the difference is about 40 per cent. I hope that such an evening up will take place, and I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he will look at the comparable figures for the two countries.
  Another major problem with the leisure industry is that site owners are being undermined by exploitive tourism. Throughout Scotland there are springing up caravan sites that do not need a licence. These sites can have five caravans without providing any facilities. In a private Member's Bill that was due to be presented two weeks ago it was suggested that that number should be increased to eight caravans. In addition, when there are caravan rallies, the participating caravans can sit on pitches for five days without it being a legalised park. Indeed, there was a suggestion in that Bill that instead of five days it should be 28 days.
  It is unfair that people should spend vast sums of money providing all the facilities that are required for caravan sites to encourage tourists to them only to see in a field up the road a large number of caravans coming in without any facilities having been provided for them. The latter sites

  73
  do not provide toilet, washing and other facilities, and they do not pay rates. There is also the problem of the illegal parking of caravans. I refer to caravanners who simply pull into laybys. I hope that local authorities will clamp down on that because the more people who park at the side of the road, the less revenue is going into legitimate caravan sites.
  Considering the problems of the hotels in the area about which I am speaking, I cannot see how the Bill will even up the discrepancies between England and Scotland. However, I may have misread the measure, in which case the Minister will correct me when he replies.
  Sadly, this week we have seen the marina and curling hall in Largs go, with the local hotel's furniture and furnishings being sold prior to it being pulled down so that a block of flats can be built on the site. It was one of the largest, perhaps best, hotels in that coastal area. That happened because that hotel was paying £26,000 a year in rates. A comparable hotel in the south of England with a comparable rate poundage pays about £4,600 a year. The add-on per room cost makes for a very large difference indeed.
  As Opposition Members have pointed out, the crunch point in the Bill comes with the power that it gives to the Secretary of State to control local authority expenditure by rate capping, and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) spoke ferociously against that. The Secretary of State said that it would be used only in the last resort, as the ultimate deterrent. I have previously said that, if we are to have such legislation, it should, if necessary, be used. If we put such a sanction in measure, we should have the courage to support its use.
  The complaint of Labour Members is that measures such as this are killing off local democracy, and they say that Scotland is different from England because there is no Tory mandate there.
  Mr Maxton: That is correct.
  Mr Corrie: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot have a section of this House as a party in Scotland and at the same time adopt the independent line that many Labour Members would like to take. If they wish to continue to be a part of this House, they cannot have an independence outwith it.
  Mr Maxton: The logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is the abolition of the Scottish Office and no separate Scottish entity in this House. I can follow the logic of that. I cannot follow the logic of Conservative Members saying that they want to stay part of the United Kingdom but are not prepared to give democratic control to the 99·6 per cent. of Scottish civil servants who work in Scotland and not in England.
  Mr Corrie: There is no halfway house, so we are faced with a straight choice that Opposition Members must accept. Either we are part of the United Kingdom within the Westminster system, or there is a totally separate Scotland with an independent Government in Scotland. There is nothing in between. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. The Labour and Conservatives parties have looked in the past at ways of trying to find a better system, but no alternative system has got through this House.
  Mr Canavan: The hon. Gentleman says that there cannot be anything between absolute uniformity in the
  74
  United Kingdom and complete separation or independence. Why, then, are we debating the Second Reading of a Bill that applies only to the people and local authorities of Scotland?
  Mr. Corrie: Because we are part of the Westminster system and we discuss Scottish legislation within that system. That is why we are discussing it here and not in an independent parliament in Edinburgh.
  A Glasgow councillor is reported in one of today's newspapers as saying that, if the Bill became law, local authorities will become only an arm of this House. Local authorities are now only an arm of this House; they are there because this House, by statute, has put them there. Democracy in local government applies primarily to spending the money that local authorities have to spend once it has been decided what those overall sums shall be. Therefore, the argument adduced by Opposition Members. on that subject is week.
  But I disagree with the Secretary of State on the question of rate support grant being used to control local authority expenditure by cutting central Government support. No Minister will admit that the local authority will simply slap the addition straight on to the rates. A story in my local newspaper from the local Labour group states that, because the rate support grant has been cut, a number of pennies would automatically be added to the rates before anything else was considered. I hope that some of the powers in this measure will be used in such a way as to stop that automatic shift of expenditure from central Government on to the backs of the ratepayers in all areas of Scotland.
  I am not sure of the value of clause 4, which is about consultation with non-domestic ratepayers. I have spoken to all the businesses in my area, and all that they say is that the rates are too high, so they must be cut. I admit that there is no other answer to the question of whether the rates are too high. That is fair. There is no doubt that because of high rates in some areas small businesses have suffered, collapsed, or moved away. However, the converse is also true. If one agrees that, because a business needs a little relief, one will cut its rate bill, the money will have to be found somewhere else. The domestic ratepayer will have to pay a little more, so he will suffer again.
  I warmly welcome the help that will be given under clause 5 to the disabled. I hope that something positive and practical will come out of that clause. Clause 14 means that changes in valuations can take place. In most cases valuations should go down, so rates should go down, not up. I hope that that will be considered also.
  Mr Dewar: That was the purpose.
  Mr Corrie: One hears mostly about rents going up, but rents go down as well as up.
  Mr Dewar: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point. The changes in rental value are interesting. Obviously, the measure is geared to a situation in which there has been a fall. Therefore, the valuation should be adjusted downwards on appeal, taking advantage of the new provision. The important point is whether there will be an allowance for inflation as it is extremely unlikely that the rents will fall in cash terms. They may fall in real terms. If it is left on a cash basis, the provision will be almost worthless.
  Mr. Corrie: Time will tell. I am glad that I am an ignorant farmer and not an urban dweller like the hon. Gentleman. He knows much more about the matter than I do. I bow to his superior knowledge.
  When the Bill becomes law, all that we shall have done is to tinker with the existing system. I should have preferred a complete change. I still believe that the only real answer is to scrap the rating system, cutting the throat of the sacred Conservative cow, and increase taxation in such a way that we can pay finances to the local authorities from the Exchequer rather than put the present burden on those who pay rates. We cannot tinker enough to make the present system fairer for those who suffer from it. As long as we retain it, people in my constituency who live in large owner occupier houses will carry an unjust and unfair burden.
  The only thing on which I disagree with my Front Bench is clause 2, on procedure. It is a nice thought that we would know that there was only one hour and a half of debate and a vote, and the debate would be all over at 11.30 pm. However, if the Government are taking fairly draconian measures, it is only right that those who are affected have a chance to say how they feel. Many councils might be taken to task by the Government, and they would expect hon. Members representing their districts to make a speech within the one and a half hours of debate. I genuinely hope that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers will consider that matter in Committee.
  I support most of the Bill. No doubt I shall be on the Committee. In Committee I shall consider certain matters, but on the whole I warmly welcome the Bill.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State's opening speech showed a lack of conviction and confidence in what he was doing. He seemed, if I understood him right, to say how much he disliked the measure that he was introducing, but that the ends, painful as they were, justified the means. That is not an acceptable reason for proposing such a fundamental measure.
  The clause that causes most concern is clause 3. Despite the Secretary of State's assurances, I believe that it involves a major shift in the emphasis of decision making in Scotland. As hon. Members have already said, it paves the way for the Government's wish to make a similar shift in England and Wales. I challenge the Secretary of State to say on what basis he believes the Scottish Office is a more democratically represented body of the Scottish people than the democratically elected local authorities, which at least have been elected in Scotland by their local communities to do a job. The Secretary of State's Scottish Office commands the support of only 28 per cent. of the voters in Scotland, yet he presumes to suggest that it knows better than the local authorities elected by local communities. That is a dangerous step.
  The Scottish Office is not very accountable to the House. It is certainly not accountable to the Scottish people. It has developed a habit of issuing its promulgations by press release and written answer rather than by arguing its case in the House. The Bill is part of the evidence of the Secretary of State seeking powers to do more of that. Clause 2, which enables him to bring forward a global order that will take in a number of local authorities, is a retrograde step. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the Government
  76
  do not treat the House with much respect. To seek such an order demonstrates greater contempt towards the House than has been demonstrated in individual orders.
  My main concern about the Bill is that, fundamentally, it is centralist. It is interesting and appropriate that it will become an Act in 1984, a significant year. The Bill smacks of the "Big Brother" approach. The Secretary of State will need time to get used to being called "Big George". He has not been used to that in the past.
  The Bill is cowardly. It has failed to grasp the real issue, which is the need to reform the rating system. The battery of evidence from Layfield has been thrust aside as irrelevant. The work and consultation that went into that report have been swept aside. All sorts of bodies have stated clearly for many years that they want a reform of the rating system. Some people say that they want it to be abolished. The Government have done neither of those things. If they were concerned about the problems of commercial ratepayers, which I understand and share, they could have taken the approach of allowing a 10 per cent. reduction in commercial rates across the board. That would have been direct, positive and identifiable help for commercial businesses, which they would have appreciated. They could have said that that was something that the Government had done for them. To do what the Government are doing will not directly help commercial ratepayers.
  The Government say that consultation of commercial interests will be required. It is not clear what that means. First, it is not clear what the consultation process will be. Who will be consulted? Who is the representative of business? Is it the Confederation of British Industry, chambers of commerce or the Institute of Small Business? What about the many businesses that are not members of those organisations? How will they be consulted? Will they be consulted individually if there is no one to represent them? As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) said, all that they say is that they want the rates to be cut. In the circumstances in which local authorities operate, we have not learnt anything during that wasteful procedure that we did not know before, which is that commercial businesses feel the burden of rates and want a reduction.
  I believe that they would have been more appreciative if the Government had taken direct action to give them the benefit of the reduction. I suggest with some temerity that Labour Members are not completely guiltless in this matter. I do not wish to make a sweeping condemnation, but several Labour-controlled councils have to some extent given the Government the excuse that they need. I refer not to those councils who have legitimately stated that they have interests and wish to defend the views of their electorate, but to councils such as Lothian who have blatantly gone out of their way to defy the Government and follow a contrary policy. Such unacceptable behaviour, regrettably, gave the Government an excuse effectively to take a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
  The sad fact about Lothian is that the voters acted properly. They took a democratic decision to throw the council out. When the new council proposed a revised budget, it was still unacceptable to the Secretary of State. As a result, the moderate council members became disillusioned as to whether the consultation process between central and local government was a two-way street. All the traffic is coming from the Government and the Bill is indicative of a one-way street. When the

  77
  Government suggest that local authorities are less representative than the Scottish Office they understandably ignore the fact that there is always the option of making local authorities more representative by changing the voting system. Such a suggestion would not appeal to the Government who have swept aside any willingness to examine such reform. They are not interested in securing representative government. Attacking Left or Right-wing opponents is more fun, but it produces dog fights that degrade politics because constructive debate and dialogue do not take place. The Scottish Office is not famous for that type of reform any more than it is for having grasped the nettle of the need to reform rates.
  I believe that the general attitude that flavours the behaviour of the Scottish Office towards local authorities was borne out by the decision of a recent planning appeal in Aberdeen. A planning application to build 1,400 houses was objected to by the community council, which is a nonpolitical body, by the Labour-controlled city council and by the the Conservative-controlled regional council but, nevertheless, the plan was approved. That decision demonstrates absolute contempt towards local consultation and the wishes of local people. The attitude of the Scottish Office is that big brother, as always, knows best. I regret the fact that the Government consider themselves justified in introducing such draconian measures.
  I welcome the interjections by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) who expressed the genuine resentment and concern on Conservative Back Benches and among Conservative councillors against the significance of the proposed legislation. Regrettably the Government seem to think that they can enforce the legislation on Scotland. The signs are that if enough ripples are caused south of the border the English measures may not be brought forward. However, Scotland, unfortunately, would have been stuck with the measures by then.
  The Secretary of State should address himself to the broader constituency problems of Scotland and not just deal with the difficult councils who have obsessed him in the measures that he has introduced to the House in the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament. I represent Gordon district council which considers that it has been treated extremely unfairly by the Scottish Office in recent yars. Gordon district council has no political bias. It was initially singled out for not selling council houses fast enough. The council considers that the selling of council houses has been popular, but no real account was taken of the fact that the council was selling proportionately more than many other authorities without increasing staff. However, the authority had extreme difficulty in processing the sales at the speed required by the Scottish Office. The local authority challenges the figures on which the Scottish Office bases its calculations. For a council to be rapped over the knuckles when it considers that it was doing everything reasonable creates resentment.
  The Gordon council accepted enthusiastically, as did all Scottish councils, the Government's policy on home improvement grants. Many people were encouraged to apply for the grants, and it is greatly embarrassed by the fact that the Government have cut support for them. That has created much extra work which the authority must cope with without the necessary resources and manpower.
  78
  It considers that the proposed calculation of rates—the client-group method — is likely to leave it at a considerable disadvantage. That problem could be of direct relevance to the consequences of the Bill.
  As the local authority understands those consequences — the Secretary of State may well argue that it does not—it has some reason to be apprehensive as to the changes introduced by the Scottish Office. It is worried that the new method of assessment could have a significant impact on its need to finance its own resources, and the cut in rate support grant which in practical terms would follow. It estimates that a 58 per cent. increase in rates could be necessary just to stand still.
  The consequences of such rate increases would be catastrophic for many businesses. If the Government sought to penalise such a council the consequences would be even more catastrophic. By having changed the rate support grant, the Government would have forced it into a position of either suddenly or gradually making up the deficit from its own resources. For the Government then to impose rate capping on the local authority would have a catastrophic effect in terms of the rate increase that might be imposed and the effect of the loss of services on businesses within my constituency.
  I seek an assurance from the Government that local authorities such as the Gordon district council, which are non-political and have always sought to co-operate with the Government, should be exempted from the measure. The Gordon district council already considers that it has been hard hit by Government measures directed elsewhere, but which have taken many innocent bystanders within their path.
  The Liberal party considers that decisions should be taken bearing in mind the wishes of the local community. The Government are drawing power up from the grass roots when they should be passing it down. I assure the Government that disaffection with this measure has spread wider, despite the protestations that have been made, than just to Liberal and Labour-controlled councils. It affects individuals who work for the local authorities and who are dedicated and hard working, and councillors of all political persuasions who consider that they are being got at. They feel that the Secretary of State is forcing them to make cuts that he is not prepared to make himself.
  Mr Albert McQuarrie: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to the catastrophic effect that the loss of the improvement grants will have on Gordon district council. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the 90 per cent. grant will be payable to those applicants who have made application to their local authority and have had them approved until 31 March 1984.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the money allocated by the Government to his local authority for next year, provided it observes the guidelines, should enable it to meet its commitments because it is in exactly the same position as my local authority?
  Mr. Bruce: It is clear that those who have legally contracted to have home improvements carried out and have a legal agreement with the council will in due course get their 90 per cent. although it is not clear when they will do so. The Government actively encouraged the whole process and consequently many of my constituents have been given estimates and are more or less committed to

  79
  making improvements for which they will not necessarily receive the 90 per cent. grant, because they will not have had approval in time. As a result, some of them may not receive the full benefit. However, I accept that the legal commitment will be honoured. Nevertheless, that does not get the hon. Gentleman off the hook, because many people may have begun the process of going for a home improvement grant and the council has had to impose a moratorium on accepting more applicants. That gives rise to resentment among those who have not benefited.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the allocation of rate support grant and improvement grants to the district during the coming year. However, that is not the point of issue that the council has raised with me. It is concerned about proposals for a new method of calculating rate support grant, which it feels will be disadvantageous, partly because it will involve a reduction in or removal of the oil-related grant — and given the district's high rate of population growth, that gives cause for concern—and partly because it believes that full account has not been taken, under the new system, of the rural nature of the area. We shall have to see how things work out. However, the concern is real, and the effect of Government cuts and policy during the past two or three years has not increased my council's confidence in its relationship with the Scottish Office.
  Mr McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped my point. When the decision was made to cut the 90 per cent., it was made perfectly clear that every applicant who had applied to the local authority for the 90 per cent. grant and had received its approval to carry out the improvements would get that 90 per cent. until 31 March 1984. That is clear. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the 50 per cent. still remains, although many of us disagree with the act. I want to drive home that point about the 90 per cent., because I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood it.
  Mr Bruce: I thought that I had made myself clear. I understand what the hon. Gentleman said, but a moratorium has been imposed on my constituency. In addition, the timing for receiving the money is not clear. I am frequently contacted by constituents who have experienced delays, at the very least, in being able to carry out the work, and instead of moving in in the autumn, it may mean that they cannot move in until next spring. That causes genuine concern. The Government should have anticipated such disruption instead of encouraging councils to set the ball rolling and then cutting the grant from under their feet. However, I am not disputing the proposition that the 90 per cent. will ultimately be paid to those who applied in time.
  Whatever protestations the Secretary of State may make, it is my conviction that such legislation will fundamentally alter the character of local government. It undermines the morale and confidence of both councillors and officials, many of whom do a great deal of good work and are close to their local communities and committed to them. I have never disputed the Government's right to dictate or alter the level of rate support grant, but it is quite another thing to take direct control over the rate settings.
  The various formulations and changes of policy that continually emanate from the Scottish Office do not always achieve the savings that the Government want.
  80
  Indeed, they often cost money, cause frustration and waste time and effort. Two councillors, one of whom is a member of the governing party, are concerned about the implications of the changes that I have referred to. They say that the district council has sought to keep rates as low as possible and to stimulate local employment by encouraging commerce and industry to move to the district. What are members of the council now to say to such industrialists if they are faced, as a result of the change in the formulation of the rate support grant, and through no fault of their own, with large increases?
  The Government should recognise that councils are elected by their local community and are in touch with them. They are genuinely concerned about the commercial operators who pay too much in rates and about the injustices of the rating system. To meet that concern, the Government should first impose across-the-board rate relief for commercial ratepayers. Secondly, they should reform the whole rating system. Thirdly, they should reform local government in a way that makes it truly democratic and accountable, and, indeed, much more democratic and accountable than the Scottish Office is or can be, given its remoteness and the Government's lack of mandate to govern the people of Scotland.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I trust that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will forgive me for saying that the debate is memorable. Although I have been a Member of Parliament for 18 months and in local government for 18 years, this is my first opportunity to address the House on local government. In that 18 months I think that I have heard every speech in every local government debate bar one. I was even in the Chamber when we held the debate on the Kirkcaldy order, and would have been willing to vote if my Whips had been anxious for me to do so.
  It may well be less than prudent to say so, but it seems that the more involved one is in local government, the less likely one is to be heard by the Government Front Bench. Even the two Ministers on the Front Bench tonight do not appear to be listening to a word that I am saying. When they have read in tomorrow's edition of Hansard what I have said today, I hope that they will reflect on the words of Harold Wilson when Michael Noble was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland. Harold Wilson said that he had been appointed because he was the only Scottish Member that Harold Macmillan had not heard make a speech. I am in the unfortunate position of having heard all the speeches and I have not learnt anything new.
  I do not think that there are many Ministers who have local government experience, but there seems to be a prejudice — perhaps it is subconscious — against local government. Indeed, it has been reflected in most of the speeches made by Conservative Members, with the exception of that made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). As the hon. Member for Gordon has said, many people in district after district, region after region and in the island authorities have devoted much time, effort and energy to the success of their local authorities. It is incredible and, indeed, unacceptable that I have not heard one ministerial speech so far that has paid tribute to them and has accepted that they exist to serve the community to the best of their

  81
  ability and in very difficult circumstances. I am sure that the House would want to acknowledge the contribution made by Scottish councils—regional, island and district.
  The major question before us was posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). It concerns the simple issue of the role of local government in our democracy. Since the Government came to power local government powers have been steadily eroded. Moreover, local authorities have had to deal with problems that were not of their own making while being attacked because of their manpower levels and the types of services that they wanted to maintain. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading it will be a grave—and yet another—blow to Scottish local government. No one can disguise that fact.
  Neither the Secretary of State nor his right hon. and hon. Friends have said much about services. They are extremely important. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Edinburgh. West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) were right when they said that local authorities exist to exercise statutory powers that the House has given them. It is bordering almost on the immoral for the House to give local authorities statutory powers and then to deny them the resources necessary to ensure that those powers are effectively and efficiently exercised.
  If the Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State, who has not been elected to deal with housing in Monklands, education on Tayside or housing repairs in Hamilton, will be able to take it upon himself to decide, in spite of the wishes of the local electorate in those areas, that their rates are excessive and unreasonable. Without having a majority in Scotland and without having a majority in any of the local authorities he can decide to intervene.
  Mr McQuarrie: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's considerable experience in local government. Does he accept that the bulk of the money that is paid to local authorities comes from Government, regardless of its policital colour? Surely the Government have a right to know what the local authority is doing. If local authorities are exceeding their powers, as many have in the past few years, it is right for the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene. It would be the same if the Opposition were in power and discovered that local authorities were not carrying out their obligations.
  Mr Clarke: The Government have exercised their rights, in terms of representing the taxpayer, by introducing the very statutory duties that we have been discussing. The matter calls for much judgment and common sense. When the Government go beyond their rights they invite the type of difficulties that they have encountered in several local authorities and which I predict will intensify if the Bill is enacted.
  Local authorities want to do an effective job for their communities. Ever since the Wheatley report, local authorities have watched the Government interfering in the statutory rights that were given to them by the electors and in the exercise of the powers that Parliament wishes them to have. The Bill represents yet another intervention. What the Government intended to do after 1979 was not quite so blatant as what they are doing now. They are now saying, "We have had all of these problems trying to persuade local authorities to agree with our financial approach. We have tried to persuade them but that has not worked. We have tried bullying but perhaps that has not
  82
  worked, so we shall introduce this new Act." By doing that the Government erode the standing and role of local government. They do so at their peril.
  Right hon. and hon. Members who have referred to anxieties about the rating system have more than a point. We ought to be honest with our constituents. Time and again we have discussed rating reform. We have set up all sorts of committees and commissions. I gave evidence to the Layfield commission. Although we are all critical of the rating system, nobody has yet devised an acceptable substitute for the present system. We should admit that. That being so, the situation is fragile and we must be careful about the way in which we handle the relationship between the Government and local government.
  Local government has an extremely good record. Authorities have three objectives. First, they must respond, within the law, to the views of their electorates. Secondly, they must take account of the social factors of their communities. Thirdly, they are communities within a national structure so that when national problems such as unemployment and the state of our economy reflect on local communities local authorities have a responsibility, which is recognised by statute, to protect communities that they represent as much as they can and, if necessary, introduce new initiatives in the interests of local people.
  The Bill represents an impediment to those three objectives. Because of that and because the Government have been examining all sorts of means to reduce their contribution to local government, many problems are arising. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is no longer present. I should like to tell him and his supporters—I did not detect that there were many of them— that he has gone far too far. Perhaps that is understandable. I gather that he is a councillor for Pimlico. Today he made a pre-election speech which might have been suitable for Pimlico but was irrelevant in terms of Scottish local government.
  The hon. Gentleman went much too far because he tried to persuade Scottish people, including some of us who feel that we have done a fair bit to assist Scottish local government, that we should set aside everything that we have discovered over the years, including our social patterns, and put in its place a Milton Friedman philosophy which no doubt appeals to him and some of the students at St. Andrews university whom we saw on television the other night. That is not good enough. The people of Scotland are proud of their local government. They were given to believe in 1973–74, after the Wheatley report, that things would change for the better. They recall that the first sentence of the Wheatley report said:
  "Something is seriously wrong with local government in Scotland."
  The trouble with the Government's activities since they came to power is that, instead of allowing local authorities to carry on with their work, to identify the problems and to try to find solutions, they have imposed even greater problems on them, not least by their niggardly attitude to local government finance. We have heard Conservative Members lay the blame for closure of shops, commerce and the rest at the doors of local authorities. That is absolute nonsense. Although rates are important, they represent less than 1 per cent. of the costs which face industry and commerce.
  Shops and places of commerce are closing because of the recession, and the Government's policies have added to the problems that people are facing. If the Conservative

  83
  party, and especially the hon. Member for Stirling, are worried about this issue, I refer them to the record of the last Labour Government, which has been maligned during this debate, but which shows that during the Labour party's last three years in office rate contributions by industry and commerce declined. Had that decline continued to 1983, the rate burden on industry, shops and commerce would have been considerably less.
  Those in local government who are paying great attention to our deliberations—and who will, perhaps, be disappointed when they hear the result of the vote—should not lose heart. Local government has been with us for a long time and will be here for still longer. We cannot say the same about this Government. Their approach is pragmatic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said, their approach changes from time to time. The Prime Minister gave certain pledges about the abolition of rates, about putting education into the national structure, and so on. That did not happen. Local government has been damaged by the Government, and the Bill is yet another contribution to that damage. Local government can and will recover, if only because of the concern for individual communities that exists in Scottish local government. That will triumph in the end.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Hirst: I compliment the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—my neighbouring Member of Parliament—on his candid admission that no satisfactory alternative to rates has yet been devised. That is why we are debating a Bill that makes alterations, albeit minor ones, to the rating system, rather than one which, lock, stock and barrel, abolishes domestic rates.
  I should very much have welcomed the opportunity to discuss a Bill to abolish domestic rates. However, like the hon. Member for Monklands, West, I recognise that we can alter an existing system only when we can introduce a system that will work effectively and cheaply in practice. To have abolished domestic rates and substituted some type of major bureaucratic alternative would have been a retrograde step. I compliment my colleagues on the Government Front Bench on not doing that.
  Earlier today we had the strange spectacle of the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) breezing into the Chamber to tell us that this was the first time in 20 years that he had chosen to make a contribution to a Scottish debate. He told us in vigorous terms how much the Labour party opposed this measure, and he used a great many strong adverbs. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that today there has seldom been more than 10 per cent. of Labour Members representing Scottish constituents sitting in the Chamber. There was one token appearance from the alliance, and even he has disappeared. I cannot believe that this measure was fought with the—
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Where was the hon. Gentleman during the Secretary of State's speech? He was late.
  Mr Hirst: I happily acknowledge the fact that I was late. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the fog at London airport disrupted all the airline schedules. I was 12 minutes late to hear my right hon. Friend's speech because I chose to support a free enterprise airline which
  84
  was affected by fog at London airport. I have no doubt that had it not been for that I should have heard my right hon. Friend.
  A suggestion was made by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Monklands, West, that the Conservative party was prejudiced against local government. That is not the case. There is a prejudice only against those local authorities which, by following reckless spending policies, put the future of business and commerce in doubt. I have a great number of colleagues who serve in local government, and for whom I have the highest regard. I would go so far as to say that the elected representatives of local government in the district which I represent have, by and large, shown much responsibility and good sense in their prudent management of the affairs of the district council. To show that I am approaching this measure in an even-handed way, I add that one of those authorities is Conservative-controlled and the other is Labour-controlled.
  Last week, during a debate on the Scottish economy, Labour Members evinced their customary concern about unemployment. Is that concern properly placed when, at the same time, they are not prepared to be critical of local authorities that drive up rates and so destroy commerce and, in its wake, jobs? There is a direct correlation between the progressive financial debilitation of business caused by higher rates and business closures.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the increase in rates in Scotland during the past four years. He said that this rate increase was one and a half times the prevailing inflation rate, and a rise of no less than 136 per cent. in five years. I represent a constituency that is close to Glasgow, and until recently I was a ratepayer in Glasgow. I know what I am talking about when I refer to the rates that the business community, especially large department stores, in Glasgow must endure.
  There are a number of very reputable and fine shopping streets in Glasgow, but, as Conservative Members who have shopped in or who live in Glasgow know, the shopping areas have been progressively destroyed. Each store that has gone has attributed high rates to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I know that those stores have had to trade in difficult times, but the closure process has been going on for many years, including the times when there was low inflation and when there was a consumer boom. The Glasgow department stores have been crippled by high rates.
  I am sorry if Labour Members dispute that fact, and I can suggest only that they return home to their constituencies during the Christmas recess and start talking to local business communities. I am certain they will find that, after interest rates, the overhead which most adversely affects business is local authority rates. People recognise that the Government have taken action to stabilise interest rates and I believe that, broadly speaking, they are glad that the Government are prepared to tackle their other source of concern—domestic rates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) referred to rates paid by Marks and Spencer in Glasgow. I make no apology for appearing to be parochial, because an important economic lesson must be derived from the history of rates in Glasgow. I cite the case, to which I referred several months ago in the House, of Lewis' store in Glasgow, which pays more rates than the entire rates bill of Harrods in Knightsbridge. It is therefore impossible for

  85
  department stores and similar businesses in Glasgow to compete effectively. When department stores close their doors, unfortunately that means the end of jobs.
  Mr Dewar: I am not clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He could mean the rate poundage, the rate valuation, or a combination of both. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, in view of what the Secretary of State said this afternoon, it is clear that, at least on the valuation point, there is no hope under the Bill for the department stores.
  Mr Hirst: The greatest concern is caused not just by the valuation, but more importantly by the rate poundage. Local government rates have increased by 136 per cent. in five years, and this is one and a half times the inflation rate. It is little wonder that when businesses have to cope with that level of overhead they eventually close their doors and go out of business.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling also mentioned the number of people employed by local authorities, which now stands at 6,200 more than in 1978. We are all aware that additional responsibilities have been placed on regional councils by statute during the past five years. Nevertheless, there is a deep and widespread concern that local authorities are not sufficiently efficient.
  I must make one point in favour of the smaller authorities. When manpower restrictions are imposed, they are least able to make the necessary economies. Larger authorities such as Glasgow have considerable room to increase their operational efficiency. Why have local authorities in Scotland 20 per cent. more staff than their counterparts in England? The difference in the statutory provisions that govern their activities is not great enough to justify that differential.
  Unlike domestic ratepayers, non-domestic ratepayers have had no right of representation to date. Therefore, I welcome the provision that they should be consulted by local authorities. We must bear in mind that non-domestic ratepayers bear 60 per cent. of the rate burden.
  I welcome clause 6, which enables the Secretary of State to impose a limit on the contribution from the rate fund to the housing revenue account. The House has already been told that the rate fund contribution totals almost £126 million this year. Conservative Members generally recognise that that is a wasteful subsidy to all ratepayers. It is not necessary, because it takes no account of need. There is a perfectly adequate rent and rate rebate scheme in operation, and those who require assistance receive it. That £126 million is used to subsidise all tenants, whether or not they need it. It takes no account of the cascading effect on ratepayers who are not tenants and do not participate in that windfall.
  That typically wasteful subsidy last year squeezed the capital allocation of no fewer than 27 district councils. The business community will welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to take action, thereby ensuring that the capital allocations of the council are not squeezed, and the money is, therefore, in the kitty for the district councils to proceed with capital projects that provide employment and business for the business community.
  Mr Dewar: I understand—although I do not agree with him — that the hon. Gentleman objects to any subsidy to the council house tenant. Has he a similar
  86
  objection to the mortgage relief arrangements for taxpayers? Is he not horrified that the richer someone is the more valuable his mortgage is to him?
  Mr. Hirst: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is a specious argument. There are clear restrictions on the amount of mortgage relief that the better-off taxpayer can enjoy. A substantial subsidy is being paid to the tenant. The Government's line of argument is that £126 million is being spent in a generally wasteful way because the subsidy is paid to people irrespective of need.
  Clause 4 will be especially welcomed by the business community ratepayers. During recent years they have been increasingly frustrated by rising rate bills. They have been powerless to make representations against that. I understand that the Secretary of State will make regulations to ensure that the consultation process allows discussions to take place between local authorities and business community representatives. It is important that those regulations are drawn in a careful way to ensure that the process of consultation is not a charade. The councillors in my local authority are, by and large, doing a good job. I think that they will take the trouble to ensure that the consultation process is effective. However, a number of local authorities—
  Mr. Fairbairn: The Bill provides not for a voluntary duty to consult, but for an obligatory duty to consult.
  Mr Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for drawing my attention to that fact—although I was already aware of it. There is a statutory duty to consult, but such consultation must be meaningful. We must riot allow a local authority to say that it has consulted the business community, which has made various points, and then ignore all the representations. The consultations must be framed so that the business community has an opportunity for wide discussions with the local authority at the stage when it has some idea of the authority's spending power for the following year, and at a stage when the regional council has not finalised its spending priorities and budget alternatives. There should be at least two meetings — one after a local authority's policy and resources committee has discussed its budget alternatives, and another after the rate support grant has been announced by the Government, and therefore" the budget alternatives of a local authority have narrowed.
  Proper and unhurried discussions are essential if the business community is to have an opportunity to influence — [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Glasgow., Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) may disagree, but one reason why the business community has been folding, closing its doors and losing jobs is simply that local authorities that are governed by a bunch of loonies have not been prepared to listen to the business community. I welcome the powers in the Bill that ensure that a local authority gives the business community an opportunity to make meaningful representations on its budget alternatives.
  I want to make one further suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the process of consultation, which must be meaningful and effective. Will he consider building into the regulations a duty on a local authority auditor to report that consultations have been carried out in accordance with the regulations? A local authority is already required to submit to audit by either public or private enterprise. The auditors have a wide remit, which includes carrying out examinations on

  87
  a value-for-money basis—and more is the pity that they do not do that. A duty to report on the consultations should be part of their remit. In that way the business community would have confidence that it was being properly and adequately consulted by local authorities.
  Mr Ernie Ross rose—
  Mr. Hirst: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Hirst: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I have heard of unusual interventions, but never of an intervention by proxy.
  I want to say a word about valuation. There are a number of useful concessions in the Bill. In particular, I welcome the opportunity for an incoming tenant or proprietor to appeal against the valuation. There have been cases in which the previous tenant or proprietor, by failing to appeal, has left a future purchaser with a more excessive liability than is fair. I think that we all welcome that change.
  Then there is the use of comparators in specialised cases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain to the business community how that will work. I am afraid that many businesses which now pay high rates because of the tendency of local authorities to strike high-rate poundages, may feel, when they see a comparable business south of the border paying less in rates, that they are justified in seeking a reduction in their rateable value. I am afraid that their hopes may be ill-founded.
  However, I welcome the provision for the sake of specialised businesses. I have one in my constituency, and it has been bombarding me with letters. Indeed, the Minister may be aware of it. It thinks that it has been unfairly treated, and looks forward to this legislation as a way of correcting the anomaly. However, I have to point out that caravan sites and reed beds are not of great significance to me in Strathkelvin and Bearsden. I appreciate the concern of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), but I am afraid that commercial reed beds apply only in his constituency.
  Although commercial reed beds may not be relevant in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, shopping malls are. My hon. Friend the Minister may know that small town centre redevelopments can benefit from the mall concept of shopping. It is a comparatively recent introduction in Scotland, but it holds out the prospect of considerable local economic benefit. In this respect, I wish to mention the worry that exists about a recent land valuation appeal court decision, which allowed the valuation roll entries for a shopping mall. I believe that that is contrary to English practice. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. If the rating of these malls take place, their development could be adversely affected. If the anomaly is not rectified, is there any reason why rating could not also be extended to common parts of offices, or even to residential flats in multiple occupation? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me on that matter.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) made great play of the effects of rates on employment and
  88
  businesses in Glasgow and elsewhere. We have heard that story time and again. Certainly it is true that rates are a cost, and that if rates rise sharply they damage business. We accept that. However, to pretend that rates are a major cost or to pretend that they are a major cause of unemployment is patent nonsense. Furthermore, we should remember that the main reason for the increase in rates has been the slashing of the rate support grant by this Government.
  Mr Hirst: If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) doubts what I and my hon. Friends have said, what does he say about the statement made by the assistant secretary of the Glasgow chamber of commerce that year in, year out, the increase in rates is the straw that has broken the back of commercial businesses in Glasgow and led to their closure?
  Mr. Strang: That is a very convenient example to give. It is a way of getting at the local council. The chamber of commerce in Edinburgh has been saying the same thing. Nevertheless, the main reason for shop closures is the lack of demand in the economy. There may be a correlation between rate increases and unemployment and closures, but I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. We do not say that rates are not a factor; we say that they are nothing like as important as Conservative Members say.
  The Government have done nothing to tackle the real problems that face the Scottish people. They have done nothing here to tackle the scandal, the cancer, of mass unemployment, especially among young people. There is nothing here to reverse the decline in our important industries. There is nothing to reverse the serious cutbacks in the services that are provided to our people. In fact, the Bill will make the position even worse. Certainly there is nothing in the Bill to improve housing. On the contrary, the Bill will reduce even further public expenditure on public sector housing.
  The Bill seeks to reduce the effect of rates on certain groups. In so far as it helps the disabled, we welcome it. Moreover, most hon. Members see the change for fixed caravans as long overdue. However, the means whereby the Government intend to help football clubs will prove inadequate. What matters to the Hibernian football club is the extent to which this legislation will reduce its rate liability. The Bill goes about it in a most unfortunate way, as has been said by a number of hon. Members in the debate. We must tackle the problem in the Scottish context. In Scotland, we have a valuation system and a rating system. If the Government want to provide a rate consession for football clubs, as I think they should—I believe that they should extend it to other sports, and not just race tracks—they should provide rate relief on a changed basis of valuation. To do it in the way that the Government propose is not only wrong but it unlikely to achieve the real benefits that we believe are long overdue for Scottish football clubs. I hope that the Minister will tell us the impact that he expects the Bill to have on the rates that the Hibernian football club will have to pay.
  The Secretary of State made great play of the situation in Lothian. I want to say a word about what the cuts are doing to Lothian. During the past three years, the Government have enforced a reduction of £65 million in the Lothian region's budget. There has been a serious effect on services and employment. As I said in an earlier intervention, 4,000 jobs have already been destroyed as a

  89
  result of those cuts. In teaching 13,000 jobs have been lost, and among home helps and residential workers over 1,000 jobs have gone.
  Let me give other examples of the cuts. On 28 August, bus fares will rise for the third time in two years. That is an increase of 50 per cent. Free travel for pensioners has been ended. Now there is full fare at peak times, and a lop fare at off-peak times. Moreover, 1,500 housebound old folk have lost their entitlement to home help services since the cuts started. I hope that hon. Members are worried about that. I hope that they do not defend it.
  Many old people in Edinburgh are deprived of a home help as a result of cuts. About 3,000 housebound and disabled people will lose their entitlement to free television licences. About 5,500 of the poorest children in Lothian will lose their free school meals. I could give further examples of what the Government's policies are doing in Lothian. They are seriously reducing the level of service. They are hitting hardest the people in greatest need and, above all, they are contributing to unemployment. Young people's prospects have been made much worse by the Government's policies.
  There is no hope of reversing the decline in the economy unless we reverse the Government's policies; reverse cuts in public expenditure and prime the economy by increasing spending by local authorities, nationalised industries and other public sector agencies.
  The Lothian region has been required to reduce expenditure massively. Edinburgh district council is Conservative-controlled and is happy to implement the Government's policies. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), went with a Scottish Committee to examine housing in Edinburgh. We visited parts of my constituency. Most of my colleagues represent west of Scotland constituencies and they were all appalled at Edinburgh's housing. They were appalled at the state to which the local authority had allowed houses to sink. The Bill proposes nothing to remedy that. It will reduce further the scope for local authorities, which may want to use money from the general rate fund to improve public sector housing.
  I have corresponded with Ministers about the Bingham estate in my constituency. Surely the Government can produce something constructive and positive for housing in Edinburgh. They must encourage the Edinburgh district council to invest and improve houses to create a decent environment for my constituents.
  We were encouraged by the Government and by Edinburgh district council, to its credit, to boost repairs and improvements to tenements in Edinburgh. The district council was processing about £1 million worth of improvement and repair grants a week. What happened? The Government cut back. The Government are entitled to cut the rate of grant from 90 per cent. to 50 per cent. from 1 April next year. That would be acceptable if the money were provided for the transition period, so that people could receive the higher grant this year and only the lower grant next year.
  However, many people who have already incurred expenditure on work done by architects and surveyors have been told that their applications are frozen. They will have to pay bills, but have nothing done to improve their properties. As I said at Question Time last week, the Government should provide additional money to cover the intermediate period to enable improvements in Edinburgh,
  90
  Glasgow and elsewhere to go ahead. It is scandalous that people should be treated in that way. The Government are guilty of a breach of faith and I hope that they will think again.
  The crunch issue is the attack on local democracy. One of the great social and economic advances in this century has been the tremendous growth in the provision of valuable and important local government services. The growth of council housing and services for the disabled, home helps and the tremendous improvement in education is of immense importance.
  We are talking about huge sums, authorities with immense responsibility and councillors elected to take decisions. The Government are undermining democracy, one of the great strengths of our society. The Bill is one more step down the road. The Government are turning councillors into their puppets. They are turning local authorities into the agents of central Government rather than independent democratic bodies responsible for their own decisions. That is why the opposition to the measure is so widespread.
  The Labour party does not oppose the Bill because it is opposed in principle to the Government's economic and social policies. The measure is opposed by all shades of opinion in Scotland because people recognise that there is something fundamental and precious about local democracy and the principle that if one does not like what an elected person does someone else can be elected at the next election. It is outrageous for the Government to continue to take us down this road in the face of so much opposition.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Strang). If he regards the opposition as so widespread, it is remarkable that the Opposition are so widespread in their absence. Hardly any of them have been here throughout the debate. One of the characteristics of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Edinburgh East is that they are reluctant that anyone should have to pay rates. We are told that the Hibernian football club should not pay rates. In the next breath we are told that the local authority to which the Hibernian football club pay rates should spend infinitely more.
  It is completely irresponsible for hon. Members to say, "I disapprove of tax on my constituents or organisations in my constituency. I regard it as irresponsible of the Government not to allow local authorities to spend more money which I wish to forbid them to collect." That duplicity is implicit in all the Opposition speeches. They are all in favour of extravagance provided that it does not come out of the pocket of any interest to which they are committed.
  Rates are a bad tax because they form so small a part of local authority expenditure. It is no good the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East talking about local democracy when that local democracy is voted for by one third of those entitled to do so.
  The people who provide one quarter of locally raised expenditure have no vote. The Government provide the majority of tax that local authorities spend from the pockets of people who have nothing to do with the constituency. The basis of local rates and democracy is essentially unfair in regard to the raising of finance, for a number of reasons. It is a tax on heritable property only,

  91
  regardless of the capacity of those who dwell in or use it to pay. It is also a tax which is raised regardless of the use of the available services.
  In the city, people have street lighting and rubbish collections in every street. That is different from the predicament of those who live in the country who do not have main drainage, rubbish collections and street lights. It involves the concept of Robin Hood: we should all contribute regardless of whether we benefit; those who need the benefit most will receive it. It does not operate that way. It is a thoroughly unfair tax which places its burden on families at all times regardless of the stage of their development or their ability to pay. Assuming that people form a family home, their ability to pay from the moment when they are married to the moment when their children grow up and the moment that they are widowed is utterly different. Rating is an unfair tax.
  This timid and welcome measure is brought forward only because no one has suggested an alternative tax which would not have equal, though different, unfairnesses. It is the duty of all hon. Members at all times to find and suggest ways, regardless of party political advantage, of making the raising of this comparatively small proportion of local expenditure fairer. The huge anomaly between the amount of money raised in one authority and in another, and their manning and expenditure, gives rise to general anxiety and the concept of unfairness. When the public believe that a tax or a law is an imposition or is generally unfair, we must do our best to remove that anxiety. This measure, which I hope will be improved, is an attempt to do that.
  Mr Maxton: In Committee.
  Mr Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman has voted himself on to the Committee, which will be infinitely better if he is on it than if I am. I am glad to hear many hon. Members say "Amen".
  It is important that the manifest feeling of injustice felt by ratepayers, whether they pay rates on a council house, private dwelling, flat, shop or business, is removed. They believe that it is an imposition out of all proportion in many authorities to the service which is rendered. It is easy for the local authority or for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who has disappeared like a phantom in the night and like the home helps he spoke of—
  Mr. Dewar: I sympathise with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the public attitude to rates. In the Scottish Office news release, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that an alternative system to domestic rates has been abandoned
  "because of the lack of public support for radical change."
  Is it not surprising that the Government gave that reason, given what the hon. and learned Member said about widespread public anxiety and disquiet about the rating system?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he misinterprets the phrase. Each suggestion in the Green Paper received almost equal complaint.
  I am in favour of the poll system, in which each person in a house pays an equal tax, but it would have revolutionary difficulties. In a cottage, for example, in which six farm workers lived, they would suddenly have to pay six rate taxes, whereas at present they pay none
  92
  because it is paid by the employer. That could cause great difficulties. The difficulty about reforming the tax is finding an alternative and preferable tax. It is all very well to say that football grounds should pay less or that they should pay the same as English football grounds, but some other sod who may or may not go to football matches must make up the difference. We should understand clearly that when we remove the burden of rating on one man we add it on to the shoulders of another.
  I am suspicious of the continual leapfrogging of comparisons between England and Scotland—we hear that in England one does not pay rates on caravans, or on football grounds, or that it is less of a burden. If Scotland is to have a separate system of law and of rating, we should be brave enough to stand up to it and to correct our system, and not have the absurd position of leapfrogging over the methods employed in England. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that Scotland was like a diseased animal being put to the test in a laboratory, and that if the test worked England might adopt the pill. I prefer the concept that the Scots are improving their own laws, and if, 400 years from now— it is usually 400 years after Scotland introduces a decent law that England follows it—the English wish to introduce it, good luck to them. We are not guinea pigs. I prefer to believe that we are entrepreneurs, even though the pace of advance is so timid that we are more "preneurs" than entrepreneurs.
  I welcome any and every attempt to make the rating system equitable, because at present it is not equitable. This measure contains some slight improvements that will make it more equitable. If there is a suggestion tonight for an improvement in the Scottish rating system, let us hear it from whatever source it comes; but we have not had the privilege of hearing it so far today. Perhaps it is being kept for the wind-up speeches, although I doubt it. I must tell the hon. Member for Garscadden, with great respect, that if he speaks as fast in his wind-up speech as he did in his opening speech, few of us will be able to take it down.
  Everyone can contribute by suggestion to the reform of rating, and I hope that my right hon. Friend's ear will always be open to methods of improving it. However, nothing is more inequitable than that those who are elected to local authorities by one third of the electorate then proceed to spend the money, one quarter of which is provided by people with no vote, and ensure that their expenditure is out of proportion to the service that they provide. How can it be that Perth and Kinross district council, which represents vast areas of countryside with vast distances for all the services provided—
  Mr. Donald Stewart: How many people live there?
  Mr. Fairbairn: The number of people is the same, and although the right hon. Gentleman may take the view—it is hardly right for a Socialist to take the view that human beings should be demeaned, or in his case to be raised, to the position of sheep—
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fairbairn: When I have finished with the right hon. Member for Western Isles I shall give way. How can it be that a local authority with such huge responsibilities in tourism and the arts, and with such disparate villages and roads, can provide services at a quarter of the rate of an equivalent Socialist authority? That is the charge, and

  93
  that is why the powers being taken by my right hon. Friend are right. If ever—may God preserve us from it—there is another Socialist Government in Britain, they would not remove the power, because they would always wish to use it.
  The case rests simply—I shall give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
  Mr Maxton: It is all right.
  Mr Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman is determined to get on to the Committee. I shall give way to him if he wants.
  Mr Maxton: No thanks.
  Mr Fairbairn: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in Committee.
  The Secretary of State is right to take, on behalf of the people who contribute to this huge tax, which they cannot avoid and which they all dread and fear, any opportunity and power that enables him to tell the local authorities that they cannot and must not, for the enlargement of their army of employees, charge small shops and businesses so much. Big shops are affected as well. How would any hon. Member like to have a shop in Princes street which, on 1 January, he knew had to make £250,000 to pay the rates before selling a single Christmas cracker?
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Christmas crackers in January?
  Mr. Fairbairn: On 1 January. If one is to pay the rents, one has to start selling Christmas crackers early.
  This is a modest Bill, but it takes powers that will at least allay the fears of those who live in houses that are rented, either privately or from the local authority, or houses that they own, or who run a business or attempt to do so. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about castles?") Castles are derated. They are so frightful that the hon. Member would not allow his constituents to live in such appalling conditions.
  It is important that we should always attempt to reduce the burden of this tax, which is so often enlarged by the personal aggrandisement of those who work in local authorities, and who are not careful of the democracy of which some Labour hon. Members speak.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It was a bit much for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) to girn on in the way that he just has about the way in which local authorities might or might not have a sufficiently strong electoral authority to do what they are doing as they have the support of perhaps 30 per cent. of their electorate. He supports a Government who have the support of only 28 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland, but are still content to foist unwelcome legislation on the people of Scotland, even with that pitiful power base.
  Mr Fairbairn: I happen to represent a county called Perthshire that has 100 per cent. Tory support, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to go dividing it out, he should put his argument differently.
  Mr Home Robertson: I was not aware that there was still such a thing as the county of Perth.
  Mr Fairbairn: Perthshire.
  Mr Home Robertson: We have always known that the hon. and learned Gentleman is an anachronism, and he has just confirmed that.
  I am trying to think of a parliamntary term to use for the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is difficult. He accused us of duplicity, and went on to suggest that he wanted to improve the quality of the rating system, but he has been sitting on the Government Benches for the past four years consistently supporting measures that have cut the rate support grant and thereby transferred more and more of the burden of funding local services on to the ratepayers about whom he was moaning. That will not do. It is dishonest. I am sorry if that is unparliamentary. I shall use it generally rather than specifically. Nevertheless, it is dishonest for Conservative Members to use such an argument.
  One thing that should be said over and over again when debating such legislation as this is that the House should not be debating it. In 1979, people in Scotland voted for the establishment in Scotland of an assembly where specifically Scottish legislation could be dealt with by a body voted for by Scottish voters. For an example of what happens to Scottish business in the House, let us cast our minds back less than a week. Last Tuesday, the House debated the Scottish economy, and the vote announced at the end of the debate showed that 328 Members voted for the Government and 186 voted against, apparently a majority of 142.
  I have recently had the misfortune to be appointed an Opposition Whip—
  Mr. Fairbairn: Then shut up.
  Mr Home-Robertson: I was one of the Tellers for Tuesday's Division. There passed through the door 100 Members before I saw one Scottish face.
  Mr Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us to whom it belonged?
  Mr. Home-Robertson: No. I am becoming bored with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I really am.
  Mr Corrie: We are equally bored with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr Home-Robertson: Forty-two Scottish Members voted against the Government and 16 voted for them. That amounted to an Opposition majority of 26. That shows that democracy in Scotland without an elected assembly is not worth very much at present. That is a sad commentary, but it is a fact.
  Mr Gerald Malone: Did the hon. Gentleman take steps to check that there were no English faces going through his own Lobby?
  Mr. Home-Robertson: That is not the argument that I am advancing. I am saying that four times as many Scots voted against the Government as for them. We are stuck with a United Kingdom Parliament and I do not want to be in it for the rest of my career. I want to get into a Scottish assembly. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. Perhaps he wanted to do so.
  Mr Fairbairn: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has shown that he understands the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr Home-Robertson: One of the few areas of Scotland in which democracy has been able to work until

  95
  recently has been local government. People are free to elect or reject their local councillors. The Secretary of State mentioned that fact when he introduced the Bill. He referred to the rather unfortunate election result following the Lothian regional council elections in 1982. He accepted that the electorate had the right to elect or reject its councillors. I am not saying that the result was wrong, but more people voted Labour than Conservative in that 1982 election. The people had the right to change their councillors, and they did so. That is fair enough; it is the due process of the democratic system.
  People should be able to vote for the standard of services that they want in the recognition that they will have to pay for it. Life is made pretty difficult for local authorities when they come to exercise their functions. The Secretary of State continues to cut his contribution to the financing of local authority functions and services. I understand from COSLA that rate support grant cuts have been equivalent to an increase in rates of about £1·70 a week per household. The Secretary of State goes on and on about the burden on the ratepayers, but in his term of office he has increased the rate burden on each household in Scotland by the equivalent of £1·70.
  With these cuts in RSG, local authorities were compelled either to increase rates, to cut services or to introduce a combination of both options. That is an unpleasant predicament for local authority councillors. Let us spare a thought for the men and women who offer their services and stand for election as prospective local authority councillors. When elected, it is their intention to do a useful job of work for those whom they represent. I was a local authority councillor and I remember working flat out to try to get a playground for a small village which did not have a playground. I was able to provide the playground, but those who are in the same position now cannot introduce improvements because, instead of producing slightly more services, they are having to cover up for the Secretary of State's cuts. More often than not they are having to carry the can for him. Surely this is utterly wrong.
  Local authorities have been doing their best according to their convictions. Some have been cutting services while others have been increasing their rates. Even that is not enough for the Secretary of State. He is not even prepared to inflict misery second hand. He continues to throw tantrums rather like a spoilt child. He does not want to play and he is determined that everyone else in Scotland should be miserable, too. That being so, the Bill has come before us. It is perhaps the final stage in a process which is doing away with the discretion of elected local authorities to exercise their autonomy.
  I say it is the final stage because once the Secretary of State has taken powers to fix both rents and rates, we will have seen an unprecedented and amazing degree of centralisation, something we never expected to see from the Conservatives or any other Government. Nevertheless, that has been happening over the past four years, and this evening we are seeing the culmination. It is a tragedy. Precious little will be left to the discretion of elected local authority councillors in the coming years. That is of massive constitutional significance, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) pointed out. I was delighted that an English Member took part in our deliberations because the Bill has significance for the
  96
  whole of the United Kingdom. It is of major constitutional importance. It is a tragedy that Members from England, Wales and Northern Ireland and, indeed, Scottish Conservative Members have not recognised what may be starting here this evening. The final residue of local rights and autonomy is being taken from elected representatives in Scotland to be put into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his civil servants in Whitehall.
  The Secretary of State parades around pretending to be concerned about the burdens that have been imposed on ratepayers. But they know that he has failed to fulfil the promise that was given by his party on a number of occasions to replace the rating system. I think that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has already mentioned the letter that all hon. Members received from Mr. Anderson of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Limited, which he addressed to the Scottish Office. It said:
  "I have been asked to make it clear to you, and the Secretary of State, that our giving submissions to you on these proposals is in no way a measure of our approval of this substitute for rate reform. Some of our Scottish Region Chairmen did not wish us to make a submission in order to signify our disgust at your failure to reform rates."
  That is not the Labour party speaking, but people who are naturally supporters of the Conservative party. They make it abundantly clear that what is being offered is an inadequately radical reform of the rating system, which is fundamentally flawed and unfair and should be changed.
  The Bill does not reform the rates. I suppose that part II of the Bill tinkers with tiny groups of anomalies in the valuation system. May I say, in order not to sound unduly churlish, that I welcome the changes that are proposed in respect of race courses. One of the few race courses in Scotland, Musselburgh, is in my constituency and the changes will help it, but why single out race courses and reed beds? When I saw "reed beds" in the Bill, I thought it was an April fool joke which the Scottish Office had taken seriously. Caravans and one or two other areas are covered in the Bill and, as far as they go, those provisions should be welcomed. But this is not the replacement of the rating system for which many of us hoped. Indeed, I have had from my constituents representations that I have passed on to the Minister who is to reply. They wonder why anomalies affecting them have not been dealt with. One concerns research laboratories and has been referred to in the past by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). Inveresk Research International, which has a research laboratory in my constituency, had hoped that this exercise would lead to rating relief equivalent to that which is enjoyed by its competitors south of the border, but that has been turned down by the Government.
  There are two sides to the local government finance equation. On one side there are rates and other income, such as the rate support grant, and on the other there is expenditure. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) referred to "grandiose schemes" by local authorities. We have seen the cuts that have been suffered in local government services in Scotland. I would not describe them as cuts in grandiose schemes. When I see bigger classes in primary schools and more composite classes in schools in my constituency, when I see pensioners who used to receive free public transport having to pay for their bus tickets, I think not of grandiose schemes, but of mean-minded people such as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who seem to be

  97
  prepared to inflict such misery on people. When I intervened during the hon. Gentleman's remarks he tried to wriggle out of the point about the provision of home helps for the elderly in different authorities. He suggested that, just because more money was being spent in one area, that did not necessarily mean that the service in that area was any better. I have with me the relevant figures on home helps. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland and received a reply on 22 November with a table giving the number of home help whole-time equivalents employed in each region in Scotland in 1979 and 1982 respectively, with the figures of the number of people over the age of 65 per whole-time equivalent home help in each regional council area.
  The two authorities that are relevant to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Stirling are Central and Tayside. In Tayside, which does not believe in spending money, there are 121·6—whatever 0·6 of a person is—people over the age of 65 for every home help employed in that area. In Central, a Labour-controlled authority—part of which the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to represent — the comparable figure is 80·6. That is a large divergence. I will not quote other figures.
  Mr Maxton: Quote the figures for Strathclyde.
  Mr Home Robertson: I would rather not prolong the story. The figures are dramatic and I recommend that hon. Members study them. They are published by the Scottish Office and it is clear that those authorities which have been willingly and cheerfully cutting expenditure are heaping misery on to people who can least cope with it—the old who need help in their houses—while giving rate cuts to those who can afford it. It is nice to get some money back, but hon. Members should consider who is suffering by what is happening.
  I could cite many more examples, but we know that the present Secretary of State is not interested in the quality of local authority services and protecting the interests of the people of Scotland. Indeed, I would not describe this as a Scottish Office Bill. Certainly it has nothing to do with the interests of the people of Scotland. Consider, for example, who is sponsoring the Bill. It is
  "Presented by Mr. Secretary Younger supported by Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland and"—wait for it—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and
  I suspect that that is what the Bill is all about—cuts and more economies.
  We shall get no joy for the suffering people of Scotland from the present Government. That will come about only when we get a change of Government, and it will be that much easier when we have a directly-elected Scottish assembly to enact proper legislation for Scottish local authorities on specifically Scottish affairs.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) spoke of the sponsors of the Bill and, in doing so, touched on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) spelt out in his speech. As an experienced provost of Coatbridge and a distinguished president of COSLA, he was right to warn about what lies ahead for local government in Scotland if the Bill becomes law. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) gave a similar warning when
  98
  he referred to the treatment that is being meted out to ratepayers in respect of improvement grants and local services.
  The Bill is no substitute for a rating reform designed to benefit Scotland's ratepayers. In fact, it is no more than an appeasement for the guilty consciences of Ministers seeking to bury the speeches that they made during the past decade, in which they promised either implicitly or explicitly to abandon the present rating system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) observed, specific promises were made in October 1974 and in 1979, concerning a major overhaul of the rating sytem and most people expected that after 1983 the Government would come up with something much more fundamental than has been produced in the Bill.
  Mr Fairbairn: Does the hon. Gentleman have a reform to suggest?
  Mr. Craigen: I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman with great care, as I always do. He suggested a poll tax.
  The trouble is that the House has never properly debated the reactions to the Government's White Paper published in August, entitled
  "Valuation and Rating in Scotland: Proposals for Reform".
  There has been undignified haste in the way in which the Government, having called for observations by 14 October, then produced the Bill, and hurriedly threw it into Second Reading. There should have been a proper discussion of alternatives, as the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) suggested, although I do not accept his proposal of a poll tax on the six people living in a cottage. He lives in a castle, so presumably he does not pay the same amount in rates.
  The Secretary of State talks of reforming a system that he says is basically sound. This afternoon he said that he was not asking for the impossible. That may be so, but he is seeking simply to create the impossible in Scottish local government. Rates have never been a popular method of obtaining local revenue for authorities. The trouble is that the Government have made an already unpopular system more unpopular by their constant cutting back on the amount of rate support grant that is given by central Government to the authorities to enable them to provide the services that Parliament, in its wisdom, decides that they should properly provide. Had the Government been fairer with the Scottish local authorities, they would have been £400 million better off. There has been the equivalent of a 2 per cent. cut per annum in the rate support grant for Scottish local authorities since the Government came to office. Even in the past year the Government have thrown more responsiblities on to the shoulders of local authorities in the shape of the housing benefits legislation, which gave rise to much confusion.
  Having abandoned any pretence that there is to be a reform, the Secretary of State now wants to acquire more controls over local authorities. He is no longer satisfied with the power to determine approved expenditure, as he does each year, or to set the percentage for the rate support grant. We await with trepidation the announcement on Friday of what the percentage will be. The situation 'could be improved if he were to increase the rate support grant by 1 per cent. There would be a rate reduction of 2·5p, which would be welcome to ratepayers, including business people, in the Scottish community. I hope that the

  99
  Secretary of State will bear that very much in mind when he makes his decision about the rate support grant percentage to be announced on Friday.
  However, the question is not what the Secretary of State will do. The problem is that we are waiting to hear how he will use the powers in the Bill. Scottish local authorities are being asked to consult the business community. The CBI and the Scottish chamber of commerce will be consulted. The noses of the self-employed and the Institute of Directors have been put out of joint by their exclusion. It remains to be seen how many bodies in the business community consider that they should also be consulted about the levying of rates.
  The Secretary of State consults COSLA each year, but the reaction of most local authorities is that such consultation makes little difference to the policy of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us that that is not the position and that the Government do alter some of their intended measures as a result of their consultations with COSLA.
  The Secretary of State is taking considerable powers unto himself. I shall be interested to know how the right hon. Gentleman will interpret "any guidance" that he may give to Scottish local authorities. We are moving towards government by circular. Local authorities will be required to conform to "any guidance", whatever that means. If a Labour Government had sought to introduce such legislation, howls of outrage and anger would have come from the Tories. They would not have been prepared to allow any Government to exercise such arbitrary powers.
  The warnings in the strong speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) were well received. The great pity is that more English Members of Parliament were not in the Chamber to listen to it. I understand that about 180, 140 and 154 circulars were issued by the Scottish Office in the years ending April 1981, 1982 and 1983 respectively. When the Secretary of State gives guidance, are we to examine the circulars to establish whether we have fallen foul of guidance notes issued to 65 local authorities? The Secretary of State has considerable powers. Which civil servants will be empowered to deal with this matter?
  I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst). I sometimes think that I am attending a meeting of the old Glasgow city council. The Conservatives were called "progressives" then and won seats, but when they started calling themselves "Conservative" they failed to do so. They used to give us the impression that if they, the business people, were in office, they could run the city. When the Conservatives eventually formed the administration, the officials trampled all over them and told them what to do. I foresee such a danger in the intended legislation.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden probably has not had many anodyne replies from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that if he writes a letter to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about a local government problem in his constituency, he will pass the letter to the civil servants to answer. They will not understand the subtle distinctions between Bishipbriggs and Bearsden and they may not even have visited Auchinairn. When the Minister receives the reply from the civil servants, he may even read it before signing it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands
  100
  (Mr. Rifkind) the former Under-Secretary used to read the letters, but they sent him to the Foreign Office because the Prime Minister needed somebody who could read the diplomatic tapes. The trouble was that the Prime Minister did not send the hon. Gentleman there quickly enough. When the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Beardsden wishes to take up a matter with one or other of his local authorities, he will be told by one or other of the heads of department or by a chairman of one of the committees, "Sorry, we do not have authority or ability to take this decision." He will be told to go to the Scottish Office if he wants an answer to his query. The Scottish Office will tell him that it leaves it to the local authorities and that it never involves itself in the nitty gritty of local government. The hon. Gentleman will find that his constituents—ratepayers — are becoming more and more impatient because of the inability to get a decision about any of the problems that they have mentioned to him.
  Parliament does not have sufficient time to debate the national and international issues, let alone the day-to-day management problems of Strathkelvin and Bearsden. The selective orders should not be wrapped up into one debate and vote. It is important to be able to differentiate between the regional problems of Grampian, Lothian and Strathclyde, or between the district problems of Glasgow and Bearsden. Indeed, there may be considerable pressure from Conservative Back Benchers because Argyll and Bearsden, along with Glasgow, are in the top 10 to be picked out for action by the Secretary of State. The problems loom ahead and I think that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden would be well advised not to try to introduce local government problems continually into the Chamber. He will find that he gets short shrift—in a nice way—from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). The Government could assist local authorities, if they so chose, by increasing their contribution to local authorities, through the operation of the rate support grant.
  Mr Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that might still come out of the same pockets—the pockets of taxpayers.
  Mr Craigen: The hon. Gentleman had better not get me started on all the former wee burghs in east Fife. He went on about all the local business people who did not have votes. However, I am not aware that there is a 651st constituency Member who represents the CBI, or a 652nd who represents the Institute of Directors in this House. I cannot see why he should plough that furrow. Indeed, I never know what furrow he is ploughing.
  The guidelines that the Secretary of State keeps talking about are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill. They are a great secret. How are the guidelines made up? We received many papers about the legislation from outside bodies referring to how the guidelines were made up. I understand that the central research unit of the Scottish Office has had a big hand in it. Contained in a Scottish Office circular that I received from COSLA was the memorable phrase:
  "they have consulted the service specialists within the Scottish Office and local authorities".
  We assume that the word has been said, and that no other negotiations are available to local authorities about the makeup of the client-group method. I refer to the sophisticated method by which the Government, in effect, allocate a predetermined level of expenditure to the local

  101
  authorities. This year we have an unallocated £84 million. Last year we had £120 million. I believe that that is known affectionately as the "acht tae hell" adjustment factor, because no one is quite sure how that unallocated money is distributed.
  Perhaps I might be allowed to reminisce about a joke in the days when I worked for an educational organisation that was involved in the marking of examination papers. In that respect the "acht tae hell" distribution might simply consist of the examiner throwing the papers down some steps and seeing where they landed, the unfortunate student getting a mark which related to only where the papers landed.
  Government by circular has its dangers. The more Government Back Benchers realise that the better. We are also to witness the introduction of derogations into the workings of local government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how those derogations will operate. Will it be a great horse trading exercise in local government whereby local authorities say, "We shall do this if you give us more money for that"?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to the considerable impact that the limitation on the rate fund contribution will have on housing revenue accounts. At the moment, 28 of the 56 housing authorities in Scotland do not receive housing support grant. I fear that next Monday, when we shall hear a statement on housing support grant, Scottish local authorities will be infinitely worse off. Shelter (Scotland) is worried that as much as 60 per cent. of Scotland's housing stock will fall out of the housing support grant system in 1984–85. That is serious. That event is coincidental with the Government's intended regulations for the right-to-repair scheme. I suspect that an increasing proportion of the responsibility for repair and maintenance of Scotland's housing stock will be thrust on the shoulders of tenants.
  The Government are taking yet another power to themselves—the power to determine nationally the rent levels that will he operated in every district council. The Government have all of the powers and yet we have no idea of how the Secretary of State will use them. He is allowed to issue any guidance in respect of rate support grant and housing support grant will depend on what the Secretary of State thinks fit.
  I shall not weary the House with the nitty gritty of the valuation proposals. The Secretary of State must have taken some comfort from the fact that the Scottish Assessors Association was one of the few bodies to express pleasure at his intention to retain the present rating system. The fact that the present system keeps it in a job must help. Nevertheless, the association must have given him some encouragement until he read its comments about the way in which the Bill will operate. It is becoming increasingly worried about some of the anomalies that have been referred to. It is beginning to worry that the Under-Secretary will be like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke and that he will be inundated by organisations saying, "You have done this for some groups of people, why do you not do it for us?"
  I never cease to be amazed by the subtlety of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. He realised in an instant that if Edinburgh zoo had been in the Ayr constituency of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State it would have been included in the Bill with the race courses, the football stadiums and the caravan parks. The same is true of
  102
  Glasgow zoo. I also never cease to be amazed by the impact of that Dreadnought my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who managed to talk about Edinburgh zoo during a discussion on clause 13.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that he is seeking, in effect, to resolve the anomalies of Scottish valuation by introducing English comparators. They will not fit easily into the Scottish system unless the present system of Scottish law is changed. If that occurs, there will be many court cases and there will be much need for legal aid. Some of these factors have not been as properly thought out as the Government suggest. The right hon. Member for Western, Isles (Mr. Stewart), with his experience as provost of Stornoway, aptly said that it took an English Tory —the the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)—to put the real point of this Bill to the Secretary of State for Scotland. People south of the border are worried that if the Secretary of State gets away with this measure tonight it will be inflicted on all the English and Welsh local authorities tomorrow. They might not be far wrong.
  It is a tragedy that not one Scottish Tory Back Beecher had a good word to say about Scottish local government. I have my criticisms and I write some strong letters to heads of departments and local authorities, but I do not want Parliament to end up as a glorified town council looking after the affairs of local government throughout Scotland. The danger of the Bill is that it will enmesh us in many of the detailed problems of local government My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton and the hon. Member for Selly Oak served us well in pointing out that this measure is designed to undermine the confidence and sap the strength of Scottish local government, and they fear that it will prepare the way to introduce similar measures for England and Wales. I hope that more Government Back Benchers will join us in the Division Lobby or abstain—this would be a favour—so that we can heave out the Bill. It is important that we should seek to preserve local accountability and to save Parliament from entrusting the day-to-day management of local government in Scotland to the MacHumphries of the Civil Service.
  9.32 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) began by saying that he would not be speaking from a number of briefs. As far as I could see, both he and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) were speaking from one brief, which might be called the Sewell file. Only during the last five minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Maryhill did I realise that he had picked up the right file. For two thirds of the time that he spoke the hon. Gentleman referred more to the Committee upon which we are both engaged than to the legislation before the House. I am sure that he was merely rehearsing for tomorrow morning, so we can forgive him.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden would have us believe that the whole of Scotland was up in arms against the Conservative Government for undertaking this legislation and that the Conservatives were some form of embattled minority with their backs to the wall.
  Mr Dewar: Self-knowledge does a lot of good.
  Mr. Ancram: It was, therefore, with surprise that on Friday morning I opened The Scotsman to find that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) the Conservatives had gained a seat on the Labour-controlled Falkirk district council and had captured Park ward in Grangemouth. That did not suggest to me that this was the vote of an electorate that was determined at all costs to prevent this legislation and to oppose its proposals for local government.
  We have had a wide-ranging and useful debate this evening. It illustrates the fact that the subject is important and that the measures we propose are significant. Indeed, in the criticisms that have been made I gain no little confidence from the fact that they are divided between those who say that we are going too far and those who say that we are not going far enough. Some people have been disappointed that we are not doing something more radical. Our reasons for not destroying the rating system and putting in its place something entirely new and untried were set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech.
  Opposition Members criticise us for being too radical, but we are convinced that what we propose in this Bill is necessary if the present system of local taxation is to continue to work fairly. Without reform there is the danger that the burden of rates will become too much for the individual and for the economy. It is the duty of central Government to be ready to act in such a situation. We cannot stand by and say that it is all a matter for local government. The responsibility for the fair working of a national system of taxation rests firmly with central Government and, therefore, we have felt bound to act. We believe that what we propose will help ratepayers who for too long have felt that they are being unfairly treated and that they cannot cope with the burden of rates.
  I shall now deal with some of the points raised in the debate. I may not cover all of them, but I shall write to hon. Members about any points that I miss.
  There has been a general criticism that the Bill is a fatal attack on local government. A number of Opposition Members said that, in some form or another, during the debate. I deny that charge absolutely. The Government believe that local authorities have a vital and unique role to play, and that they are best placed to judge their expenditure priorities and to distribute available resources accordingly. We have left them that freedom in the legislation. What we have done in the national interest — guided by the same principle that encouraged our Labour predecessors to introduce guidelines—is to seek to constrain the total amount of public expenditure consumed by local authority spending.
  Mr Maxton: The Government are not allowing local authorities to decide how to use their available resources. That is the most important point of all. Until they are given that right, the Government are taking all power away from them.
  Mr Ancram: That is an extraordinary comment. The Labour party did not allow local authorities to decide their available resources when it was in power. When it had the responsibility of government, it realised that local authority spending was an essential part of overall public spending and could not be looked at in isolation.
  The Bill seeks only to strengthen the means of constraint and to make it fairer. None of the measures
  104
  needs to be used if local authority spending is held within reasonable bounds by authorities themselves. In the light of increasing local government spending — the hon. Member for Garscadden cannot deny that it has risen in real terms since 1979—it would be surprising if, as a responsible Government, we did not seek powers to control that vital and huge part of Scottish public expenditure, the failure to restrain which could undermine our drive to economic recovery.
  I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I was surprised that he referred to giving freedom back to the people. He appeared to make the mistake that a number of Opposition Members have made, that of thinking that people and local government are synonymous. One reason why we have had to act to restrain local government is that so often, by its high levels of expenditure, it was actually restraining the freedoms of the individual.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the cuts in rate support grant had put up the rates. I challenge him to say that if rate support grant had been maintained at its level when we took office rates would have come down. The most likely result would have been that expenditure would have risen. Had the hon. Gentleman been in government at that time, he too would have had to constrain expenditure.
  Mr Dewar: I did not maintain that rates would have gone down. I said that we would not have been faced with the massive increases that resulted from the cuts in rate support grant. I gave some figures—which I concede immediately I calculated with the help of some advisers —which suggested that if the RSG had been maintained at the same level in Glasgow the ratepayer would have had a saving of 17p in the rate poundage. Does the Minister dispute that figure?
  Mr. Ancram: I do. I think that the hon. Gentleman, in his heart of hearts, knows that those theories do not work in practice. Had he maintained the rate support grant, he knows as well as I do that the effect would have been for expenditure to go up, with all the consequences that would have flowed from that.
  Clause 1 deals with the general abatement. When we have reduced the rate support grant in financial years up to now, we have had no choice but to reduce the grant to individual authorities according to the amount of rate support grant that they received in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) was right to point out the unfairnesses of that system, even though we managed to provide some limited protective arrangements. Those unfairnesses have persisted ever since. When Labour reduced grants during a year by that unfair system, they made no effort to change the system. Indeed, tonight, if we are to accept the silence of the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Maryhill on this subject, we must take it that they seek to oppose the principle of the legislation which will allow us to rectify that unfairness. Labour Members who represent authorities that have suffered from the rough justice of the present system should remember that when they vote tonight, because I am sure that those authorities will watch carefully how they vote.
  For our part, we have responded to criticisms which we feel are justifiable, and we are now setting out to make the system fair. Grant losses will now be directly related to the

  105
  individual authority's excess over guidelines. That, I know, will be welcomed by the moderate-spending authorities which are attempting to bring their expenditure down to guidelines. Of course, it will not be so welcome to the high-spending authorities. However, it will exert a stronger pressure on those high-spending authorities to bring down their spending. That must be welcome.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden discussed clause 2. He was joined by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) and for Maryhill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Come) said that he had some reservations on the matter. The hon. Member for Provan, in his normal direct way, asked me to explain the situation. The provision in the Bill makes it possible for there to be a composite report, where that seems appropriate. That report would be the subject of a single debate and a single vote. However, we are ready to consider the suggestion that there should be separate votes on each authority which is mentioned in a composite report. We may need to discuss the matter further in Committee. [Interruption.] We are prepared to consider the matter, and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Garscadden would be gracious enough to accept that.
  A great deal of our discussion this evening has been about the justification for the powers in clause 3, which enable the Secretary of State to set a general limit on the rates of all local authorities. The first point I want to make strongly is that this is a power of last resort. It is not an attempt to take over local government and fix its rates as a matter of policy. We will use this power only if it becomes clear that it is impossible by the other means at our disposal—selective action and general reductions in grant—to keep within reasonable bounds overall local authority expenditure and rates. We do not want to have to impose a general limit on the rates of local authorities, and if authorities are reasonable the power will never be used. However, if expenditure and rates of local authorities as a whole are at an unacceptable level we would have to use a general power of limitation. In such a situation, selective action would not be adequate.
  Mr Dewar: I understand, but do not agree with, the Minister's argument. The clause also allows for derogations so that local authorities can escape the general limitation on rate increases. Why is that different in principle from the existing powers?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has lived through three years of selective action and must realise that selective action is selective. It aims at authorities whose particular and specific expenditure plans are excessive and unreasonable. The Secretary of State will have discretion to allow derogations when they are deserved. Selective action has succeeded in controlling individual authorities planning excessive and unreasonable expenditure. It will remain available for that purpose.
  If a substantial number of authorities in any one year decided to rate for unacceptable levels of expenditure to the detriment of their ratepayers, and with all the damaging consequences that flow from excessive rate increases, the power would enable the Government to react—I use that word advisedly —by rectifying the situation in the subsequent year. I trust that the power will not be needed and I hope that its existence will be a salutary' deterrent factor in the minds of authorities when each year they strike their rates.
  106
  The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) suggested that Scotland was being treated as a guinea pig and leading the way to similar legislation for England. All that I can say to him is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State runs his own show in Scotland and that we shall continue to introduce legislation which we believe to be suitable to Scotland's circumstances. I cannot help laughing, because Opposition Members are always telling us that we copy and follow the English. Tonight they complain that we are doing something possibly before the English.
  I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on one point. He is worried that the power to reduce rates in clause 3 is limited. That is not so, because the new section 108B enables the Secretary of State to set a minimum reduction in rates. It does not limit the reduction that the local authority may make, so long at it makes the minimum reduction required in the rate limitation order.
  A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), asked about consultation with non-domestic ratepayers under clause 4. A major criticism of the present rate system is that the larger part of the rates is paid by those who have no say in the level of rate. Non-domestic ratepayers — mainly business and industry—pay over half of the rates levied by local authorities.
  We have no intention of going back to the business vote, because that would undermine the principle of one man one vote, which is the basis of local democracy. However, it is essential to do something about the unfairness, not least because it can have serious economic consequences for individual businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. For that reason we have included in the Bill a provision requiring local authorities to consult non-domestic ratepayers before they fix their rate.
  Last week I met the Scottish Business Rates committee, a newly formed group in which the CBI and the Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce have combined to work out effective arrangements for the consultation provided for in the Bill. I welcome the initiative by the CBI and the chambers of commerce and I have had a useful discussion with the committee on the practicalities of consultation. I shall, of course, want to consult COSLA and all other interests fully before issuing a code of practice on how consultation might be carried out in the various circumstances of authorities throughout Scotland.
  Mr Dewar: We do not want a business man's closed shop so that only they are consulted. How does the Minister judge the effectiveness of consultation? I presume that it is not enough to say that the test is whether consultations result in changes. After all, we had consultations with COSLA on the White Paper and none of its suggestions appears in the Bill. I assume that the Minister would object if I said that that consultation was a meaningless charade.
  Mr Ancram: We must use the word "consultation" rather carefully, because there is a consultative process by which we are trying to find out the best way in which to achieve our object. There are two areas of consultation. I have already fallen into that trap. The ultimate consultation must be the subject of the views put forward

  107
  by those who will have to operate the system. The committee that I met has got itself together. admittedly from the business side, because it wishes to put forward its views on how the consultation might be structured, what sanctions there might be and what information it would wish to see within it. When I said "sanctions", I meant the structure within which the system would work and the code which might ultimately be put forward. I hope that we can achieve a workable and acceptable system which will benefit non-domestic ratepayers in the way that we have suggested.
  The other clause which was mentioned was clause 6. Labour Members are to be congratulated on recognising that there is a connection between rents and the contribution that ratepayers make to housing costs. They must also recognise that there is a connection between the contribution from the rates towards housing costs and the amount that is left for capital expenditure, in a climate where public expenditure is not unlimited.
  It may be helpful if I remind the House of the figures. The contribution from the rates per council house has risen from an average figure of £62 per house in 1978–79 to over £142 per house in 1983–84. In the same period, average rents have risen from £4·42 per week to the present figure of £9·87 per week, but Scottish rents are still considerably below the average figure for England and Wales which stands at £14 per week.
  The Opposition must recognise that the result of authorities' decisions to pay unreasonably large amounts from the rates towards housing costs is that the amount left available for capital expenditure has been unnecessarily restricted; and we now have a situation where the resources being taken by rate expenditure are around 50 per cent. of all the resources left for capital spending on the housing block. I should like to know how Labour Members justify the present situation, for I certainly cannot.
  Nor is there any simple connection between rate contributions and rents. Rents are, of course, an important item which councils must look at in balancing their books, but they will also have to look at whether there is scope for savings through greater efficiency on other items of expenditure, such as management and maintenance. I am concerned that at present very large contributions from the ratepayers could be subsidising inefficient practices in management and maintenance. I believe, therefore, that our proposals will contribute to improved efficiency in local authority housing departments as well as ending the present unnecessary diversion of resources from capital programmes.
  Valuation clauses have also been the subject of some comment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) spoke about his unhappiness at the fact that we have not replaced the rating system. Many other hon. Members have also spoken about the unfairness of the system. My right hon. Friend made a point which I believe is indisputable. There is little point in replacing it with an untried system that will receive little support from the outset, because replacing imperfection with potentially equal imperfection will achieve nothing. By this legislation, we seek to make the present system less anomalous and more acceptable.
  It should be remembered that the prospective reductions in the rating base which the Bill could bring about will be
  108
  more than offset by the natural growth in the base as more and more new properties come into valuation. The Bill is aimed at ending valuation anomalies, at improving the opportunities each ratepayer has for appeal and at streamlining the appeal system itself.
  It is plain that much of the Opposition criticism has come from briefs from the Scottish assessors. I met representatives of the assessors last week, and I believe that their initial fears about what might have been in the Bill have been substantially dispelled by its publication. I hope that their remaining worries about the next revaluation will prove groundless and that their preparations for that revaluation will be informed by the Bill's intentions.
  A number of further points were raised. I shall write to those hon. Members whose specific problems I have not dealt with.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) talked about Edinburgh zoo. I hope that he will appreciate, despite the figures that he gave us, that under the 1962 Act Edinburgh zoo already receives a 60 per cent. charitable rate relief. It is at Lothian regional authority's discretion to relieve as much of the remainder of the rates burden as it wishes. My right hon. Friend cannot and should not interfere with that discretion. The extra relief afforded to other zoos about which my hon. Friend spoke is similarly at the discretion of their rating authorities. If he has further worries about A, I hope that he will write to me.
  We heard tonight from the Opposition Front Bench one of the most synthetic and hollow attacks that the House has witnessed for a long time. We should not be surprised. It is hard for a party which in government tried to ram its ideologies down the throats of local councils, the party which in Scotland — we cannot remind Opposition Members enough of this — presided over the biggest reduction in the rate of grant in 1977–78, and in the preceding year abated the rate support grant by £5 million, to do other than bluster in the face of the Bill. I do not, however, accuse its members of hypocrisy. The hon. Members for Garscadden and Maryhill have had to make do with the meagre ammunition at their disposal. They must feel like the infantry in the first world war. Isolated and excluded from the councils of war of the shadow Cabinet, they had no option but to obey their orders to charge and not to reason why.
  It is hardly surprising that Labour Members seized so gratefully upon the stick provided to them by the Labour members of COSLA. They would have been wiser to examine it more closely before launching their attack with this weapon, for it is no straight stick, and like the boomerang that it is, it will come back and hit them.
  The Bill, as my right hon. Friend said, is about ratepayers—the vast mass of people in Scotland who are sick and fed up to the teeth of being the punchbag of local authority overspending. They know, even if Opposition Members prefer not to know it, that comparatively high valuations and profligate councils are the recipe for unacceptable rate burdens and lost jobs. They know, even if Opposition Members pretend not to, which party is on their side. It is not the Labour party—the party which argues even now that councils should be allowed to raise their rates to the sky if they wish to.
  The greatest irony in this debate is the central theme of the Opposition attack today, which is that they are the defenders of local democracy. The truth, if only they

  109
  would realise it, is that within their thesis they carry the seeds of its destruction. Local government and local democracy can work only as an integral part of the wider whole. By seeking to distort local expenditure at the expense of the national economic strategy, and by proclaiming the isolation of local decision-making from national economic realities, they condemn local government to being an irrelevance to anything other than its own political whims, and that will undermine local government.
  The facts are simple and cannot be overstated. Far from us seeking to destroy, we seek in the Bill merely to set the parameters within which responsible local government in Scotland should operate. We ask only for the powers to restrain local government within those parameters. Those are limits which no prudent authority need fear, because such prudent councils operate within them anyway. If the imprudent fear them, the ratepayers and taxpayers of Scotland will welcome it.
  The Bill, for all its apparent complexity, has one overriding purpose — to recreate a system of local government finance and expenditure which is fair to all.By restoring some equity in valuation, and by enabling the Government to restrain excessive exploitation of that finance base, we will achieve that purpose. It is a purpose which is overwhelmingly welcomed by ratepayers and taxpayers alike, and I ask my hon. Friends to support the Bill tonight.
  Mr Maxton: I want to make the point to the House that this debate is an absolute negation of democracy in three specific ways—
  Mr. Ian Lang (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 198.

  Division No. 85]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brinton, Tim

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Arnold, Tom

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Ashby, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Budgen, Nick

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Anthony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Best, Keith

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

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Conway, Derek

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Coombs, Simon

  110

  Cope, John

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Corrie, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Crouch, David

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jackson, Robert

  Dicks, T.

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Denshore

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Dunn, Robert

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knox, David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lamont, Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Farr, John

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Favell, Anthony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lester, Jim

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Fox, Marcus

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Madel, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Galley, Roy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mellor, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gow, Ian

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Neubert, Michael

  Green way, Harry

  Newton, Tony

  Gregory, Conal

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Normanton, Tom

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Grist, Ian

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Ground, Patrick

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Grylls, Michael

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Parris, Matthew

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Pawsey, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hannam, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Porter, Barry

  Harris, David

  Powley, John

  Harvey, Robert

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Raffan, Keith

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Renton, Tim

  Hayes, J.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heddle, John

  Rost, Peter

  Henderson, Barry

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hickmet, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Hill, James

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Hind, Kenneth

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hirst, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Holt, Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Hooson, Tom

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hordern, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Howard, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Silvester, Fred

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Sims, Roger

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  111

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waddington, David

  Speed, Keith

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Spence, John

  Walden, George

  Spencer, D.

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Squire, Robin

  Waller, Gary

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walters, Dennis

  Stanley, John

  Ward, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Watson, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stokes, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wheeler, John

  Sumberg, David

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tracey, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Archie Hamilton.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  van Straubenzee. SirW.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Anderson, Donald

  Craigen, J. M.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Crowther, Stan

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Barnett, Guy

  Deakins, Eric

  Barron, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Dixon, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Dobson, Frank

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Dormand, Jack

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Douglas, Dick

  Blair, Anthony

  Dubs, Alfred

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Boyes, Roland

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eadie, Alex

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Ellis, Raymond

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Ewing, Harry

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ian

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fisher, Mark

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Thomas

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Clay, Robert

  Garrett, W. E.

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cohen, Harry

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Coleman, Donald

  Golding, John

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Gould, Bryan

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  112

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Park, George

  Haynes, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Patchett, Terry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Penhaligon, David

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Pike, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Redmond, M.

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  John, Brynmor

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Robertson, George

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rogers, Allan

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ryman, John

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCartney, Hugh

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

  McGuire, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Snape, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  McTaggart, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Madden, Max

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Gavin

  Martin, Michael

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Maxton, John

  Tinn, James

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Torney, Tom

  Meacher, Michael

  Wainwright, R.

  Michie, William

  Wallace, James

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wareing, Robert

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  White, James

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Winnick, David

  Nellist, David

  Woodall, Alec

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John Home Robertson.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  RATING AND VALUATION (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  Supplementary Benefit
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Amendment Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1630), dated 3rd November 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be annulled.
  As the Minister of State must know, the regulations to which the motion refers are widely considered to be as nasty and brutish as they are short. They were made following a decision by a tribunal of social security commissioners in a case where the Child Poverty Action Grou—CPAG—represented one of the claimants.
  The tribunal's decision was dated 2 November. The amending regulations, which reverse the decision, were made by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 3 November. They were laid before the House on 4 November and came into force on 5 November.
  For a Government who can take over two months to answer a letter, this shows with what lightning speed they can act when their political priorities are threatened. Even the energy they put into defeating the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendent) Bill on Friday 18 November
  was no more demoniac than that invested in the making of these regulations.
  The effect of the regulations is to add
  "medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental"
  items to the list of needs for which a single payment of supplement benefit can now in no circumstance be made.
  The case taken by the Child Poverty Action Group to
  the social security commissioners was that of a woman who had a skin graft to her back after she was severely burned in a fire. Her husband, who made the claim for a single payment to buy her a springless mattress, wrote in his letter of appeal to the Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunal:
  "The skin is very tender and very easily hurt. She finds that the springs on her present mattress put severe pressure on her back. My wife has been sleeping very badly because of the pain. … In January 1981 her GP…diagnosed fibrositis and a pulled muscle in the back. Pain-killing tablets were prescribed. This complication now makes it especially urgent that my wife should have a suitable springless mattress to avoid the risk of further deterioration in her back."
  The tribunal refused the appeal because:
  "If the need for a foam mattress arises on medical grounds it is not for the Department to meet the needs within the terms of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976."
  The solicitor for the DHSS's benefit officer argued
  before the social security commissioners that the Department had no discretion to make a payment because the wording of the Act prevented such a payment by stating in section 1(3) that:
  "The requirements of any person to be taken into account for the purposes of this Act do not include any medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental requirements."
  The tribunal of social security commissioners found in favour of the claimant, however, on the grounds that the prohibition in section 1(3) related only to the weekly—I underline the work "weekly" — requirements of a claimant and not to single payments.
  It was Roger Smith of the Child Poverty Action Group who first saw that this was the correct interpretation of the law; and it is to him that the credit should go for the successful outcome of the appeal to the social security commissioners.
  114
  Had the Secretary of State, when informed of the success of the appeal, argued that there were no resources available to him to meet the cost of single payments for medical and similar requirements—in fact, that he was under firm instruction from the Treasury to thwart the social security commissioners if they found in favour of the CPAG's client — there would have been far less resentment against him for the decision he took. There would have been less resentment also if the Social Security Advisory Committee had been given an opportunity to consider the regulations. After all, what is the committee for if it is not to be allowed to consider a change in social security law which affects the well-being of some of the poorest and most needful people in this country? Moreover, why did the Secretary of State not make it clear that anyone whose claim for a single payment for medical or similar requirements was rejected before 5 November, when he changed the law, would now have his or her case immediatelly reviewed?
  I was told in a recent parliamentary answer that the decision of the social security commissioners had overturned not just the present Government's interpretation of the law but that of successive Governments. Yet, whatever the view taken by this or any previous Government, the fact is that, until these regulations were laid, the law very definitely did allow single payments of supplementary benefit for medical or similar requirements.
  By laying the regulations, the Minister has changed the law. He must not now try to dodge the issue by reference to incorrect interpretations of the law by previous Governments. The law allowed, as the social security commissioners found in their decision of 2 November, that single payments could be made for medical or similar requirements. Now they cannot be made because of these regulations.
  This prompts a very important question, namely, how many people were wrongly refused single payments for medical or similar requirements under the 1976 Act before the law was changed on 5 November?
  Is the Secretary of State prepared, in the cause of elementary justice to people who live in poverty, now to arrange urgently for all his local offices to review every claim for a single payment that was wrongly and, as we now know, illegally refused on or before 4 November?
  The Minister of State must not pretend that the money is not available to trawl for cases where claims for single payments are now seen to have been wrongly rejected on or before 4 November. Let him consult the Secretary of State for Employment, whose Department allocated £39,000 for a national press campaign to publicise the compensation available to people who break their contract of employment by refusing to join a trade union. If cash is available for union-busting, why can it not also be found to trace people living in poverty who were denied a legal right to help on or before 4 November?
  I come briefly to the content of the regulations. Supplementary benefit, as the benefit of last resort, should meet urgent individual needs when there is no alternative source of assistance. The Secretary of State knows full well that needs such as those of the CPAG's client could not be met from elsewhere. The NHS could not help. Yet a woman was in preventable pain and had a need which., in any humane and caring society, should undoubtedly have been met, and with urgency.

  115
  A Government who can earmark £1 million for the promotion of "more positive" attitudes to nuclear rearmament must not be allowed to pretend that they cannot afford to save a woman who has been severely burned from further and preventable pain.
  The CPAG has other examples of the unfortunate effect of the wording of these regulations. An 80-year-old woman living in Cleveland, who is seriously ill with a terminal form of cancer, asked for a single payment to buy a high-backed chair, as she found that she could no longer sit in her own chairs without pain. She was refused a payment. In the end, the local authority's social services department gave her a chair from an old people's home. Will that case now be reviewed? And what is the Minister's advice to people on supplementary benefit who have medical or similar requirements of the kind identified by the CPAG?
  The CPAG is not the only organisation to have protested about these regulations. Peter Mitchell of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has put to me the difficulties that arise for severely disabled people when a local authority and a health authority disagree about who should provide ripple mattresses for them. He went on:
  "Some services which people believe essential to them such as osteopathy, chiropractice or acupuncture, are not provided by the National Health Service; others, such as chiropody, are grossly underprovided."
  The wording of the regulations will undoubtedly give rise to difficulties of construction. Their purpose is to deny payments for medical requirements. Yet other regulations refer to health requirements. Thus, regulation 30 of the single payments regulations allows single payments for needs which, if unmet, would constitute "serious risk to health". There will be serious uncertainty as to what is a health requirement but not a medical one. There are bound to be cases taken to the social security commissioners, and perhaps to the courts, on the unsatisfactory nature of the distinction that the Department is now seeking to draw.
  It is pikestaff plain that the regulations are about cost-cutting. They state disingenuously that, by reason of urgency, it is inexpedient for them to be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. What that means is that there is no intention of allowing in future single payments in cases such as that of the CPAG's client, whatever the committee may think of its propriety or morality.
  Unfortunately, more and more people now face preventable suffering as underspending on the National Health Service grows more serious and as cuts in local government spending leave more and more disabled people without the help to which they are entitled under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Never was a resource of last resort for unmet medical and similar requirements more necessary than it is today. Yet the Government have changed the law in order to prevent such payments.
  In summary, those are our reasons for opposing the regulations. We hope that there will be Conservative hon. Members ready to demonstrate that they share our concern for the poor and disabled people whom the CPAG drew to public attention by voting with us in the Lobby tonight.
  10.25 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I welcome the opportunity provided by the Opposition to explain why we laid the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Amendment Regulations and why our action was consistent with the policy of every Government since world war two, irrespective of political colour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.") Opposition Members must listen. I know that they will be worried. The policy has been that single payments of supplementary benefit — [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will listen, they will hear what happened when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was the Minister. In a similar way, he did almost exactly what we have done.
  The policy has been that no single payment of supplementary benefit should be made to meet medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental needs. It has been made clear in successive editions of the Supplementary Benefits Handbook and it has been held by all recent Governments that such expenditure should be met by the National Health Service funds and not through social security. I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, but the question is purely and simply from which Vote the money should be taken and who should make that decision. That is what this is about.
  Before 1980, when the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Minister responsible for the disabled—we know how much he did for them—the position was that no payments for medical needs could be made. that was upheld in Divisional Court hearings in 1977. I asked for a check to be made of whether, under the Labour Government, any such medical provision was made. The answer was "No". Therefore, we are simply moving back—
  Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royston): Did the Government change the law?
  Dr. Boyson: In 1980 there were variations in the law and there have been appeals since then.
  Mr Lamond: But did the Government change the law?
  Dr. Boyson: Let me make this clear. No such payments for medical hardware were made under the previous Labour Government, according to the information that I received. I should be delighted if Opposition Members could provide more information. Then I could find out who is wrong.
  Mr Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman said in his preamble that the money will not come from social services primarily because it comes from the NHS. I can follow that argument. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that where, in the clinical judgment of a doctor or a consultant, such equipment is needed, it will be provided automatically under the NHS? That is the nub of the issue.
  Dr. Boyson: The position with regard to the NHS is exactly the same as it was under the previous Labour Government, despite cries of alarm by Opposition Members. Similarly, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe rightly said, the social services departments of local government also have the right to provide the items to which he referred. Two cases came to a tribunal. One was about the repair of a private hearing aid. The sum

  117
  of money involved was not vast—it was £18·40. The main thing was the principle involved. The other case was about the provision of a bed. It was against the understanding that health provision was provided by the social services department or the Department of Health and Social Security that the tribunal ruled that section 1(3) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 does not prohibit the provision of medical and similar requirements to be made to people on supplementary' benefit. This decision was contrary to the view of every Government since 1945. Public money for health care should be channelled through the National Health Service and not through the social security system.
  The NHS must fix its priorities, and allocate its resources to different areas of health provision. The senior members of the medical profession must assess patients' medical needs and not the individual supplementary benefit officers in local offices who issue chits for the provision of medical hardware. Decisions in the Health Service should be made by trained people. If decisions were made by supplementary benefit officers—they are not doctors or nurses—and they issued chits, that would be an odd way of carrying out medical practice in the country.
  There would be three consequences if we did not have proper regulations. First, the assessment of medical needs would be made by supplementary benefit officers in local offices. Although they are qualified to do their job, they are not medically qualified as are doctors, nurses and physiotherapists. I do not consider that that is the correct way to proceed, and I do not believe that Opposition Members would consider it to be right.
  Secondly. the claimants of supplementary benefit would be placed in a privileged position as compared with those on low income or in low-paid employment —[Interruption.] Those on supplementary benefit could get all the medical hardware they wished even if the doctors did not consider that to be the right course. It means that those in work could not have the privilege, if it is considered necessary, of an independent health service — [Interruption.] If Opposition Members want everybody to have the opportunity to be admitted to a private health service, that is an interesting development. If the privilege will be to those on supplementary benefit and not to those with incomes above that level, I do not think that that would assist feeling in the country.
  Thirdly, the supplementary benefit scheme will be used as a specific subsidy to private health care —[Interruption.] I do not wish to worry Opposition Members, so I shall repeat what I said. The supplementary benefit scheme will be used as a specific subsidy to private health care—[Interruption.] I did not realise that the idea of privatisation was sweeping the Opposition Benches more rapidly than the Conservative Benches. I appreciate that the Labour party is reassessing its policy on council house sales with the result of a property owning democracy. I would regard a decision by the Opposition to use the supplementary benefits system as a means to subsidise private health care as amazing. My hon. Friends would agree with me.
  The Leader of the Labour party last week stated his views on a private health service. On 29 November, The Daily Telegraph—[Interruption.] I shall refer to The Guardian—[Interruption.] I have not read the Morning Star.
  The Daily Telegraph stated:
  118
  "We shall proceed with the removal of private practice in the name of efficiency, effective use of resources, social justice and the proper operation of the NHS."
  The Guardian stated:
  "He repeated his pledge…to erode and eventual]) abolish private medicine."
  The Leader of the Opposition said that —[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order.
  Dr. Boyson: Opposition Members are undermining the Labour party leadership.
  I was privileged to serve on three Committees in the previous Parliament with the new Leader of the Opposition. I must say that dissension is in the ranks.
  I shall define our position on the private health service so that it is not misunderstood. We believe that the private health sector is complementary to the National Health Service. We also believe that the private medical treatment should be financed privately. We agree that there should be co-operation between the two sectors. The House might be interested to know that there are always twice as many NHS patients in private hospitals as private patients in NHS pay beds—[Interruption.] The previous Labour Government laid similar regulations when the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was Minister. In September 1978, when the Labour Government were in power, the social security commissioners made a decision about entitlement to housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension. The right hon. Gentleman has given the figures. It would have cost the Labour Government between £46 million and £69 million. Within days, regulations were laid, just as we have laid regulations. They were laid before the matter went to the advisory committee. We learnt how to proceed from the Labour Government's actions in 1978.
  Mr Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman is trying to throw dust in the eyes of the uninformed. He referred to the social security commissioners in 1978. There were then no such people. We referred the action that we took to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the predecessor of the Social Security Advisory Committee. Anyone who believes that a Labour Government would not have accepted the viewpoint of the NIAC can know nothing of the facts. Between 1974 and 1979 we trebled expenditure on cash benefits for disabled people and more than trebled our spending on services for them. How could the woman whose back was burnt, and who was suffering preventable pain, have been helped without a single payment, when neither the NHS nor the local authority could help? That is the question tonight.
  Dr. Boyson: That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. However, in September 1978, while the House was in recess, the tribunal decided that the cost of invalidity pension for housewives would amount to between £60 million and £70 million. Immediately, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and his Labour Government laid regulations and referred the matter to the advisory committee. We have done exactly the same as them, but we have done it two days sooner. That is to our credit. It has been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is exactly the same practice as the right hon. Gentleman followed in 1978. The Labour Government laid regulations restoring the practice to that

  119
  intended and accepted by both parties. My information is that the previous Labour Government never made such payments.
  If the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe had not laid those regulations, it would have cost the Labour Government between £46 million and £69 million. On 21 November, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "But that would have led to a huge increase in expenditure on HNCIP—perhaps doubling or trebling the current cost of £23 million a year. My Department cannot spend that money which it does not have."—[0fficial Report, 21 November 1978; Vol. 958, c. 1216.]
  The Labour party then laid the regulations. —[Interruption.] A principle was involved. Once that had been accepted, anyone could go into a local office and ask for whatever he wanted in medical hardware.
  Mr Jeff Rooker: The Minister referred to what happened under the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend gave the cost—the Minister has just read it out— and said that it might have involved the doubling of £23 million. Will the Minister do what my right hon. Friend did and tell us what would have been the cost to the Government of the aids were it not for the order?
  Dr. Boyson: I cannot give a figure, because nobody knows. We gave the figures for housewives' noncontributory invalidity pension last week. Nobody knows how many people would draw such a benefit. There might be 3 million or 4 million people on supplementary benefit who no longer draw it a day later. I can only say that it would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds.
  Mr Rooker: How does the Minister know that?
  Dr. Boyson: It is extremely likely to have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. [Hox. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition Members say that they want to deal with principle, then they want to deal with money and then they want to deal with principle again. They must decide on which they are to make an arguement.
  Mr Brynmor John: Is the Minister seriously saying that if the commissioners' decision were upheld, it would cost the Government hundreds of millions of pounds each year?
  Dr. Boyson: I listened to the Minister carefully and he said that it was likely to cost hundreds of millions of pounds. I could not put a figure on it. The cost could be tens of millions of pounds; I do not know. It is a hypothetical question, because nobody knows what the demand is.
  The Labour Government intended that medical hardware should come out of NHS and not social security expenditure. We are doing exactly the same.
  The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe made a statement on 12 September, only four days after the tribunal's decision. I shall base my case on two sentences of that statement. He said:
  "The effect of the decision is to change materially the way in which the household duties test is applied to married women claiming HNCIP … The broad interpretation which the tribunal now hold to be the correct one thus runs counter to the purposes of the existing provisions."
  That is exactly where the Government stand tonight. We laid the regulations on 4 November, and they took effect the following day. There was a delay of four days the
  120
  previous time. As the Social Security Act 1980 provides, we referred the regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee which will in due course report to the Secretary of State. That is exactly the procedure followed by the Labour Government. I commend the regulations to the House for their consistency. They will stop confusion and are in line with what every Government, including the previous Labour Government, have done since 1945.
  If the Opposition laid their prayer to obtain clarification, I hope that I have provided it. If, however, they laid the prayer desiring that supplementary benefit should be used on the judgment of hard worked but medically unqualified social security officers to give private medical equipment to recipients of supplementary benefit, I must confess to utter astonishment at the number of signatures that are completely at variance with the speech that the Leader of the Opposition made on 28 November.
  I find it astonishing that a party that breathes dire threats—
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Is this the last page?
  Dr. Boyson: Yes. That was very clever of the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would like a copy afterwards. It will do him good. I must not say "No" to the hon. Gentleman as he was trying to distract me and I might be misled.
  I find it astonishing that a party that breathes dire threats about the continued existence of the private health sector should oppose regulations that would put beyond doubt the long-standing and, we had imagined, bi-partisan policy of preventing the supplementary benefit system from being used to finance private medical treatment but channelling public expenditure for treatment through the NHS where it should be done.
  Mr Michael Meacher: If the Minister believes that the supplementary benefit arrangements should not be used to assist those who receive private health care, why has he, in the past few months, changed the regulations in such a way as to provide considerably increased supplementary benefits for people who are resident in private nursing homes?
  Dr. Boyson: The patients in private nursing homes existed in similar circumstances under the previous Government. The regulations have been eased because of the shortage of accommodation within the state sector. Does the hon. Gentleman want those people to be on the streets? People can go to the facilities of the National Health Service for medical decisions about treatment. There are local authorities which can give treatment similar to the medical treatment provided by the NHS. If there is no place for aged people to go, and they are left on the streets, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain about our actions.
  I quote two lines from Milton, an old schoolmaster: "With ruin upon ruin, rout on rout,
  Confusion worse confounded."
  That is undoubtedly the policy that has been shown by the Labour party.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am horrified that I must speak on this issue. I have great respect for the Minister, but these regulations smack of panic, if not

  121
  vindictiveness. The tribunal of social security commissioners states that under the regulations there must be shown to have been
  "a serious damage or a serious risk to the claimant's health or safety and that a single payment is the only means of avoiding the risk or damage".
  The Minister is my old friend from earlier days.
  Mr Terry Lewis: Yes, when my hon. Friend beat him.
  Mr Carter-Jones: I beat him then, and perhaps people will forget their morality tonight and support him.
  The regulations are dreadful. I have a question which I shall ask the Government Front Bench repeatedly. If a clinical judgment has been given by a general practitioner or a consultant, why is what is prescribed often refused? The refusal comes not from the medical authority, but from an administrator who is not medically qualified. If I could be assured that when a clinical judgment is exercised, it would be the judgment of a fully qualified medical practitioner, I would vote in the Lobby with the Government. Unfortunately, many people's requirements are denied them because the prescription is not given effect because the powers that be say that the drugs cannot be prescribed.
  The definitions under the regulations are clear. The idea that these regulations open a flood-gate is absurd and obscene. The regulations are tightly drawn. Somebody said that the draftsman had got it wrong. However, he got it right. He used straightforward simple terms that we can all understand. Under the regulation there must be
  "shown to have been a serious damage"—
  A person cannot just nip up and say that he would like an orthopaedic bed. He has to prove the serious damage—
  "or a serious risk to the claimant's health or safety and that a single payment is the only means of avoiding the risk or damage."
  Those are the words that the Government are trying to delete. The regulations are tight, and ringed around with protection for the national fund. It is not a giveaway. It is clearly tied down to serious damage or risk—and amen to the man who drafted the regulations, because he got them right.
  I did not think that I would ever live to see the day when the Minister would panic. He could not even state the number of times that he thought the regulations had been breached—
  Dr. Boyson: Two.
  Mr Carter-Jones: Is the Minister saying that that will put the Government at risk? I have heard so much nonsense in my life. A decision has been made—it has been signed, sealed and delivered, and we are supposed to put the rubber stamp on it tonight. The Minister will not get my rubber stamp willingly.
  The House and especially Conservative Members should realise what they are voting for—something that is being done in their names without them having a say in the matter. The regulations have been laid for a month, yet we have not even discussed them. We have not been consulted, yet the deed has been done with the stroke of a pen.
  I must tell the Minister that there are sufficient emergencies to require the old regulations to remain in force. The costs are limited. I plead with him to allow enough discretion for some compassionate decision to be made for the elderly in need of orthopaedic beds, for the
  122
  urgent need of a mother caring for her child and for the disabled in need of instant succour through a certain piece of equipment. The local authorities cannot do it all. The old regulations were a long stop; a weapon of last resort to protect our people. They are being whipped away without the House being given an opportunity to discuss that. We have been turned into a rubber-stamping machine. I did not think that the Minister would ever have been a party to that.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am glad to speak in this debate, which raises a number of important issues about supplementary benefits and the National Health Service. In a written parliamentary answer last week, my hon. Friend the Minister estimated that in 1981 unclaimed supplementary benefits amounted to £760 million. That figure equals the total capital spending programme of the NHS, so it could be said that new hospitals are paid for by benefits not taken up.
  In its report last month, the Social Security Advisory Committee discussed the take-up of benefits. It was worried that eight out of nine pensioners did not want to claim their full entitlement, even when told exactly what to do, for reasons of pride, apathy and a feeling that they did not really need the money. Opposition Members may deplore the fact that some people do not want to live off the state, but they should recognise that capital investment can be made only out of savings. In their clamour for more spending, Opposition Members tend to forget that truth and, in consequence, capital spending on hospitals fell by 35 per cent. under the Labour Government, while it has increased under the Conservatives.
  The autumn statement shows that next year's capital spending on hospitals will rise a further £50 million—7 per cent. more than this year. A good proportion of that should come to the north-west. The chairman of the northwest regional health authority states that there is a firm commitment to spend £14 million on phase one of Bolton general hospital, but he cannot tell me the date when work will start. A firm commitment without a date sounds like one of those committee decisions which, I hope, the Griffiths report will turn into something more meaningful.
  The system of revenue allocation is admitted to be in need of improvement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) said, that is a gross understatement because Bolton's shortfall is £7 million per annum—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. I find it difficult to relate his remarks to the regulations before the House. I hope that he will direct his comments to them.
  Mr Thurnham: My point is that we should seek savings in expenditure to fund the capital development that is urgently required. I am satisfied that my hon. Friend the Minister has answered the points already raised.
  Labour Members have said that only they care for the sick and disabled. Last week, my wife and I started to take custody of an eight-year-old foster son, who might otherwise have been in a community care home. The figures show that there is a saving of £150 a week for each child living in a foster home rather than in a community care home. For 30,000 children, that gives savings of £200 million a year.

  123
  There are other questions which relate to claims for supplementary benefits in the Bolton area. I have been approached to ask why claimants for urgent needs payments are automatically advised by the Bolton DHSS liable relatives section staff to apply for a bank loan, when the S manual specifically states that that should be done only when such facilities already exist.
  Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is a long way from the terms of the regulations. If he looks at the explanatory memorandum on the back of the draft regulations he will see that it is difficult to find a link between what he is saying and what is printed there.
  Mr Thurnham: I conclude by urging Opposition Members to support the Government's decision and seek all possible savings to fund spending on new hospitals. Let each of us ask, not what the National Health Service can do for us, but what we can do for the National Health Service.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Brynmor John: It would be a kindness if I did not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) into the fascinating debates that we shall have on other occasions, but came back to this debate.
  We all enjoyed the Minister for Social Security's quick patter, the outragious Lancashire lad act, for the first six or seven months of his tenure of office, but it is wearing very thin—almost as thin as the material with which he was provided to conduct this debate. When there are 6 million to 7 million people affected by supplementary benefit—those are the figures—it is outrageous for the Minister to indulge in petty knockabout.
  The Minister said that those who receive supplementary benefit would be privileged compared with other beneficiaries if they were allowed to benefit from regulation 30. However, those people are privileged, and the hon. Gentleman's Government have aided that privilege by passporting all supplementary beneficiaries to a number of other benefits to which other beneficiaries do not have passports. Does the hon. Gentleman want to abolish all of those to make the capital saving to which the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East appeared to be speaking, or does he not? Does he regard himself as contradicting what his Government and every Government have tried to do?
  These regulations have been hastily cobbled together, but that is nothing new. Even on housing benefit, the Social Security Advisory Committee was given only a 10-day consultation period in which the public could make representations. I fear that what is happening to the SSAC on this occasion is part of the systematic undermining of the consultative process in dealing with supplementary benefit.
  In so far as I understood the Minister's financial rationale, he said that the floodgates would be opened. In fact, he said that the cost of not introducing the regulations could be anything between nothing and hundreds of millions of pounds a year. I suspect that that is on a par with my arithmetic, but not with my logic. I should not have given any figure if I could not have made it more specific than that. The general tenor of the hon.
  124
  Gentleman's remarks was that if we do not go back to what was the mistaken view of the law by all parties it might cost the Government hundreds of millions of pounds. The Minister must justify that.
  How can it cost hundreds of millions of pounds? The commissioners say in the last paragraph of their judgment:
  "Those tribunals should, however, carefully consider the other stringent requirements of the single payments regulations —namely, that there must be serious damage or serious risk…Single payment is the only means."
  The commissioners pointed to the restrictive nature of the arrangement and said that only a few emergency cases should be met.
  The Minister says that a supplementary benefit recipient qualifies on the two limbs of the regulations—that there is risk of serious damage or serious risk to health and that no other source of benefit exists. If a person is entitled to aid either from the local authority or from the National Health Service he will not be entitled to benefit under regulation 30. We are talking of cases which cannot be helped by the local authority or the NHS, or of the grey area between when each denies responsibility.
  The supplementary benefit scheme is supposed to be the safety net to catch the poorest in the land and prevent them from coming to unnecessary harm. Regulation 30 should apply to cases not covered by local authorities or the NHS or when they argue about which is responsible.
  The Minister said that if the NHS or local authority does not provide what is necessary that is bad luck, whatever the medical justification, and even when a serious risk to health or serious risk of damage to health is involved. The Minister said that the person concerned should just grin and bear it. That is absurd, uncaring and disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman has put himself in that position because he knows that the NHS is likely to become even worse. His use of the words "hundreds of millions of pounds" is justifiable only if he knows that the flood of claims will be greater than they have been.
  The Minister talked about the need to amend primary legislation. Tonight we are amending secondary legislation. What primary legislation will be amended? I assume that it will be section 1(3) of the primary Act. What are the reasons for doing that? Will the Government snuff out any glimmer of an entitlement of this kind so that no one will look to the supplementary benefit system for alleviation of medical conditions?
  Can the Minister interpret the word "medical", because the voluntary bodies are worried about it? They are worried about the Minister's cavalier attitude and fear that "medical" will be regarded by benefit officers in a restrictive way and that benefits to which people have been entitled will be cut out. Will the hon. Gentleman, for example, ask the chief supplementary benefit officer to issue guidance on that point so that single payments will continue to be payable for things for which they were paid in the past?
  The Minister was not trying to close a floodgate tonight. It was yet another obeisance in the general direction of the monetarist nonsense which the Government have inflicted on the people over the last years.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: seek to detain the House for a few moments only, and to turn its attention, in a rather calmer way than has been the case in some speeches, to the impact of the regulations.

  125
  There have been one or two suggestions that the regulations have been introduced by the Government in a state of panic. I listened carefully as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) put his case, which in large part seemed to be that the Government had moved too speedily. Far from criticising the speed with which the Government have moved, there is every reason to welcome the fact that a situation which may have become obscure if it had been allowed to continue uncorrected has now been clarified.
  Opposition Members and others may not welcome the content of the regulations, but it is in their interests as much as the interests of everyone else that we should be clear about the situation and welcome the fact that the regulations have been brought forward speedily.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister described the decision to introduce the regulations as a means of making it clear that the law meant what it had always been believed to mean and what had always been said in published documents such as the supplementary benefit handbook, he was on firm ground. To that extent, far from criticising the regulations, the House should welcome the clarification which is implicit in placing them before the House in the first instance.
  I am not sure that I can go the whole way with the Government in saying that, as it has always been the case that single payments of supplementary benefit cannot be made to meet medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental needs, that that all-embracing formula should necessarily continue. I suggest to the Minister that the decision which it is sought to correct through the regulations may be an opportunity for not saying — although the Minister is perfectly entitled to do so—that the position which it is sought to confirm this evening is no more than has applied under successive Governments of whatever political complexion, which is undoubtedly true.
  One must look at a separation within that broad definition of medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental needs. If I may single out optical and dental needs, there continues to be a strong case for saying in regard to those requirements not just that National Health Service should continue to be the source of provision, but that if one looks at the number of dental treatments, sight tests and pairs of glasses dispensed over the past three or four years, so dramatic is the increase that it can be presumed that there is not quite the necessity to cater for that type of assistance by the supplementary benefit single payment. That may be different from saying that there is no reason to consider a change in the broad definition, just because it is the definition that has always applied. I was struck by the fact that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, no doubt deliberately because it helped to underline his case, singled out orthopaedic beds. I have some sympathy with the suggestion that it is difficult, to put it no higher, to obtain an orthopaedic bed on the National Health Service. Many qualifications could be introduced as a reason why the bed could not be provided.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should be losing an opportunity if we did no more this evening than to engage in a knock-about across the Floor of the House. Instead, we should try to take advantage of this debate, arising as it does out of a decision which the Government could not have expected, to see whether we are right to go into 1984 with the assumption that what has undoubtedly been the case until now should continue to be the case. Perhaps the best idea might be to recommend to
  126
  the House, while accepting that it will not please the Opposition or meet their case completely, that, since we must clarify the Government's stance, we should approve the regulations—in effect, defeat the prayer—but then suggest that the Social Security Advisory Committee, to which the regulations must go in any case, should, with the blessing of the House, reassess the definition to make sure that the one that has applied until now is still appropriate.
  The rigidity with which we have discussed the matter this evening may be at variance with the true needs of the position in 1983, and we may say that, for dental and optical assistance, a position should pertain such as that which pertained under successive Governments. However, perhaps that, far from being the end of the story, should be the beginning of the opening of minds to see whether there is an argument for considering surgical and similar assistance under a single payment supplementary benefit scheme.
  I suggest that in a spirit of understanding of the need of the people concerned, and in a spirit of compromise, because I doubt whether there is much advantage in continuing to exchange party brickbats, which is what the debate has amounted to so far.
  Mr John: The hon. Gentleman, whose speech is much more constructive than others that we have heard from Conservative Members this evening, should recognise that the optical and dental qualifications do not allow for a single payment, because another source can provide such services. The single payment system would obtain where no other body could provide the service, and orthopaedic beds is a good example. All that the hon. Gentleman needs do is to ask the Government to maintain the Social Security Commissioners' decision, as that would give him everything for which he asks and would ensure that there is no extraneous expenditure.
  Mr McCrindle: I agreed with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but he failed to persuade me towards the end. However, again in the spirit of compromise in which I am trying to address this matter, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he makes my point, perhaps better than I did, when he separates the optical and dental parts of this broad definition from the remainder of it. If my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that, in supporting the regulations. he would ask the Social Services Advisory Committee to consider the entire concept, irrespective of how long it will be with us, this short debate will have been worth while.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) for raising these points. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, it was a constructive speech, and I am sure that the Minister will study it with interest.
  I join the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in saying that the Minister has acted with undue haste — indecent haste is a more appropriate description. There was no reason for the Minister to move as quickly as he did and bypass, to all intents and purposes, the Social Security Advisory Committee. I regret the fact that he did that, and I hope that we shall not see anything like it again. The hon.

  127
  Member for Pontypridd quoted the tribunal of commissioners, and I shall refer to paragraph 17, which says that the commission remitted the case for rehearing, which was quite a significant thing to say. It was giving directions to the lower tribunal to reconsider the case, and making specific recommendations about the stringent requirements in regulations 3 and 30 in relation to the way in which the discretion is constrained.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd showed how the discretion in regulation 30 is constrained, but it is constrained further than that because the provisions of regulation 30 look forward and not back. Therefore, where the claim is on a past need, there can be no possibility of a single payment averting serious damage or risk under the discretionary provisions of regulation 30. No mention has yet been made of that.
  The Minister was defending himself by making charges against changes made by Labour ministers in 1978, but he will know, because it was his Government who introduced it, that the system changed in 1980. The Government screwed all the discretion out of the system, and major amendments such as this cannot be made sensible by supplementary benefit officers using their discretion. It is a mandatory system that is too rigid, and if we go about in this way, creating amendments willy nilly, we shall heap misfortune not only on ourselves and the social security system but on those who are supposed to benefit from it.
  This is the fifth speech that I have made in the Chamber, and the fifth in which I have advocated a system of tax credits that would abolish this nonsense. I look forward to making many more speeches advocating the same thing.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: It is a pity that the debate went on after the Minister had spoken. I have rarely seen a Minister more unhappy in presenting his brief than the hon. Gentleman tonight. As he struggled through it I was reminded of the passage in Roper's "Sir Thomas More", in which More is fighting for his life. More goes up to Rich, who had perjured himself, picks up the chain of office that he is wearing and asks what it is, and Rich proudly says that he has been made Chancellor of Wales. More replies: "Not to lose one's soul for the world, Rich, but for Wales." The Minister goes home with his seals of office intact, after advocating the reform.
  We can understand, in some ways, why the Government are bringing forward this vindictive little measure. They were sold two reforms by the late Supplementary Benefits Commission. One was to simplify housing benefit, and we all know what has happened to that. In its false pride, it went on to advocate simplifying the supplementary benefit system to do away with all the extra needs, such as the ones with which we are dealing tonight. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the needs of the poor do not fit into the neat little boxes made by reformers — they keep bursting through. Whereas in the year following the Government's report on the supplementary benefit scheme the number of payments fell, it has risen every year since. Therefore, I understood what the Minister said about his fear of the floodgates being opened. He sees the number of payments continuing to rise as more people try to meet their needs.
  128
  The main case — if it can be called that — that the Government put to us tonight in defence of their measure came when the Minister told us that this action was consistent with what every Government had done since 1945. The Government are right in claiming that, but it is not relevant to do so. It is relevant to consider what the Government promised when we discussed the regulations in Committee. In Committee on 12 February my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) talked about the supplying of a special bed. The Minister replied:
  "I give the Committee this assurance. If the rules are found not to be right…or if the rules are seen to need some extension"—
  I emphasise "extension"—
  "Ministers and Parliament can amend those regulations."
  The hon. Lady concluded:
  "That is the way to get the right results." — [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 February 1980, c. 590.]
  When the regulations were being considered in detail in Committee, we were told that if a claimant asked for a special mattress which was not covered by the regulations the Government would introduce amendments to extend the right within the regulations and not to limit it. There is a reason to vote against the Government and it is one which should cause Conservative Members to support the Opposition. The Government have let them down by failing to honour the promise which they gave so clearly in Committee.
  I wish to ask the Minister three questions on single payments. My first question is designed to seek clarification, not to trap the Minister. It relates to questions that claimants are asking today and will continue to ask tomorrow. They are questions which officers in supplementary benefit offices have to answer and which presenting officers will be putting before tribunals.
  Let us consider an area which does not fit neatly into an ordinary need or medical need. Let us suppose that there is an area of need which a specialist, a member of the medical profession so loved by the Minister tonight, says should be covered but which is not covered by the NHS.
  I shall give three examples which are currently arising in Birkenhead. One of my young constituents suffers badly from asthma. Her doctor and specialist say that she needs constant heating day and night. If that wish is to be fulfilled, it means that the family must buy a heater to put in the girl's bedroom. The heater will not be covered by NHS provision, but will it be covered by the regulations as amended by the Government? Secondly, one of my constituents is allergic to nylon sheets. His medic says that he needs to sleep between cotton sheets, which will not be covered by the ordinary payments which are made available by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Will that need be met if it is laid down by a doctor? Thirdly, one of my constituents, a young girl, is allergic to household dust. Her doctor and specialist say that she should not sleep between blankets, but should use instead a quilt filled with manmade fibres. Again, it is a need which has been defined clearly by the medical profession. Will that need be met by the commission? The three needs to which I have referred wil not be covered by the NHS.
  The Minister said that the proper operation of the scheme is wanted at all cost. I ask him to inform the House what he intends to do about the following two circumstances. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) how quick the Government were in this instance. The decision

  129
  was made on 2 November. the amending regulations were produced on 3 November and they were laid before Parliament on 4 November.
  I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to another decision of the chief commissioner when sitting with two other commissioners on 4 August. In that decision the chief commissioner and his colleagues said:
  "There are special needs which are not at the present time covered by the existing regulations. There are needs, for example, when a pensioner's tank bursts. The only way you can get that tank repaired is to pay the plumber when he comes."
  Because the bill has been paid, it cannot be met under the existing regulations. In August the commissioners said that the regulations should be amended to cover those needs. If, as the Government have said tonight, they want to ensure the proper operation of the scheme. Will they bring forward regulations shortly to implement the chief commissioner's recommendations?
  To the Government's credit, they have sprung and are springing people from the invalidity trap. In the experiment that was carried out in the Strathclyde region, 35 claimants on invalidity benefit were taken in to supplementary benefit for one week, and then went back on to invalidity benefit. Those 35 claimants had single payment needs totalling £5,000. If the Minister is really intent on ensuring the proper operation of the scheme, now that he has brought most of those on invalidity benefit on to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit, will he issue instructions to his officers to look at their single payment needs?
  We heard from the Minister that compassion was not confined to one side of the House. Indeed, the Conservative party sometimes gets on to its legs like an ass and brays that it is as full of compassion as the Labour party. We heard tonight about a woman dying of cancer who will be refused a chair that she needs in which to spend her last days and of a woman in Birkenhead who suffers from curvature of the spine and who, under these regulations, will be denied a chair which, while it would not end her pain, would lessen it for her last days. Will we get amending regulations to cover those needs? As we await the Minister's reply, we wonder whether many Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby. If they do not, God help the poor people who will be affected by these amending regulations, because it is clear that the Minister and his colleagues will not.
  11.27 pm
  Dr. Boyson: With the leave of the House, I will speak again and reply, in particular, to three questions raised by hon. Members. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) asked about the reply from the Social Security Advisory Committee. We have put the regulations to that committee and, when it returns to us, we shall discuss the matter; I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend made. They will be published —they will be public property at that stage, from my point of view—and we can then see what the situation is.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) spoke about the cost. I said that at the time we had no idea of the cost because we did not know to how many people it would apply. We must bear in mind that we are dealing here not with the number on supplementary benefit but with the number of people in the families of those on supplernentay benefit, and I understand that they total
  130
  between 6 million and 7 million people. If one in 10, or one in 100, of those come forward with a request for some form of equipment that they need and would help them medically, there could be a considerable bill. Our argument is not that they should not be provided with it —we believe that they should—but whether they should be provided with it by the social security system as against the social services of the local authorities or the NHS—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Boyson: I cannot give way because I must reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for whom I have great respect and who has served the social services for a long time with distinction. He raised three points. As for the specialist services that were wanted, I am informed that the space heating appliances could be provided.
  Mr Alfred Morris: Could or would?
  Dr. Boyson: I said "could be provided". The need would have to be checked. By "could" I mean that it would be if the need was right.
  The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead about cotton sheets is Yes, but about quilts the answer at the present time is No, but I will check on that and have a word with the hon. Gentleman about it. We are considering the decision of 4 August of the chief commissioner. We are inquiring into the matter and considering the possibility of amendments. I cannot give a commitment on that, but I shall look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know.
  I do not know about the third case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, about the 35 claimants from Strathclyde and the single payments worth £5,000. However, I shall look into it, and contact the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr Field: All invalidity claimants will now be eligible for single payments. Will the Minister instruct his officers to give them?
  Dr. Boyson: I hope that all the officers employed by the DHSS are aware of what the instructions are. If they are not aware of that, the instructions will be sent out to make it clear that that is the case. Finally,—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against Statutory Instruments, &c. (negative procedure))—
  The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 201.

  Division No. 86]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES>

  Alton, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Donald

  Clay, Robert

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cowans, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Crowther, Stan

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Anthony

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Boyes, Roland

  Deakins, Eric

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dixon, Donald

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dormand, Jack

  Caborn, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Eastham, Ken

  Canavan, Dennis

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fatchett, Derek

  131

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Nellist. David

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, Ted

  Parry, Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Patchett, Terry

  Golding, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Pike, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Prescott, John

  Haynes, Frank

  Robertson, George

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spearing, Nigel

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McGuire, Michael

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  McKelvey, William

  Wallace, James

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McWilliam, John

  Wareing, Robert

  Madden, Max

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Marek, Dr John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Meacher, Michael

  Michie, William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. John Home Robertson.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Robert

  Amess, David

  Durant, Tony

  Arnold, Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Anthony

  Farr, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Favell, Anthony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Benyon, William

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Best, Keith

  Fox, Marcus

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Galley, Roy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gow, Ian

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gregory, Conal

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brinton, Tim

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nick

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam,John

  Chope, Christopher

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harvey, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Conway, Derek

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Coombs, Simon

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, John

  Hayes, J.

  Couchman, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Dicks, T.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hill, James

  Dover, Denshore

  Hind, Kenneth

  132

  Hirst, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shersby, Michael

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Sims, Roger

  Holt, Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hooson, Tom

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Howard, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Speed, Keith

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Spence, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spencer, D.

  Jackson, Robert

  Squire, Robin

  Jessel, Toby

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Stern, Michael

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Knowles, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Knox, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lang, Ian

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Latham, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Lester, Jim

  Thurnham, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Tracey, Richard

  Major, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Mather, Carol

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Mellor, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Walden, George

  Newton, Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Parris, Matthew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Powley, John

  Wheeler, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Whitney, Raymond

  Raffan, Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Renton, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Question accordingly negatived.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  AGRICULTURE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) (Extension of Duration) Scheme 1983, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.

  CONSUMER CREDIT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Consumer Credit (Increase of Monetary Limits) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.

  Forestry
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to have this opportunity to rehearse the difficulties facing the forestry industry. I wish to detain the House for a short while to explain the background to the problems.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "A continuing expansion of forestry is in the national. interest, both to reduce our dependence on imported wood in the long-term and to provide continued employment in forestry and associated industries."—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 927.]
  That statement was followed by the publication of the Forestry Bill 1981 which gave the Commission powers to dispose of assets to private owners and to allow Ministers with Treasury approval to direct payments of sums from the forestry fund to the consolidated fund.
  On Second Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of Scotland said:
  "In deciding on the method of sale and in selecting areas for disposal under the new policy, the commission will be taking into account a number of important factors. Paramount among them is the need to ensure long-term supplies of the wood-using industries, the effect on employment and special commitments to the public recreation and amenity."—[Official Report, 26 January 1981, Vol. 997, c. 652.]
  In a subsequent letter to the Chairman of the Forestry commission, the Secretary of State said:
  "The main considerations within forestry which forestry ministers would wish commissioners to take into account in the selection process for the disposal of assets are, inter alia"—
  they are not in any order of precedence
  "(a) The financial implications, including the need for disposal to be fully in accordance with the principles of public accountability; (b) The maintenance and development of the wood processing industry; (c) The maintenance of employment and the viability of local communities in special and socially fragile areas; (d) The use of forests for public access and recreation; (e) The interests of conservation, research and education; (f) market preferences; (g) the effect of efficient management of the commission's remaining land holding; (h) the rationalisation of the forest estate."
  Those constraints were placed by the Government on the Forestry Commission. That is the summarised purported policy of the present Government. Incidentally, in 1981, they ended almost 30 years of all-party support for the forestry industry. The members of the Liberal party who were then Members of Parliament, together with members of the official Opposition, voted against the Bill. The Bill was enacted in 1981, and since then there have been further developments.
  First, we had the accounting revaluation at the commencement of the second quinquennial review on 31 March 1982. That had the effect of increasing the amount to be realised, as instructed by the Treasury, from some £43 million over a three year period—as announced in 1981—to £82 million by 1986. That feat of accounting acrobatics has rarely been paralleled since then. Secondly, the Rayner committee review brought about a management structure review, which eliminated one tier of management. Thirdly, the Government's overall policy of cutting Civil Service manning levels required the commission to reduce its salary bill by 8 per cent. between 1 April 1979 and 31 March 1982. those three changes caused the industry severe problems. They were all

  135
  crystalised in a recent properly carried out lobby by the joint unions involved in the forestry industry. They brought evidence from all parts of the country about the difficulties being experienced.
  Mr A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Is my hon. Friend aware that the forestry industry came to areas such as that which he and I share—the Cheviot hills—to create employment? Industries were built up around forestry, but the job losses are now very severe because of this policy and the management review.
  Mr Kirkwood: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the subject. He has had two Adjournment debates this year on the subject. I have evidence from my hon. Friend for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) whose area is also suffering severe setbacks. In addition, I have had evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about some of the experiences in his constituency. There are also difficulties in other parts of the country.
  Mr Charles Kennedy: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to question the economic logic of the Government in forcing the Forestry Commission publicly to sell its assets, thus allowing the market to take over to such an extent that more assets are having to be sold such as Glenelg, and Glen Affric, without proper consultation? Indeed the Forestry Commission has had to write to the local unions concerned saying that it will not face "public inquisitions", which is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should always be brief, particularly during an Adjournment debate.
  Mr Kirkwood: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection.
  Mr Martin J. O'Neill: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the so-called alliance to expect to hold a debate involving three hon. Members and a Minister, when one issue has been raised by an individual hon. Member? Is not that an abuse of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has said that he would normally expect an Adjournment debate to be conducted between the hon. Member who raised it and the Minister. However, I thought that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had given way so that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) could make a brief intervention.
  Mr Kirkwood: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that further protection.
  In my constituency, in the forest of Leithope, 2,500 acres have been sold to a pension fund under a "veil of secrecy" according to the Southern Reporter, my local newspaper, in its edition of 24 November. In addition 1,200 acres have been sold at Ettrickshaws, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, (Mr. Steel). The 6,000 acre commission holding at Lammermuir is also to be put on the market in the near future. That means that nearly 9 per cent. of forestry assets are to be sold in the Borders this year, with more sales planned.
  136
  The entire work force of 13 at Lammermuir, living at Lauder and Duns, are faced with redundancy as part of a programme of 43 redundancies in the south of Scotland conservancy area. That is the reality of the Government's policy since the 1981 legislation.
  Mr John Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Kirkwood.
  Mr Kirkwood: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
  Mr Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might point out to the hon. Gentleman that I have already told the House of the view expressed by Mr. Speaker that Adjournment debates should be conducted between the hon. Member who has the debate and the Minister. Interventions should normally occur only with the consent of the hon. Member whose debate it is and the Minister. It would be helpful if the Minister was given a chance to reply and if the hon. Gentleman got on with his speech.
  Mr Kirkwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am relatively new to this business.
  If I have misrepreseted the Government's policy I hope that the Minister will put me right. The background that I have described is causing much anxiety in my constituency and in other parts of the country. I should like to make three points.
  First, do not the Government accept that the commission, which is entirely their creature, should be assured either that the £82 million will be raised over a longer time or that the Government will say that no more disposals of forest land will take place after the £82 million has been realised?
  Secondly, is it not time that the Government reexamined the guidelines which the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in his letter to the commission dated April 1981. That instruction is being disregarded. It is having no effect on the employment in so-called socially fragile areas.
  Thirdly, will the Government now end the apparently clandestine disposal of large tracts of forest land by allowing the details of sales authorised by the Chief Land Agent to be announced, including such details as the identity of the purchaser, the valuation, the purchase price and the acreage sold? If not, there will always be a suspicion that forests are being sold at give-away prices in back-stage deals.
  There is a unique quality about the forestry enterprise and those who engage in it. Those who sow know that they are planting something for later generations to harvest. They are dedicated people who believe in and care about what they do. However, their morale is at a low ebb. The Minister has the power, if he has the political will, to boost that morale. Christmas trees are the topical symbol of the Christian message of hope. Christmas trees should also carry a message to the firesides of the entire nation. Let that message be one of hope for the forestry industry, especially for those employed by the Forestry Commission. That can be done only with appropriate Government assurances tonight.
  Mr Dennis Canavan: Here comes the good fairy.
  11.53 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) concluded by reminding us that it is Christmas time with Christmas trees, but for a little while I thought that I had stumbled into a Christmas pantomime. Alliance Members tripped across the stage after each other with well-rehearsed interventions and well-rehearsed little points and, to be honest, stayed too long.
  I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I was struck by his pessimism about forestry. There is no call for such pessimism. Like other industries, the industry has its problems, but is also has its success stories and great promise for the future.
  I remind the House that the Government have consistently voiced their support both for the private and for public sectors of forestry. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, made his policy statement on forestry in the House in December 1980, he underlined that support and stated that the main basis of policy for the future must remain the successful and harmonious partnership between the private sector and the Forestry Commission. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the private sector. I take it that this reformation of alliance policy—or is it Liberal policy—does not approve of the private sector.
  Since 1980 there has been a noticeable rise in confidence within the industry, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has tried to suggest. New planting by the private sector is rising, while the Commission continues with a reduced but still significant planting programme and in increasing replanting programme. Our forests are maturing, timber production is set to rise substantially, and we are beginning to reap the reward of many years of investment.
  Heavy industry must pay particular attention to the market for its products, and forestry is no exception. By far the greatest problem that the industry has had to face in recent years has been the loss of some of its markets, due to the closure of several large pulp mills. These were heavy blows, and it was to the credit of the forestry industry and a measure of its resilience that it did not lie down under these set-backs, but set about the task of finding and creating alternative markets. I mention the opening, over a very short space of time, of an export market in small timber to Scandinavia.
  Mr O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. MacKay: To be honest, I have been reminded once or twice by the Deputy Speaker of Mr. Speaker's ruling on the subject of Adjournment debates. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would make a genuine point.
  There was more than a touch of carrying coals to Newcastle about the export market in small timber to Scandinavia. I pay tribute to the leading part played by the Forestry Commission in opening up that market. There are a number of reasons, which I am sure would find broad agreement, why we would not wish to see the Scandinavian market as permanent, but it has been important and has helped to bridge the gap. As an hon. Member who has in his constituency more forests than most, I know how important that market has been in bridging that gap.
  Mr O'Neill: I am thankful to the Minister for giving way.
  Mr Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to intervene in the debate without getting the consent of the hon. Member whose debate it is?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All this must be consistent with what I said earlier about Mr. Speaker's view. I ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) whether they object to the hon. Member's intervening. If they do not object, I call the hon. Member for Clackmannan.
  Mr O'Neill: I am grateful to all concerned. Will, the Minister look at the timber finishing industry and consider the claims of the Caber Board plant in Cowie in my constituency to provide assistance for the developments that the plant wishes to carry through? Will he expedite the support under section 7 of the Industry Act, which I understand would be available to the plant if the Scottish Office were more agreeable?
  Mr. MacKay: I know that Caber Board has played an important part in the use of timber. I shall draw the hon. Member's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for these matters.
  Investment has taken place with Government backing, and continues to take place in timber-using industries. The decision taken last March by United Paper Mills of Finland to build a pulp and newsprint mill at Shotton in north Wales will mean that the mill will use 450,000 cubic metres of home-grown timber each year. More recently, there has been the announcement by Highland Forest Products that it is going ahead with the construction of a mill at Inverness to make orientated structure board, which in full production will use about 160,000 cubic metres of timber a year. This year alone, projects have come on stream or have been announced which should provide markets for about 800,000 cubic metres a year of British-grown timber, with consequent employment opportunities. I am sure that every hon. Member welcomes that approach, but we are by no means content to leave matters there. We want to see further large-scale investment taking place, and in Scotland a forest products development group has been set up by the Government to encourage this. This is a useful collaborative effort involving representatives of the Forestry Commission, private growers, the industry Department for Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We have the timber —indeed I understand that we are the only country in Europe with large future supplies of timber still uncommitted. The market is firming up and, unlike the hon. Gentleman, believe that we can look forward with reasonable optimism.
  With market prospects improving, and with the good news outweighing the bad—although the Labour party would never allow that to cloud its judgment on the subject —it seems that we must look elsewhere for the reason for some of the less than cheerful statements that are sometimese made about the industry. The hon. Gentleman's speech did in fact give us at least part of the answer, since he devoted most of it to expressing his fears over the effects of the disposals programme that the Government have asked the commission to undertake, I

  139
  must say that I find his fears exaggerated. I shall consider the programme. First of all, it is a limited one, aimed at reducing the commission's call on public funds for the operation of the publicly owned forests—the forestry enterprise—at a time when the Government are working hard to keep public expenditure under control and many other facets of our national life must work on constant or, in some cases, reduced budgets. I remind the House—
  the hon. Gentleman has done it for me in quoting a letter from my right hon. Friend to the Forestry Commission chairman—of some of the assurances given by Ministers during the passage of the Forestry Act 1981. The Forestry Commission would not be dismembered; there would be no question of the commission being placed at a commercial disadvantage by the creaming-off of all its best and most productive woodlands; Forestry land would not be sold at knock-down prices; the forestry commissioners would be left in full control of the selection of areas for sale. That remains the policy, and it has not been changed.
  Forestry Ministers also provided the commissioners with guidelines on matters to be taken into account when properties were being considered for sale.
  Mr. Canavan rose—
  Mr. MacKay: I am not giving way.
  Mr. Canavan rose—
  Mr. MacKay: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show patience. As that is something that he does not usually do, I am not really surprised that he is not doing so tonight.
  I have heard claims that the guidelines are being disregarded — they are not. They refer among other things, to the need for the commission to maintain its ability to ensure long-term supplies to wood-using industries, to provide employment and to have regard to public access and recreation considerations. I know that the commissioners take careful account of the matters covered by the guidelines in reaching decisions about the areas to be offered for sale. It is important to remember, however, that these are guidelines, not a set of rigid rules. Every prospective woodland sale is considered on its merits. No single consideration can always be paramount. The interpretation of the guidelines involves a balanced judgment by the commission.
  Mr David Steel: rose—
  Mr. MacKay: I must get on with my reply. I have only 10 minutes left to answer the points raised.
  Mr Steel: The Minister has omitted reference to the first guideline, which is that the disposal must be fully in accordance with the principles of public accountability. Surely my hon. Friend's main point was that the public at large and the employees of the commission are not being properly informed when the sales take place. Who buys them and at what price?
  Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman should show patience because I am about to come to the point about confidentiality and the charge that information on sales is being unreasonably withheld, coupled with the suggestion that, behind a cloak of secrecy, commission woodlands are
  140
  being disposed of for less than they are worth. There is no truth whatsoever in that. The commission does not sell woodlands for less than the reserve prices which it sets in accordance with Treasury guidelines. The case of Leithope has been mentioned. That property was sold at a price acceptable to the commission and in excess of the reserve price. It was not given away. The commission seeks in every case to get the best price for the benefit of the taxpayer, and I refute any suggestion either that the rules of public accountability are being flouted, or that the public interest is being set aside. As for the charge of secrecy, the commission does not publish the names of purchasers or the sums they have paid when sales take place. Nor does the commission divulge that information in the case of its purchases. In both cases it respects the confidentiality that is normally and properly expected between a purchaser and a seller.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the extent of the disposals programme. What we have thought it reasonable to do is to ask the commission to raise some £82 million from sales over a five-year period to 1986. The figure of £82 million is, of course, being bandied about as though it was a sword of Damocles hanging over the commission. In fact, by the time the commission has raised that sum of money, it will still have sold less than 10 per cent. of its holdings and will still manage a substantial part of the productive woodland in this country. We must bear in mind also that it is the forestry commissioners who decide just what is to be sold, and I would find it surprising if they did not take the opportunity offered to sell off some of the woodland that they find difficult to manage. At Glen Affrie they are selling 11,356 hectares of land on which there are no trees, nor can there be trees, and only 342 hectares of plantation. Some Opposition Members want the Forestry Commission to hold on to land that it cannot plant, but that is no purpose of any part of the Forestry Commission.
  I hope that what I have said will help to put the disposals programme into the proper perspective. No decision has yet been made on what might or might not happen after the end of the present programme. I am not prepared to speculate. I accept however, if it is of any comfort to Opposition Members, that the scale of the programme must be considered carefully, and that that is done in the context of the annual reviews of public expenditure.
  I am well aware, of course, that the sale of commission woodlands brings fear of change which can loom large in the eyes of people who live close to these woodlands or who work in them. I think, therefore, that there are a number of things I should say about that.
  First, woodlands do not disappear when they are sold to the private sector. Opposition Members live in cloud-cuckoo-land if they think that that is what happens. The woodlands remain. The felling of trees is controlled by the Forestry Commission, which can prescribe replanting conditions. That apart, woodlands are being bought by people paying the market price for them, and they will surley have every incentive to look after them and manage them properly.
  Naturally, what gives rise to much concern when commission woodlands are sold is the question of the jobs of commission workers. The hon. Member made clear in his speech his own concern on this score. I can understand his concern, of course, over the proposed sale of the Lammermuir forest in his constituency, where some

  141
  redundancies have been announced. I know how even the loss of a few jobs can affect a rural community, and I have every sympathy for those who are made redundant, at Lammermuir or elsewhere. I am also keenly aware that no argument that I can put forward will reconcile a man to losing his job—something that is true in any industry, not just forestry. I know, however, that the forestry commissioners feel as I do on that subject, and that as they sell woodlands they try to keep jobs losses down and to keep compulsory redundancies to a minimum. I have to emphasise, however, that only a very small number of redundancies have arisen as a direct result of the disposals programme.
  Mr Canavan: How many?
  Mr. MacKay: Sadly, the loss of jobs cannot be avoided altogether in an industry where efficiency in work methods is increasing. Despite the increased acreage being planted and growing in Scotland, the number of people involved in forestry is declining because the methods used in forest harvesting, and so on, have changed over the years. We can hardly expect the commission to employ men when there is no work for them. The labour force has been falling quite sharply in recent years, but that is due, as anyone who knows anything about forestry will acknowledge, to mechanisation, different techniques, and so on.
  Since the war we have seen a massive reduction in the number of jobs in agriculture. No one has any doubts about why that has happened. Mechanisation has taken over on the farm, and the same is true in forestry, although it has taken place a little later than in agriculture. New methods are being introduced and there are new work practices in the forest, especially in harvesting. It is highly mechanised, as anyone who watches forest harvesting will know. It is a far cry from the man with the horse, although perhaps some hon. Gentlemen might prefer to go back to that. It is a highly technical operation, with very few men involved. It is capital intensive, and there is much skill involved. That is the main reason why the commission employs far fewer workers than it did, say, 10 years ago. I admit that the smaller commission planting programme has also had its effect, as has the recession in the timber-using industries, but new working practices, and not the sale of plantations, have had the greatest and most lasting impact on employment in forestry.
  Clearly, a great majority of the commission's woodlands are open to the public. It is inevitable that many of the woodlands that are sold will have been used by the public for quiet enjoyment. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but I stress that many woodlands have been sold and there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of purchasers will seek to deny reasonable access. Of course, public rights of way have their own legal protection, which is not affected by a change in ownership.
  Much of what has been said in the House tonight has been about job losses, but let us not forget that there is another side to the coin. Our forest estate is expanding. Millions of young trees are planted each year. The House could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but anyone who
  142
  walks around the Scottish countryside with his eyes open can see that. New timber-using industries have been set up —I have mentioned some of them—and an increasing volume of timber is coming out of our forests to feed those interests. In Argyll and Bute, I see the increasing volume on the roadsides. This all means job security for a great many people. It also means that new jobs have been created. The industry has been going through a period of change, but the picture is not dark for jobs.
  The best guarantee of employment in forestry is not resistance to change, but a willingness by the industry to adapt to the times so that it can continue to supply timber to the user industries efficiently and at competitive prices. Contrary to what has been said, the Forestry Commission is continuing to recruit and to provide training, especially for young people. I am pleased to say that in the Last year it has taken on about 100 young people, many for permanent employment. I hope that the Opposition will join me in welcoming that.
  The private sector of the forestry industry is also in good heart and will play an important part in the production of timber. Its confidence was given an undoubted boost by the Government's firm commitment to forestry expansion in the 1980 policy statement and we have been greatly encouraged by the response from private woodland owners to our call to them to undertake a greater share of the new planting. The new forestry grant scheme introduced in October 1981 has got off to a good start. In its first two years, applications covering about 85,000 hectares of land have been approved, of which some 55,000 hectares are scheduled for new planting. This revival of confidence is also reflected in the actual planting figures. In each of the past two years new planting—as distinct from restocking — has been running at over 12,500 hectares, about 50 per cent. above the level before our policy statement, and we expect to see a steady increase in this figure.
  We also welcome the decision by the several timber growers' organisations in Scotland, England and Wales to unite to form a single body—Timber Growers United Kingdom. This new organisation, which came into being on 1 October this year, is further evidence of the assurance and sense of purpose now to be found on the private side of the industry. It must be clear to the private sector of the industry that the Liberal-SDP alliance has little or no interest in the expansion of the private sector, because not one word has been said about it by alliance Members tonight.
  This debate has been about the problems in the forestry industry. Unfortunately, perhaps inevitably, it turned out to be more of a debate on the commission's disposal programme. I have done my best, in the limited time available, to answer the points and to paint a broader and far rosier picture of the future for the timber industry.
  If I may sum up—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Value Added Network Services
  Value Added Network Services
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Private Telephone Services
  Private Telephone Services
  Community Alarm Scheme
  Community Alarm Scheme
  Greece (Scotch Whisky Imports)
  Greece (Scotch Whisky Imports)
  Cassette Tapes
  Cassette Tapes
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  International Competition (Report)
  International Competition (Report)
  Deep Sea Mining (Applications)
  Deep Sea Mining (Applications)
  Copyright Law
  Copyright Law
THE ARTS
  Libraries
  Libraries
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  "Housing the Arts"
  "Housing the Arts"
PRIME MINISTER
  Miners and Dock Workers
  Miners and Dock Workers
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Engagements
  Engagements
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Custodial Remands (Compensation)
  Custodial Remands (Compensation)
  Prison Accommodation
  Prison Accommodation
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  M1 (Speeding Summonses)
  M1 (Speeding Summonses)
  Sentencing Policy (Custody)
  Sentencing Policy (Custody)
  Messenger Group
  Messenger Group
  Prisoners (Remands)
  Prisoners (Remands)
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Police Cadets (Recruitment)
  Police Cadets (Recruitment)
  Prisons (Contracts)
  Prisons (Contracts)
  Directorate of Industries and Farms
  Directorate of Industries and Farms
  Visas (Iranians)
  Visas (Iranians)
  Hasbudak Family
  Hasbudak Family
  Community Relations
  Community Relations
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
ENVIRONMENT
  Nuclear Waste (Bedford)
  Nuclear Waste (Bedford)
  Local Government Reform (Redundancies)
  Local Government Reform (Redundancies)
  River Mersey (Cleansing)
  River Mersey (Cleansing)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Timber Houses, Liverpool
  Timber Houses, Liverpool
  Local Authorities (Underdeveloped Land)
  Local Authorities (Underdeveloped Land)
  Windscale
  Windscale
  Empty Houses, Collaton Cross, Newton Ferrers
  Empty Houses, Collaton Cross, Newton Ferrers
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Local Authority (Rate Fixing)
  Local Authority (Rate Fixing)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Lebanon (Multinational Force)
  Lebanon (Multinational Force)
  British Subjects (Deaths)
  British Subjects (Deaths)
WALES
  Geriatric Care
  Geriatric Care
  Forestry commission (Tree Sales)
  Forestry commission (Tree Sales)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Hospitals (Energy Costs)
  Hospitals (Energy Costs)
  Local Authorities (Capital Overspending)
  Local Authorities (Capital Overspending)
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Theatre
  Theatre
  Foreign Nationals
  Foreign Nationals
  Tax Files (Destruction)
  Tax Files (Destruction)
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Ports (Customs Clearance)
  Ports (Customs Clearance)
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  Historic Houses
  Historic Houses
  Schedule D (Reclassification)
  Schedule D (Reclassification)
  Tax Status (Contract Workers)
  Tax Status (Contract Workers)
  Self-Catering Facilities (Income)
  Self-Catering Facilities (Income)
  Hotel Building Allowances
  Hotel Building Allowances
DEFENCE
  Service Children (Education)
  Service Children (Education)
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Air Staff
  Air Staff
  Buy British
  Buy British
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Willsworthy Firing Range
  Willsworthy Firing Range
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Nuclear Bases
  Nuclear Bases
EMPLOYMENT
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Castlemilk, Glasgow
  Castlemilk, Glasgow
  Newspaper Industry
  Newspaper Industry
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Training Opportunities Programme
  Training Opportunities Programme
  Young Workers Schemes
  Young Workers Schemes
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
TRANSPORT
  London Transport
  London Transport
  Railway Workshops
  Railway Workshops
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
  Ports (Finance)
  Ports (Finance)
  Liner Conferences
  Liner Conferences
  M4 Motorway
  M4 Motorway
  Severn Crossing
  Severn Crossing
  Railways (Investment)
  Railways (Investment)
  Dangerous Materials
  Dangerous Materials
  Civil Aviation Authority (Dent Review)
  Civil Aviation Authority (Dent Review)
  British Cruise Lines (Soviet Penetration)
  British Cruise Lines (Soviet Penetration)
  M25 (Service Stations)
  M25 (Service Stations)
  Road Capital Budget
  Road Capital Budget
  Railway Electrification
  Railway Electrification
  British Rail (Profitability Criteria)
  British Rail (Profitability Criteria)
  Sealink
  Sealink
  M40 (Oxford to Birmingham)
  M40 (Oxford to Birmingham)
  London Transport (Pensioners' Passes)
  London Transport (Pensioners' Passes)
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Road Noise (Double Glazing)
  Road Noise (Double Glazing)
  Hayes Bypass
  Hayes Bypass
  Manchester-Preston Railway (Electrification)
  Manchester-Preston Railway (Electrification)
  Private Bus Operators
  Private Bus Operators
  Rail and Waterway Freight
  Rail and Waterway Freight
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Express Coaches (Safety)
  Express Coaches (Safety)
  M3–M27 Link
  M3–M27 Link
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Motor Cycle Exhausts
  Motor Cycle Exhausts
  Excise Licences
  Excise Licences
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  London Transport (Fares)
  London Transport (Fares)
  Local Authority (Road Building)
  Local Authority (Road Building)
  Cycling
  Cycling
  Wheel Clamp Experiment
  Wheel Clamp Experiment
  Trunk Roads (Expenditure)
  Trunk Roads (Expenditure)
  London Transport (Concessionary Fares)
  London Transport (Concessionary Fares)
  Electrical Multiple Unit Rolling Stock
  Electrical Multiple Unit Rolling Stock
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Concessionary Fares (London)
  Concessionary Fares (London)
  Mersey Tunnels
  Mersey Tunnels
  M3 (Bar End-Chilworth Extension)
  M3 (Bar End-Chilworth Extension)
  British Rail (Land)
  British Rail (Land)
  A52 (Muston Bends)
  A52 (Muston Bends)
  British Rail
  British Rail
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Africa (Drought)
  Africa (Drought)
  Kabale (Agricultural Adviser)
  Kabale (Agricultural Adviser)
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Loans and Interest Payments
  Loans and Interest Payments
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Judiciary (Selection)
  Judiciary (Selection)
  Defamation (Court Proceedings)
  Defamation (Court Proceedings)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  London Borough of Sutton
  London Borough of Sutton
  Children (Special Educational Needs)
  Children (Special Educational Needs)
  Local Education Authorities' (Expenditure)
  Local Education Authorities' (Expenditure)
ENERGY
  Gas and Electricity Supplies
  Gas and Electricity Supplies
  Underdeveloped Land
  Underdeveloped Land
  Standing Charges
  Standing Charges
  Gas Profits
  Gas Profits
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
SCOTLAND
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Prisons (Remands)
  Prisons (Remands)
  Western Relief Road (Edinburgh)
  Western Relief Road (Edinburgh)
  NHS Spending
  NHS Spending
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  Oils and Fats
  Oils and Fats
  Pasteurised Cream
  Pasteurised Cream
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Milk
  Milk
  European Community (Spirits)
  European Community (Spirits)
  Poultry (Slaughter)
  Poultry (Slaughter)
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Pigeons
  Pigeons
  Fisheries
  Fisheries
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Export to Cuba
  Export to Cuba
  Agricultural Support Prices
  Agricultural Support Prices
SOCIAL SERVICES
  South Islington and Finsbury (Geriatric Provision)
  South Islington and Finsbury (Geriatric Provision)
  Contraceptive Pill
  Contraceptive Pill
  Unemployment Statistics (Merseyside)
  Unemployment Statistics (Merseyside)
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  Pensions and Allowances
  Pensions and Allowances
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Dependent Children
  Dependent Children
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Services (Local Authority Change)
  Services (Local Authority Change)
  Premature Retirements
  Premature Retirements
  Disabled Persons (Discrimination)
  Disabled Persons (Discrimination)
  Genetic Counselling
  Genetic Counselling
  Health Authorities (Land)
  Health Authorities (Land)
  Local Authorities (Rents)
  Local Authorities (Rents)
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Tinnitus
  Tinnitus
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Postage Costs
  Postage Costs
  International Population Conference, Mexico
  International Population Conference, Mexico
  Resettlement Units
  Resettlement Units
  Safety and Health (Report)
  Safety and Health (Report)
  Southampton University (Europe Chair of Rehabilitation)
  Southampton University (Europe Chair of Rehabilitation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Enterprise Zone, Belfast
  Enterprise Zone, Belfast
  Agriculture Committee
  Agriculture Committee
  Health and Social Services Committee
  Health and Social Services Committee
  Environment Committee
  Environment Committee
  Finance and Personnel Committee
  Finance and Personnel Committee
  Education Committee
  Education Committee
  Economic Development Committee
  Economic Development Committee
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Health Expenditure
  Health Expenditure
  Day Centres
  Day Centres
  Home Help Service
  Home Help Service
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Madams Bank Bridge
  Madams Bank Bridge
  Traffic Flows
  Traffic Flows
  Road Works
  Road Works
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Public Funds (Fraud Inquiries)
  Public Funds (Fraud Inquiries)
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches

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

Personal Statement: The Lord Denham
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal statement.
In the course of the Unstarred Question on the Warrington printing dispute last Thursday it seemed to me that some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, reflected on the integrity of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I interrupted his speech to draw his attention to the passage in the Companion to Standing Orders that refers to criticisms of a personal nature directed against members of another place. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has since assured me that his criticisms were intended to be of a political rather than of a personal nature, and of course I accept that assurance. Having re-read the remarks in the Official Report, I now see that the guidance given in this respect by the Companion does not apply. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord and to the House.

Council on Tribunals: Report
2.37 p.m.
Lord Tweedsmuir: 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 they have received the latest report of the Council on Tribunals produced upon their twenty-fifth anniversary.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the annual report of the Council on Tribunals for 1982–1983 was published on 2nd December. The report is made to me and to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. This might be an appropriate moment for me to express my appreciation and that of my noble and learned friend to the chairmen and members of the council from time to time for the valuable work which they have done in the 25 years since the council was set up. There can be no doubt that the public have benefited constantly from the work of the council and, in particular, from improvements in the procedures of tribunals and inquiries which have resulted from their recommendations. I would add, if I may, that my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir made a distinguished contribution to the work of the council during his seven years as its chairman.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I join the noble and learned Lord in expressing our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who has so fittingly put
872
down this Question, bearing in mind his notable contribution as a former chairman. Is it not the case that since the council was set up by the Labour Government 25 years ago it has rendered great service in safeguarding the independence of the 60 kinds of tribunals and inquiries which it supervises and, so far as it can, in seeking to ensure that individuals affected are treated fairly? Would the 25th anniversary of the setting up of the council not be a suitable occasion for extending legal representation in tribunals? Is this also not a time for the House to be given an opportunity to review the work of the council?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for all those remarks. The question of debate is not for me, but for the usual channels. Obviously if there were such a debate, and I was so invited, I should be very glad to take part. As regards the setting up of the council by the Labour Government, if the Labour Government had done only that in the past 25 years I might almost join the noble and learned Lord's party. I note what he says about that one episode of Labour policy.
In relation to legal representation on tribunals, there are tribunals and tribunals. Some have the right to legal representation. The noble and learned Lord has referred to the 60 kinds of tribunal—certainly a large number. This development, which has largely, though not entirely, taken place since the war, was originally designed to do without lawyers. The tribunals were set up in this informal form to prevent what is called a happy hunting ground or paradise for lawyers. The question of legal representation has been considered case by case and in the light of constraints on public expenditure and manpower resources.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if I may, I shall declare a past interest as chairman of the Council on Tribunals. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware how much members of the council have always appreciated the help and co-operation given by him and by his noble and learned predecessor, the Lord Gardiner? Moving on from that, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether his consideration and encouragement would extend to a sentence in the leader of The Times of today, which says that the council has a good claim for further support, if it is to be able to develop its role and increase its usefulness in the future? Can the noble and learned Lord offer to all of us interested in the Council on Tribunals some encouragement in that sphere?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I remember in a previous incarnation congratulating and thanking the noble Baroness herself for the part that she had played. I think that the House would wish to add their appreciation to the noble Baroness to what I have already said to my noble friend. I hope that what she says it true about both my noble and learned predecessor and myself. We find our co-operation with the Council very valuable. It helps us perform one part of our task which otherwise we might be rather ill-equipped to perform, and therefore we find it very valuable, indeed. I did see, but I am afraid, only scanned, the leading article in The Times. I am certain that I shall give it all the support I can, bearing in mind the usual provisos.
Lord Gainford:My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the council has enough resources to carry on with the fairness and impartiality which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as its workload has increased two and a half times over the last 25 years?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords I suppose that none of us has all the resources that we should like in order to do all the things that we should like to do, but the Council on Tribunals has only got to come to me and discuss any particular requirement that it may feel it needs and I will see what I can do for it. I cannot make promises instantly on my feet.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether his attention was drawn to a recent BBC radio programme which appeared to show that there were appalling delays in industrial tribunals which amounted to a denial of justice for some appellants? Did the noble Lord hear that programme and, if so, can he say what he is doing about it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am afraid that the answer is, no, I did not hear it. I will inquire into the matter and perhaps write to the noble Lord if that is convenient.

Blood: Licensing Requirements
2.43 p.m.
Lord De Freyne: 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 they will give an assurance that, should an independent blood supply organisation be established following their decision to charge a handling fee for blood used in private hospitals, it will be subject to the existing safeguards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I can confirm that anyone intending to collect and supply human blood for transfusion would have to meet the licensing requirements of the Medicines Act. However, the Government are, rightly, proud of the National Blood Transfusion Service and the voluntary donation system on which it is based, and would discourage any moves to establish an independent blood supply organisation.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Everyone, I know, is conscious of the need these days to help the public services pay their way, but in view of the growing public concern at the proposed handling charge (or, could I say, blood money?) may I ask the Minister whether he would not agree that when money enters the matter it opens the door for malpractice or commercialisation, which I believe is the case in America? Is it morally correct to make any charge for blood given freely and
874
voluntarily, as has always been the way of our traditional donor system in the United Kingdom?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think my noble friend may be under some misapprehension. The blood itself is not being charged for. It is a handling charge, as I think is now widely realised. We believe that the independent sector should pay for the cost of services provided by the National Health Service. There has been a rapid growth in the quantity of blood provided to private hospitals, and a rising cost to public funds of handling and transporting it. We have decided, therefore, that in line with other services offered to the independent sector, it would be equitable and logical to make an economic charge to reimburse the regional health authorities for the cost of collecting, processing, handling and transporting blood and blood derivatives.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, could the charge to private hospitals lead to an increase in charges to the patients? If so, is this fair in view of the fact that they have already paid their national health contributions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if they are getting blood at private hospitals it is for them to pay and/or to take the matter up with their insurance companies, if that is the way they deal with these things.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, as chairman of the Greater London Fund for Blood Transfusion—and this concerns liquid blood—may I ask my noble friend to make it quite clear that the money is not for the blood but is purely for the costs of administration? We have recently had a very helpful development by way of getting off VAT, so the charges will not be quite so high. Instead of charging every individual person for this administration, we should like to have a yearly grant, which I think would be a much better way of running it.
Lord Glenarthur:My Lords, I do not think that I can comment on the question of a grant in the way the noble Baroness has described it, but I can say that we would certainly do everything in our power—we have already done quite a lot—to make plain to the public at large that we are not charging for blood but merely for the handling of it, which I described just now.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches welcome the statement that the Government do not intend to privatise blood? The other point about which I should like to ask—and I think it is relevant—is whether it is a fact that we are still importing blood. If that is the case, should not the full charge be made for the price paid for blood from overseas?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are not importing blood. We are self-sufficient in whole blood, but we need to import blood products such as Factor VIII, to which I think the noble Lord was referring.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the increase in private medicine this issue of transferring blood from one place to another has raised

875
a few problems? While I, and, I think, the associations within the Health Service, accept and welcome the statement that he has just made, nevertheless there are problems which are neither administrative nor economic which are giving concern to the relevant sector of the British Medical Association and the Confederation of Health Service Employees. Would it be possible for the noble Lord's right honourable friend in another place to see both these organisations in order to ascertain precisely what their apprehensions are?
Lord Glenarthur:My Lords, I am not aware of the apprehensions to which the noble Lord refers. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will note what he says.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a higher proportion of those who use independent medicine give their blood to the transfusion service than of those who use only the NHS? In those circumstances, would not separate blood banks not only be thoroughly undesirable but positively detrimental to the NHS?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the National Blood Transfusion Service is equipped and has the expertise to meet all demands for blood and, provided we make the optimum use of all the blood received, there should be no need for private panels. The introductions of such panels, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is suggesting, whether voluntary or paid, could only be detrimental to the service's own voluntary system.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he can give an assurance that old blood—blood that has passed its recommended date of use—will not be passed on to private hospitals?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication as to what the handling fee will be? I gather from the British Medical Association that it will cost about £18 per unit; that is, three-quarters of a pint. Is that correct?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the precise level of charge is so far not fixed. We shall be discussing this, together with the operative date when it will come into effect, with representatives of the National Health Service and the private sector; but we anticipate that the handling charge per unit of whole blood will be around £19. That is just a projected figure at the moment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will there be a charge for blue blood?
Lord Glenarthur:My Lords, I shall wait until I see whether the noble Lord is prepared to deliver some, and then I will see what arrangements can be made.

Korean Airliner: Identification
2.51 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 evidence has been made available to them which shows that the Soviet authorities and air forces were aware, at the time the Korean aircraft was destroyed, that the machine was in fact a civil airliner.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Soviet authorities had plenty of opportunities to intercept the Korean airliner and identify it visually during the substantial time that it was in Soviet airspace. They failed to do so.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for that answer. Is she aware that many people—probably most people—in this country agree with the Prime Minister and with the Commonwealth Conference that the time has now come when we should try to get a constructive dialogue with the Soviet Union? Would she think that the theatrical presentation at the United Nations by Mrs. Kirkpatrick, in which she used inaccurately and probably misleadingly transcribed tapes and when the President of the United States talked about the cold-blooded shooting down of the airliner when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Soviet pilot knew that it was a civil airliner is really consistent with a sincere desire for a dialogue?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the incident inevitably damaged the Soviet Union's international standing. So far as Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Soviet Union are concerned, we would welcome a more constructive relationship, but would expect a change in the Soviet attitude for this to be achieved. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government are ready to pursue in the right circumstances a sensible and realistic dialogue.
On the question of the verification, the evidence is that, despite Soviet claims, there is no evidence from the transcript of the interceptor pilot's conversation that he either made visual manoeuvres in front of the airliner to-indicate that he had seen it or attempted to make contact by radio on international emergency frequencies.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would not the Government be prepared to accept the possibility that in a moment of panic the local Soviet authorities were not aware that they were actually going to shoot down an airliner with 260 passengers on it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the incomplete evidence that is available, there is no reason to contradict the answer which was given by Marshal Ogarkov on 9th September that the decision to shoot down the airliner was given by the Commander of the Air Defence region.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that both the Americans and the Japanese had been monitoring this aircraft for two hours before it was destroyed and had passed on no information that it was off course to the pilot or had any communication with the Soviet authorities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, all air traffic on the route between Anchorage and Japan is out of radar coverage from the time it leaves the Anchorage area until it approaches Japan. The pilot of each airliner using the route is responsible for reporting his position from time to time, using his own navigation system. So far as we know, the pilot of KAL.007 made regular reports of his position and it appears that he thought he was following a normal air route. In the circum stances, the air traffic controllers would have had no way of knowing that the airliner was in fact off course.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case and becoming generally accepted that the colonel in the Korean Air Force who was flying the aircraft knew precisely where he was and that the aircraft was in fact on a spying mission and that he had instructions—
A noble Lord: Nonsense!
Lord Jenkins of Putney:—and our own civil aircraft organisation agrees that this was not a stray. This is now widely accepted and, in view of this, is it not the case that a thorough examination of this whole affair, including the entirely regrettable loss of life, might reveal a state of affairs which would be different from that which the Government at present believe?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not prepared to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said. It is not clear whether there was human error or some equipment failure as to why the airliner strayed off course. There is, of course, an inquiry by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, whose report is expected to be published today. That may throw some light on it.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in view of the fact that all aircraft on this route are followed by radar control by the Japanese, must it not have been perfectly obvious to the radar operators that this aircraft was a very long way off course?—yet they gave absolutely no knowledge of this to the pilot of the aircraft.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. As I said in an earlier answer, in fact there is no radar cover on this part of the course of the aircraft.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall the fear which gripped the world following the incident? Is she aware of the grave concern which many have in all countries that if such an incident occurred again with a nuclear dimension we should not be able to ask questions and sort out the merits afterwards? Can she say what initiatives the Government have taken with other countries, including the United States and the Soviet Union, to see that such an incident does not happen again?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated, there has been an inquiry into this matter and the results are expected to be published today.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend not disturbed that with the exception of the last question, which did not fall into this category, all the questions on this subject so far seem to imply that the Americans were wrong and that the Russians did nothing very wrong?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government's position on this matter has been quite clear. We thought that the destruction of the Korean airliner on 1st September was a disgraceful breach of the Soviet Union's international obligations in respect of air safety. As a consequence, we, together with the majority of our allies, imposed a 14-day ban on civil flights between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union and on Soviet over-flights of the United Kingdom.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree, without taking sides in this matter at all, that nobody has yet brought forward any explanation which is in the least satisfactory as to how this aeroplane ever got off course to this extent and remained unconscious so long of what was happening? It really did sound, as one paper put it, as though the pilot must have become unconscious for some reason. Have we any explanation at all?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in answer to an earlier supplementary question, we do not know whether there was a human error or whether there was some equipment failure in the aircraft. The report of the inquiry into this matter may shed some light on the cause of it.
Lord Beswick: Are the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite aware that I have more reason than most for not wanting civil airliners to be shot down and I think it was disgraceful that a civil airliner should be lost with that number of lives? Nevertheless, will the noble Baroness take into account that if the Soviet Union had really wanted to shoot down an aircraft regardless, they would have done it much more efficiently by using a SAM II missile from the Kamchatka Peninsula? Will the noble Baroness try to answer my first supplementary, which was: did she think it was consistent with a sincere desire for dialogue for Mrs. Kirkpatrick to go to the United Nations, use inaccurate and misleading transcripts and create the sort of atmosphere which is quite contrary to any desire for dialogue?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said in the first part of that supplementary question, but I am sure he will accept that it will not be for me to explain American policy on this matter. It is for Mrs. Kirkpatrick to speak for herself. But, not surprisingly and like all other countries, the Americans were very disturbed that a civil airliner should have been shot down.

Youth Training Scheme: Participants
3 p.m.
Lord Gridley: 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 how many places on the youth training scheme have been filled.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, at the end of October over 230,000 young people were on the scheme.
Lord Gridley:My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. May I ask whether the Government are satisfied with the programme so far, and how many people are envisaged as being eventually trained under this scheme? Is it in the region of 460,000 individuals?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, yes. I think I can say—inevitably guardedly—that the Government are satisfied with progress so far. We anticipate that by the middle of this month nearly 300,000 young people will have entered the scheme. I cannot extrapolate further than that except to say to my noble friend that the intention is that all young people over 16 who choose to take a place should be offered one.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is very considerable concern—not least among employers operating the mode A scheme of YTS—at the failure to take up places? Will he say what steps are being taken by the Government to make sure that the public has a much better understanding of the difference between YTS and YOP and, in particular, that the schools have much better information? It is now quite clear that schools did not fully understand and were not in a position to pass onto their pupils the real advantages of YTS.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's recognition of the real advantages of YTS, and it is the case that the Government and the Manpower Services Commission have lost no time in making schools, in particular, aware of the differences between this scheme and YOP. I am confident that these differences are realised. I think that more can be done in the way of publicity, and the Government are looking at that. Nevertheless, the take-up so far is encouraging. In so far as it has been slightly less than expected, it is also the case that there are now more real vacancies for young people than there were when the scheme was set up.
Baroness David:My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great many local authorities will find themselves in grave financial difficulties because of the MSC paying for places occupied and not for places prepared? For instance, I have the figures for Nottinghamshire. They prepared for 8,660 places and 4,660were taken up, so there will be a great shortfall in the fee income. They estimate that it might be as much as £600,000. Other authorities are in the same
880
position. Can the Minister say something about that and about whether the Government intend that they should not go into penalty because they have overspent in this way?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I should have thought that local authorities all over the country would greatly welcome the fact that there are now more real employment opportunities for young people, though of course the training element in this scheme means that it will be possible for a young person to be both in employment and under the scheme at the same time, which is also I think widely welcomed. But I see no reason, if local authorities plan sensibly, why they should be in any difficulty.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I asked the noble Earl this question on an earlier occasion and he did not have the figures with him. I wonder whether he has them today. Can he tell us what is the percentage of places taken up, in comparison to the places that are available and the number of young people who are eligible to enter this scheme?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the reason I cannot do so is simply that it is very difficult to break down the employment figures in this way. The fact of the matter is that there has been a sharp improvement in the prospects of employment for young people over recent months. That still leaves a very great deal of difficulty for very many young people, and it is to them that the scheme is directed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask whether any young handicapped people have taken up places?
The Earl of Gowrie:Yes, my Lords. That is the case, though I could not give the noble Baroness precise figures. She and the House might also be pleased to hear that of course young disabled people can enter the scheme after the age of 18.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to say whether the—certainly to myself—disappointing results so far are due, to any extent, to the reluctance of employers to take a full part in this scheme, as distinct from the reluctance of young people—if there is reluctance—to engage themselves?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not know of instances. I have to tell the noble Lord that employers are reluctant in this way. Certainly the Manpower Services Commission gives them a great deal of help over the scheme and its operation.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the important point relating to this scheme is not so much how many take advantage of it, but what proportion of those who do take part in the scheme get a job afterwards. Can he give the House any indication of the proportion of those completing their training who are in employment three months later?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Lord in those sentiments. But of course since

881
the scheme came on stream only on 1st September 1983, it would be too early yet to tell. I can say to the noble Lord, as I said earlier, that the prospects have slightly improved for young people, and that of course we all welcome though we want to see the improvement continue.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl. Does he say that he has actually answered the question of my noble friend, Lady David, who asked him whether the Government would compensate local authorities for the places which they have made available, when they will get money only if people take them up? If they do not take them up and local authorities lose money, will they be in penalty or will they be compensated?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it would be perfectly within the bounds of local authorities to operate this scheme (which they value, as the Government do) within their existing budgets.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, while we are all glad that there are more jobs, it is highly undesirable to encourage youngsters to take up jobs which have no training element and will only lead to further unskilled work which is likely to diminish rather than to go into YTS? This is not widely understood and Government encouragement here is badly needed.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that we take the noble Baroness's point on board by stressing the fact that it is perfectly possible to be in real employment and to be in the scheme at the same time.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton:My Lords, are the Government wholly satisfied with the legal status of a large number of young people in this scheme? In particular, are they satisfied about the way in which their status is at least doubtful, and about the fact that in many ways they are excluded from the employment protection and discrimination legislation? And—I am hoping that the noble Earl the Minister will not say that this is a different question—do the Government recognise that this at least is one disincentive in respect of the scheme?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that Governments, if they are sensible, are ever wholly satisfied about anything. But the fact of the matter is that the Manpower Services Commission operates the scheme in careful consultation with employers and with unions, and I have not noticed any volume of complaint along the lines that the noble Lord has outlined. I hope that the noble Lord will also attend to the possible disincentive employment effects of the kinds of legislation that he has mentioned.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the situation in the Lebanon.
882
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately one hour. The Second Reading of the Fosdyke Bridge Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

County Courts Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a straight forward consolidation Bill. There are 14 foolscap pages of derivations, so I will not tell the House exactly what is being consolidated. But it is straight consolidation, and if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for a short interval.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the Question is, That the House do adjourn during pleasure? As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Contents have it.
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, the Question was whether we should adjourn during pleasure. Does that indicate that we are very pleased with the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is missing from the Chamber?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I apologise—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is, That the House do adjourn during pleasure?
On Question, Motion disagreed to.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do offer to the House my apologies. I had to leave the House very briefly indeed, and the Lord Chancellor was too fast for me.
The subject of this debate is the draft regulations to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970. Your Lordships may know that these arise from the need to amend the Equal Pay Act to conform to our European obligations by providing for equal pay for work of equal value. The regulations are admittedly complex, but I shall explain why this is so, and the Department of Employment has prepared an explanatory note for general use. This is available in the House with the regulations, which were laid on 6th July last. I shall not now go into great detail about the procedure we envisage, but I shall of course respond to any questions which noble Lords may raise if, by leave. I may wind up.
Let me say at the beginning that the Government are fully committed to the principle of equal pay for men and women and are firmly against sex discrimination, including that which affects jobs and pay. We are committed to the implementation of the European Equal Pay Directive. We believe that our Equal Pay Act did comply with the directive and, as the Minister who at that time was most immediately concerned, that still remains my view. Nevertheless, the European Court found otherwise, and accordingly we accept the need to amend the Equal Pay Act so as to close the gap between the directive and our Act which was found by the European Court.
The European Court judgment obliges us to act without undue delay. The European Communities Act 1972 provides us with the means to do so simply and efficiently through regulations, and it is these that we are now discussing. I know that there has been criticism of the use of regulations because they cannot be amended by Parliament. However, we circulated them very widely in draft for consultation last February, and we have received a considerable volume of comment. A recurring theme in these comments is criticism of the complexity of the regulations. We acknowledge this complexity, but we argue that it is, unfortunately, unavoidable.
In the first place, a vague amendment will not do. We have to do justice to women at work to eliminate sex discrimination in assessing the value of work for the purposes of pay, but at the same time we need to allow employers a reasonable chance to defend themselves against claims which might be initiated for purposes other than to eliminate sex discrimination in pay. Secondly, we must bring our law into conformity with European law. This is an extremely tricky task, involving bringing into consistency two wholly differently conceived legal systems.
While, therefore, we have been confronted with the need for some complex and painstaking legal drafting, I can assure your Lordships that the operation of the new provision can be described fairly simply. The current Equal Pay Act allows a woman to claim equal pay with a man (or, for that matter, a man with a woman) if she is doing the same or broadly similar work, or if her job and his have been rated equal through job evaluation in terms of effort, skill and decision. But if a woman is doing different work from
884
a comparable man or if the jobs are not covered by a job evaluation study, the woman has at present no right to make a claim for equal pay. This was the gap held by the European Court to be contrary to the European Equal Pay Directive, and the regulations we are discussing this afternoon amend the Equal Pay Act to give effect to the court judgment.
The regulations provide that women who cannot make a claim under the current Act may make claims to industrial tribunals that their work is of equal value. Women who may claim include those whose jobs are covered by a job evaluation scheme if there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the scheme is discriminatory. The tribunals will be helped by newly appointed experts who will furnish independent reports on whether the jobs compared are in fact of equal value. In equal value cases the regulations also allow an employer to argue that genuine economic considerations apart from sex justify unequal pay.
Could I give one or two examples of this? Let us suppose that a female clerk claims equal pay with a male computer programmer on the grounds that her work is of equal value to his. The employer might admit that the work is of equal value but might argue that he has to pay the computer programmers more in order to retain their services, otherwise they would simply leave for higher pay elsewhere. This is a perfectly valid reason for a difference in pay because it is not based on sex. Another example: local education authorities who need to attract mathematics teachers in shortage areas can offer them a lead in pay over other teachers starting their careers. This is to do simply with the shortage of maths teachers; it has nothing whatsoever to do with sex discrimination—and, of course, it applies to either sex.
I mentioned earlier that we had consulted widely about these regulations. A number of points were made by the Equal Opportunities Commission and others concerned that we might not meet our objective of complying with European law. There were three major criticisms. First, we had placed the burden of proving sex discrimination in pay on the woman. We have now removed this. Secondly, women already covered by a job evaluation scheme could not bring a case under the new equal value provision. We have now provided that if there is sex discrimination in such a scheme it will not prevent a woman bringing a claim. Thirdly, we had proposed that the new provision should come into effect twelve months after the Act had been amended. We now propose that it should come into effect from 1st January. I hope your Lordships will accept that we have taken our consultations very seriously and that we have responded most constructively to the criticisms made.
As a result of the changes I have just described, the Government are convinced that the regulations are now fully in accord with our European obligations. We have kept the European Commission informed, and took carefully into account their comments on our February draft.
In addition to the draft regulations now before the House, provision needs to be made for rules to govern the operation of the independent expert in the regulations concerning the procedure of industrial tribunals. We propose to lay such procedure

885
regulations before Parliament very shortly. They will, unless rejected, come into operation on 1st January 1984. We issued draft procedure regulations for consultation on 6th September. Again we received a considerable number of comments. We have considered these comments most carefully, and in the light of them we propose to make certain changes. These changes have been incorporated in the revised draft procedure regulations and explanatory note which has been made available to the House. It may be helpful, however, if I detail briefly the major ones.
Again, there were three main criticisms. First, there was uncertainty about how the expert would work and whether parties to cases would have a chance to comment on facts and the representations of other parties. We have now altered the regulations to ensure that parties get such an opportunity. Secondly, there were anxieties that the independent expert report would be insufficiently open to challenge. Parties may now cross-examine the expert, call an alternative expert witness, and ask the tribunal to put written questions to the expert. Thirdly, there were anxieties that the tribunals would be likely to reject cases on an employer's defence that material factors justify unequal pay before the independent expert is commissioned. We have rephrased the regulations to try to limit instances of this to clear cut cases where it is obvious that the claims cannot succeed. I hope it will be quite clear from this how seriously again we have taken the process of consultation on the regulations.
I should perhaps add a few words at this point about the kind of qualities we expect in the independent experts. The experts will be designated by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and they will be expected to have experience in industrial relations. They will not be people who are experts in job evaluation only. There will be a duty on the expert to take no account of difference of sex and at all times to act fairly. ACAS will be looking for people with the necessary experience, and the proven integrity, to command the confidence of both parties and the tribunal.
It is obvious that the decision to award equal pay in individual cases may have collective repercussions. We have not however provided any specific mechanisms to deal with those. We did ask employers' organisations and others in the course of our consultations what they felt about the matter, and on the whole they took the view that no statutory provisions were desirable. The services of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service will of course be available in the usual way to parties who wish to seek their assistance for the resolution of collective disputes.
I hope it will be apparent from what I have said that our aim has been to implement the European Court's judgment, having regard to the need to comply with European law, while safeguarding employers from having to give equal pay where there is not sex discrimination. We have responded to criticisms from the Equal Opportunities Commission and others on both the amendment regulations and the complementary procedures, and those draft amendment regulations incorporate amendments which have been made as a result of comment and discussion during the consul-
886
tative period. I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
3.23 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy rose to move, as an amendment to the above motion, at the end to insert "but that this House believes that the regulations do not adequately reflect the 1982 decision of the European Court of Justice and Article 1 of the EEC Equal Pay Directive of 1975."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Earl on the superiority of his delivery and the degree of conviction with which he introduced this regulation over the way in which it was presented in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary at half past ten at night.
He said—and I agree that he meant what he said—that he was fully committed to the principle of equal pay. I cannot quite understand, however, on what basis he said that he was convinced that the Government, in following previous legislation, had already complied with Article 1 of the directive which says that equal pay shall be defined as,
"the same work or for work to which equal value is attached".
There is nothing in our existing legislation which covers equal value. What we have provided for is the same or like work. There can be no doubt whatever that without an effective amendment to the Equal Pay Act 1970 we shall be out of compliance with the EEC directive. Although I accept the noble Earl's sincerity when he says he believes in equal pay for equal work, I am a little a worried that he is still coming to the House and saying that he thinks we do not really need even the regulations and the changes to the Equal Pay Act 1970 which we have before us today.
Secondly, I cannot agree with the noble Earl's suggestion that he has met all the points. It is perfectly true that the Government have met many points—but then, a very large number of points were made. When the Government first published the first draft last year, considerable volumes of representation were made on the unsatisfactory nature of the draft regulations. The Equal Opportunities Commission made representations, the TUC made representations, the NCCL made representations, and the Select Committee of another place dealing with employment criticised the draft. The draft, which was then changed in a number of respects, was severely criticised outside this Chamber—as the noble Earl well knows—when it was first scheduled to be discussed in this House last October.
It is true that as a result of all those representations a number of changes were made. As the noble Earl said, the Government changed back the burden of proof. They removed the original delay of 12 months. They accepted—although not entirely satisfactorily—that an applicant can challenge an existing job evaluation scheme on grounds of discrimination. Most important of all, since the draft was placed before this House last October (and as the noble

887
Earl said) very significant changes—which I welcome on behalf of this side of the House—were made in the procedural rules dealing with the role of the expert.
It is now clear that the expert can be cross-examined. It is now clear that the expert can be challenged by at least one expert witness. I readily admit that, in broad terms, those parts of the procedures now comply with at least Article 2 of the EEC directive and represent a fair judicial process. But that was not all we said. We said many other things. We did not simply say that we wanted to do something about the procedures. We said that we wanted to do something about the regulations themselves. I and my noble friends will no doubt mention many of the respects in which the regulations themselves, as against the procedures (although they are not completely correct and appropriate), are still defective. In the time available to me, I wish to deal with two of the major ways in which the regulations are defective still.
The first of these I call the device of the a priori pre-hearing pre-hearing. That is to say, that there is in these regulations set out in Paragraph 3, to provide a new subsection (3)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, a strange kind of a priori special check before the process begins. Indeed, it is stated there that the tribunal can dismiss a case altogether if it considers that there are no reasonable grounds.
I wish to ask three questions about that point and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to answer them when he comes to reply to this debate. How does that strange additional pre-hearing pre-hearing relate to the existing pre-hearings which are perfectly normal in industrial tribunal procedures? It is now the case that if one of the parties before an industrial tribunal on an unfair dismissal case, let us say, asks for a pre-hearing to see whether there is a prima facie case, then that takes place. If it turns out that the tribunal believes that no case has been made, then the tribunal's members will report on that fact.
The difference is—and this brings me to my second question—that in the case of the present pre-hearings, the appellant or the defendant, if they want to, can say that they nevertheless want to go on to a full hearing. But that does not seem to be the case with this regulation. My question is: is this strange extra pre-hearing a substitute for the existing pre-hearing, and can it result in the case being dismissed without any appeal and without any reasons being given? What is the purpose of that strange procedure if it is not to make it much more difficult for any applicant to sustain a case?
Another question I should like to ask about the a priori pre-hearing pre-hearing is: what evidence can be advanced at this stage? Presumably—although it was not completely clear from the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place—one cannot really at this stage discuss whether or not there is in fact equal work of equal value. That would be to prejudge the work of the expert; that is his job; that is a question of fact; that cannot be rehearsed at the pre-hearing, can it?
So maybe the employer will be able to recite his defence. He will be able to say that, even if there is subsequently proved equal work of equal value, he has
888
a non-sexist justification. What kind of evidence will he pray in aid at that point? And is he not in fact having two bites at the cherry? Cannot he try out his defence at this stage, at a time when the applicant has very little evidence to rebut it, and knowing very well that if he falls at this hearing he can come back subsequently if the expert decides in the applicant's favor? So why do we have this strange, weird, and, I am told by my lawyer friends, totally unprecedented a priori pre-hearing pre-hearing put into the regulation?
Secondly, I come to the nature of the defence, which comes up, I would remind noble Lords, in the third case. In the first case the applicant has to establish that she has a reasonable case under the new Section 2A(1)(a). Secondly, the expert has to come along and has to regard the work as of equal value and being paid less. That is the second test. Thirdly, the employer has a defence; he has to say, perhaps for the second time, that there is a difference which is not sex based. He then prays in aid a material factor defence which is not a material difference.
Now, what I want the noble Earl to tell me is how far this new subsection (3)(b) takes us beyond the existing defence in like work comparisons, which continues in the regulation and is provided in the new subsection (3)(a)? Because, as we know, the old defence to the like work comparison was narrowed significantly by the decision in the Clay Cross case. It was decided in that case that a material difference defence is restricted to what was called the personal equation; that is to say, it is not to include extrinsic factors, objective, measurable factors, such as length of service, level of performance, red circling arrangements and so on. Because to go further than that, said the court, would he to allow the employer to say, "I paid her less because she was willing to come for less". But, of course, if such an excuse were permitted, the Act, said the court, "would be a dead letter".
After all, those are the very reasons why there was unequal pay before the statute; they are the very circumstances in which the statute was intended to operate. The court said that if the employer was allowed to say, "I asked her to come, but for that sum, which was what she was getting in her previous job, because she was the only applicant for the job, so I had no option", then, if such an area were permitted as an excuse, the door would be wide open and every employer who wished to avoid the statute could walk straight through.
My question is, do the Government intend by the new subsection (3)(b) to allow the employer to walk straight through? If they do not, then what is the meaning of the statement made in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Employment about the "labour market defence"? He spoke as though the new subsection (3)(b) was to provide the employer with a very broad labour market defence. He said:
"What we have in mind are circumstances where the difference in pay is not due to personal factors between the man and the woman, but rather to skill shortages or other market forces"—
that is the significant phrase, "other market forces".
"If a man is paid more than a woman for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply"—
as the noble Earl suggested—

889
"that is not sexually discriminatory, provided that the reason is genuine and the employer can show that".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20/7/83; col. 486.]
What is meant by "other market forces"? If we are talking about skill differences, surely skill differences can be taken into account, if they are significant enough, in the job evaluation, if they are part of the job specification. But if the skill differences are personal they are surely covered by the Clay Cross rule. If, on the other hand, we allow general market forces, then we are allowing much wider factors to be taken into account.
What, after all, are market forces in this context? They are a difference in price, or pay, which is assumed to be due to a difference in the conditions of supply and demand. If one allows an employer merely to say it was due to market forces, and this is not examined by the tribunal, then it justifies any kind of discrimination or prejudice which is the result either of worker prejudices or employer prejudices, or both, if it is to be quite unexamined by the tribunal. But, if the tribunal tries to examine it on the basis of what the Parliamentary Secretary says, and to some extent what the noble Earl says, they may very well find that, in the short term at least, a shortage, for example, arises because there are no trained women to do this job or because there is a surplus because there are a large number of untrained, unemployed women; so they may say "Well, this is a market factor". But we all know, if we know anything about the labour market, that such shortages derive from earlier institutional or social barriers to the progress of women, their training, their appointment, their recruitment, their placement in the labour market. So behind these short-term market reasons are longer-term factors which most of us would say were at least partly sex based. Is the tribunal to be allowed to go into all of these; are they to be allowed to judge them and award accordingly? I do not think that is a practical way to look at it.
It is quite right, and I accept this, that a simple application of the like work test as developed in the Clay Cross case would take us further than recent European court decisions—for example, Jenkins v. Kingsgate. That went beyond the personal equation and suggested a commercial benefit to the employer kind of defence. But I suggest that, if that is admitted, it is not a general market defence. What is being said there is that one would need to look and see what the consequence of granting equal pay for equal value in this particular case would be for the employer's business—for example, for his pay structures, for his general structure of costs, for his industrial relations. These are internal factors which a court might be able to assess, but they are not the kind of general factors which the Parliamentary Secretary in another place says would be perfectly possible under the present regulation. Of course, they would be possible under the present regulation because it does not specify any grounds at all. It merely says you may use the defence which is used in the like work comparison, but then again you may not. So I am suggesting that the Government should, before they ask us to accept this order, modify that general passage and place in it some more objective, limited qualification.
I come to my final point, which is the question of the way in which this is generally related. We feel that this
890
is a highly complicated and extremely difficult regulation to understand. We believe that, although the procedures are in many ways better than they were, there remain very considerable deficiencies in the regulations. Therefore, we shall be asking the House to divide. We shall be asking the House to support our amendment. We believe that, on the first major issue left, the Government have done extremely well. We believe that, on the second major question and the third major question, they have done virtually nothing. They do not provide in terms of the EEC Equal Pay Directive for the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of sex, and they do not provide even in the terms of Article 2 a solution by judicial process. Therefore, we ask the House to reject these regulations.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at the end to insert "but that this House believes that the regulations do not adequately reflect the 1982 decision of the European Court of Justice and Article 1 of the EEC Equal Pay Directive of 1975."—(Lord McCarthy.)

The Lebanon
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement now being made in another place.
"On 3rd December anti-aircraft guns and missiles were fired at United States reconnaissance aircraft over Lebanon. Early on 4th December United States aircraft bombed Syrian military targets in Lebanon. Two United States aircraft were shot down. Syrian losses have been reported as two dead and 10 seriously wounded. Last night eight United States marines were killed by shell fire. United States naval vessels then opened fire in response.
"We are in close contact with other contributors to the MNF. We share the objective of helping the Lebanese Government restore stability and create conditions in which the Lebanese people can themselves sort out their differences free from outside interference.
"All the parties welcome the role of the British contingent, which has the vital task of guarding the meetings of the Cease-fire Commission. The safety of our men is kept under constant review.
"It is vital that all parties in Lebanon show restraint and work together to make further progress towards national reconciliation. The cycle of violence must be broken".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. We also sympathise with the United States on the loss of eight marines killed in the shelling outside Beirut. However, does not the noble Baroness agree that the developments of the past 48 hours, where the United States and Syrian forces have clashed in the Lebanon, constitute a significant escalation of the conflict and that that could have far-reaching implications?
We welcome the assurance in the Statement that the Government are in close contact with the other contributors to the multinational force. Can the noble

891
Baroness say whether this included consultations with the United States before its aircraft bombed Syrian military targets? Were we informed of this and, if so, what was the response of Her Majesty's Government? Moreover, will the noble Baroness confirm once again that the treaty governing the presence of British troops in the Lebanon permits their use only in the Beirut area? Will she assure the House that they will not be allowed to become involved in a wider conflict with Syria but rather that they would be withdrawn?
Finally, we support the plea that all parties in the Lebanon should show restraint. Does the noble Baroness agree that this is a further argument for a meeting between the leaders of the United States and Soviet Union? Will the Government use all their endeavours to bring about such a meeting?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Government confirm that the greater part of Lebanon is under the military control of its two neighbours, Syria and Israel? Can they also confirm that Syrian forces are there by invitation of the Lebanese Government as members of an Arab League multinational force, albeit a shadowy one, and that the Israeli forces are there by right of invasion alone, and in defiance of United Nations resolutions?
Can the Government also confirm that the Western multinational force went by invitation to keep peace between the two sides? Now that Israel and the United States, bound together in a new alliance, have both attacked Syrian forces on the ground, what is the continuing purpose of the Western multinational force? Are the Government aware that as long as our little contingent confines itself to guarding the Cease fire Commission it will have the country with it, but if it is allowed to be dragged behind President Reagan in an attempt to expel Syria from the Lebanon it will have the country against it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the way they have received this Statement? To answer the first question put by Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos on consultation with the United States, I can confirm that we were informed shortly beforehand, but, as he will understand, each multinational force contributor has the right to self-defence and to decide what measures it deems to be necessary.
It might be helpful if I were to set out once again the conditions for keeping our multinational force in the Lebanon because this answers a question put by both noble Lords. I should make clear that the presence of our contribution to the multinational force helps the Lebanese Government and the army. It reassures the Beirut public and helps to restore stability and to create conditions for reconciliation, which is what we wish to see.
We believe that our forces have been welcomed by all the communities and that they have an important role in guarding cease-fire talks. Further, I think that they demonstrate our commitment to promote peace in the Lebanon which is, of course, important for wider stability in the Middle East. It is something which has been welcomed both by moderate Arabs
892
and by Israel. The fact that the Syrians are appreciative of our policies was made clear to my right honourable friend Mr. Luce on 4th December.
I have, of course, noted the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I should like to confirm what I have already indicated today, that we ourselves believe there should be a constructive dialogue with the Soviet Union and that is something we shall be continuing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I pursue the point about consultation a step further in view of its importance, and in order that there may be no doubt about it? Is the noble Baroness saying that Her Majesty's Government were consulted by the United States about the proposed bombing but that the Government did not demur or object to this further escalation in the Lebanon? Is that the position? Is it also the case that the different parties to the MNF can, in fact, go off on adventures of their own without the agreement of the other parties? If so, that is a very serious statement.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the position is as I described it in my original answer to the noble Lord. We were informed by the United States shortly before it took action. But I must reiterate that each contributor has the right to self-defence and to decide what measures are necessary. In fact, in the case of the French retaliation we were not informed in advance. I can perhaps go on to confirm that there could be no possible use of the British forces unless the British Government wish them to be used in some way.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that military aggression of the type involved in the bombing is self-defence in the terms of the understanding between the parties?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for me to speak for the American Government in this particular matter. It was for the American Government to determine what they felt was right for their self-defence in the circumstances of the case.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that from the point of view of future peace keeping it is essential that the European countries at least should maintain the confidence of both sides? Will the noble Baroness reaffirm that, when the United States and Israel are engaged in hostilities with Syria and the Lebanese Moslems, the position of the United Kingdom is uncommitted to either side?
Baroness Young:My Lords, as I think I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the British contingent enjoys the confidence of both sides in this particular circumstance. On the question of consultations, I can confirm that there will be a meeting of the MNF Foreign Ministers in Brussels later this week.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that there can be no peace in Lebanon until all foreign forces have withdrawn? Will she further agree that there was a pact between the Israeli and Lebanese Governments which called for a withdrawal of Israeli forces, with which the Israeli Government have

893
complied, and that that pact was subject to Syria also withdrawing? Is not Syria's failure to withdraw the cause of the present unhappy situation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to confirm that we see an urgent need for the full withdrawal of all foreign forces in Lebanon. At the time we welcomed the agreement as a commitment by Israel to the full withdrawal of her forces from Lebanon. Clearly there have been difficulties about the implementation of that. We should not object to alternative arrangements which had the agreement of all parties. We recognise the Israeli concern about security for her northern border. But what we really want to see is the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, in the muddled situation that we have in the Lebanon, are not the true enemies the Druze and the Syrians, and is it not really these people who have to be dealt with and not the Israelis or the Americans? It is these people, with Russia, who we think are our enemies and who are our enemies.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should rather not be drawn down the particular path that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has outlined. We believe that the majority of Lebanese share the objectives of President Gemayel to restore Lebanese independence and secure the withdrawal of foreign troops.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, rightly or wrongly the newspapers are full of rumours to the effect that, profiting apparently from the illness of President Assad, the American and Israeli Governments have come to some agreement to use force to compel the evacuation of the Lebanon by the Syrian army. While I have no reason to suppose that these reports are accurate, will the noble Baroness say that, if by any chance they are, the Government will make it clear at once that they are entirely opposed to such a dangerous policy, which could very possibly lead to an armed confrontation between the two super-powers?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should not like to speculate on any view that the press may take now or some time in the future. Any agreements or arrangements between President Reagan and Mr. Shamir are for them. In the answers that I have given to the other questions I think I have made clear what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Paget of Northampton:My Lords, what we are concerned about now is surely the steps taken by our leading ally to protect its own troops. Is not our interest in that respect that it should succeed in protecting its troops? Will the Government make that point clear to them, and that this is not a carping expedition?
Baroness Young:My Lords, in my answer to the first supplementary question asked on this Statement I made it clear that each contributor to the multinational force—to which the United States is a major contributor—has the right to decide on its own
894
self-defence and what measures it regards as necessary to achieve that end.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend possibly help us a little on this? Part of the instability of the present Lebanese Government is created by the 1943 agreement partitioning jobs between Sunni Moslems and Maronite Christians. The numbers in the population have changed very much since then. Can my noble friend confirm, or comment upon, whether any pressure has been put on President Gemayel by ourselves or, above all, by the American Government to make concessions to the Sunni Moslems, who I know feel threatened by the Maronite superiority in the present Lebanese Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Onslow will be aware, there have been discussions in Geneva with President Gemayel on the future of Lebanon. We think that the majority of Lebanese share his objective of restoring Lebanon's independence and securing the withdrawal of foreign forces. There are differences between the parties over power sharing and institutional reform, but we believe that these need to be sorted out by the Lebanese themselves without outside interference. It is not for us to be involved in this. There has been some encouraging progress in the Geneva talks. Indeed, President Gemayel is to come here to see us in the near future with the object of discussing the reconvening of the reconciliation talks, which we must all hope will be successful.

Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983
3.56 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for introducing these regulations and for his explanation of the changes that have taken place in the procedural rules. There is no doubt that mark 3, which we have now arrived at in these regulations, is a very great improvement on mark 1 and an improvement on mark 2. In particular, we are very glad that the Government have seen fit in the procedural regulations to make it possible for plaintiffs to cross-examine the expert. The extraordinary proposal under the previous arrangement that an expert should give a report but should not be cross-examined by the tribunal was, I believe, contrary to all precedents as to the use of specialists in British tribunals or courts. So far so good, but I fear only so far.
One cannot but regret that the Government have not seen fit to withdraw these gamma 3 regulations which are again presented to us—and in my view gamma 3 is a rather generous marking for them. The complexity and inadequacy of the drafting, quite apart from the contents, alone justify a rewrite of the whole exercise. I should like to ask your Lordships to play the parlour game of writing down without consulting your neighbour what you think is meant by the new Section 2A:
"Where on a complaint or reference made to an industrial tribunal under section 2 above, a dispute arises as to whether any work is of equal value as mentioned in section 1(2)(c) above the

895
tribunal shall not determine that question unless…it is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for determining that the work is of equal value as so mentioned".
I am not a betting person, but if I were I should bet that no two noble Lords sitting on the same Bench would arrive at the same conclusion as to what that sentence really means.
When we recall that in an industrial tribunal there is no legal aid, and that the woman on the Clapham bus—if anyone ever travels on the thing, or, indeed, if there is one these days—is supposed to be able to interpret this kind of thing herself I think your Lordships will agree that this is not the kind of regulation which should be put on to our statute book. It seems tome that it is the greatest pity that, for constitutional reasons which I accept, we in your Lordships' House are unable to amend the regulations and to do a proper job as a revising Chamber in pointing out the inadequacies of them.
We are asked to accept not only the wording, bad though that is, but also the content of the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has raised a number of points showing that the regulations are still inadequate in terms of the requirements of the European Court, let alone in terms of the requirement genuinely to introduce in this country equal pay for work of equal value. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, pointed out the possibility of introducing market forces in general as an argument against the case for equal pay for work of equal value, but if the acceptance of market forces were to become the general rule one would be driving a cart and horses through the whole principle of equal pay. Because women are confined to such a limited number of jobs, because they are unable to apply for many of the jobs, or are unsuited for them, very frequently there is a market forces argument that can be used. We have never accepted, upon the basis of like work or the Equal Pay Act, that the argument of market forces is by itself an adequate reason for an employer paying differently a man as against a woman. If that principle becomes enshrined, the regulations, far from taking us forward, would take us backwards in the whole application of the principle of equal pay.
Moreover, as I understand the new subsection (3), which deals with the matter of the material factor, it becomes easier for an employer to refute a case based on equal value than to refute a case based on like work, due to the difference in the word "must" in relation to the like work claim and the word "may" in relation to the equal value claim. Quite apart from whether or not that argument should be accepted, Article 1 of the directive surely makes it quite clear that it is the equal value claim which is the primary right, and that a claim based on equal value should certainly be as easy to establish as a claim based on like work. Preferably it should be easier: it should certainly not be less easy. If it is less easy to establish a claim based on equal value than one based on like work, how can the Government maintain that they are recognising the primary right of equal value? I believe that the regulation does no such thing.
Then there is the question of the tribunal being able to dispose of a case on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for assuming that there is before it
896
an equal value issue. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has already dealt with a number of points in this connection, but I want to emphasise a point which I think he did not mention and which I believe was not mentioned in another place. "Reasonable grounds" presumably means that it strikes the common sense of the tribunal that it is ridiculous to go further with a case of this kind; that it is a matter of the common sense of a tribunal. But in a case based on equal value arising out of a job evaluation scheme, or concerned with the need to apply the principle of equal value, common sense will not be very much help, because common sense largely means what people accept as being reasonable in the light of ordinary practice, what most people would do. We are back to our man on the Clapham bus.
But the whole point about equal pay for work of equal value and the job evaluation schemes which will have to be used in order to implement it is that in some cases the results will be an affront to common sense, because they will be quite contrary to what in the past has been normal practice. That is what it is all about. That is why the equal value argument is a far more radical argument than anything that we have had up until now in the equal pay area. A great many of the decisions (or at any rate some of them) which will be made as a result of applying equal value will be an affront to the common sense of many people who have assumed the customary relativities in the traditional hierarchy inside an organisation, in which women appear very much lower down the line than do men. It will be thought that the situation will continue as before, but in fact it will not. The whole point about equal value is that it will reverse the pecking order at any rate in certain cases, and will not at first sight seem reasonable to a great many people.
Thus, so far from it being possible to introduce the argument about reasonableness before the case has been heard, as has been suggested, it will be more difficult, simply because the new system will bring about far more radical changes than have been brought about in the past, and it will not appear to the common sense of a tribunal that that is the way in which the matter should go.
Those are reasons—strong reasons, it seems to me—for saying that the regulation is inadequate in terms of Article 1 of the directive on equal pay and inadequate for the purpose of bringing about in this country a genuine system of equal pay for work of equal value.
It seems to me that it is a pity that the argument was not more about the matters to which I shall refer in a moment than about the details of the regulations. I do not deny that the introduction of equal pay for work of equal value is extremely complex and difficult, and will create a very great many problems. It is to that aspect that we ought to be directing our attention, accepting that it is right that we should go down this way but that it will not be at all easy. It will not be easy, first and foremost, because equal pay for equal value involves making comparisons across pay structures within the same organisation. That is very difficult to do, and it is fraught with difficulties in terms of industrial relations. That is why many of us have urged, and continue to urge, that the CAC should be

897
brought into it because it has a degree of experience in handling these matters which nobody else has.
The noble Earl has told us that employers have been consulted and have said that they do not wish to have such an arrangement. I can only believe that many employers have not yet fully thought through the implications of the real application of equal pay for work of equal value. I think that they probably hope that it will just quietly go away. They may even hope that, given a regulation such as this, it will go away. But I assure your Lordships that that will not be allowed to happen.
Had I been concerned from the employers' point of view, I would have urged, first, the introduction of the use of the CAC, and, secondly, a five-year implementation period to get the scheme really right, for I do not believe that it will get right quickly, and I think that there may be very serious industrial relations problems arising from it. I expect that in the minds of many employers, and of the Government, there is a fear that the genuine introduction of equal pay for work of equal value will be inflationary. I say that because if women are given a rating equal to, or above, that of men, where previously they have been at a very much lower level, the men will, by a variety of devious means, try to recover their lost ground. That has happened in the past. I certainly do not put it past men, and the people who advise them in the trade unions, to turn a blind eye to that kind of devious attempt to recover their position.
It would help us greatly if the trade unions, which support the idea of equal pay for equal value, would say outright that they will not back any attempts to put the position into reverse when equal pay claims have been established. It would also help us greatly if the Labour Party would say that it will advise its colleagues in the trade union movement to do just that. I believe that it would make the genuine introduction of equal pay for work of equal value a great deal easier.
I should like to suggest one further point for consideration. I have a certain amount of experience in the whole area of job evaluation. I feel great apprehension at the idea of an individual job in an individual organisation taken out of context being considered by an industrial tribunal and then, perhaps, ultimately, from that tribunal, finding its way to the High Court. These are not issues that are best handled in that manner. I should like to urge—I hope that this would comply with the requirements of the directive, and it should be our purpose to see that it does—that we work in the direction of ensuring that job evaluation schemes are free of sex discrimination.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has already issued some documentation about schemes free of sex discrimination. Those schemes should be approved for a period of time. Once schemes are approved, with any conditions attached that it is agreed are appropriate, such as independent chairmen for appeals in the scheme, claims should be settled within that scheme, and only the scheme should be the subject of an appeal to the tribunal and not the individual case. If we did this, we would move much more quickly in the direction of genuine equal pay for work of equal value, and would do so in a manner that would cause far less disruption. As a by-product, we would greatly
898
improve the quality of job evaluation schemes in this country.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I must from the start declare my interest as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, although it is not, of course, a personal or financial interest. The Equal Opportunities Commission has, as one of its duties under the Sex Discrimination Act, to keep under review the working of the Act and of the Equal Pay Act. Hence, it takes this matter very seriously. It would have been preferable if the draft regulations before us this afternoon had been in the form of a straight forward amendment to the Act so that it would have been capable of further amendment in your Lordships' House. As it is, we can only accept or reject these draft regulations.
The European Community has a long-standing commitment to the achievement of equal opportunities for men and women as laid down in Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and subsequently updated in succeeding Council directives in 1975, 1976 and 1978. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg gave judgment in July 1982 to the effect that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty of Rome,
"by failing to introduce into its national legal system in implementation of the provisions of the Council directive of February 1975 such measures as are necessary to enable all employees who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principles of equal pay for men and women for work to which equal value is attributed and for which no system of job classification exists, to obtain recognition of such equivalence."
This afternoon is for me an oxymoron, or what might be more easily described as the curate's egg—good in parts. The draft regulations put before us have been the subject of long negotiation between the Department of Employment and the Equal Opportunities Commission, and other institutions have also put their point of view. These negotiations were started before I became chairman of the commission by my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and changes were made in respect of the date of implementation, the burden of proof and the matter of the existence of a job evaluation scheme not being discriminatory. For that, the commission was grateful.
The commission, however, is still very concerned about the operation of the draft regulations before the House today. Its first anxiety is that, although the burden of proof has been removed from the employee, there is still a difference in the test to be applied between applicants doing like work and for work rated as equivalent in Regulation 2(2). The commission sees no convincing grounds for the introduction of different tests and would prefer that the employer's defence remained the same for both, as it is at present in Section 1(3) of the Equal Pay Act. We are advised that the consideration of objective economic or commercial factors in accounting for differences in pay is, in fact, already a part of existing law as a result of the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in the Jenkins v. Kingsgate case.
The commission's second objection to the regulations is directed to Regulation 3(1)2A1(a), about which lawyers are already arguing over the interpretation. I am only a lay person in this matter

899
and feel rather like Alice at the Mad Hatter's tea party when,
"She felt dreadfully puzzled. The Hatter's remark seemed to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English. 'I don't quite understand you', she said, as politely as she could."
If lawyers are already not agreed, I feel that many applicants and small businessmen, who are potential respondents, will agree with Alice and will desperately wish, as I do, for the emergence of a new Sir Ernest Gowers, who believed in the importance of plain words. As Lord Justice Lawton said in the Clay Cross case;
"Parliament intended that industrial tribunals should provide a quick and cheap remedy for what it had decided were injustices in the employment sphere. The procedure was to be such that both employers and employees could present their cases without having to go to lawyers for help. Within a few years legalism had started to take over. It must be driven back if possible. If the wording of the relevant statutes has opened the door to legal subtleties, there is nothing the courts can do to stop what I regard as an unfortunate development. The remedy lies with Parliament".
We are concerned that Regulation 3(1) could be a hindrance to the applicant in obtaining access to the judicial process. The commission considers that industrial tribunals currently possess sufficiently wide powers to enable them to dispose of cases that are frivolous, vexatious or scandalous and therefore does not see the necessity for 3(1 )2A1(a), which could leave an applicant without right of appeal if her case was dismissed on these grounds.
The date of implementation has been brought forward to January 1984, which is an improvement, but there is no provision for applicants to claim two years' back pay, as there is under the present Act, until January 1986, a very long time after the European Court judgment in July 1982. For these reasons, members of the commission are concerned that the present draft regulations could fail to comply with European Community law requirements, although that is for the European Court itself to decide.
My right honourable friend Mr. Tom King, Secretary of State for Employment, made time to meet a delegation from the commission during a very full first week in office, for which we were grateful. At the meeting, we made these points and were disappointed that he felt compelled to adhere to the present draft regulations that had already been passed in another place. However, we then went on to discuss the attached procedural regulations that are not before your Lordships' House today but which have nevertheless been published and which are of great importance in connection with today's draft regulations.
We were very concerned that the proceedings in the industrial tribunal could be entirely dominated by the opinion of the expert, whose report at that time could not be subject to questioning by other experts nor indeed, except under certain circumstances, by the tribunal itself. As we said when we met the Secretary of State, we know of no other area of law in which the judgments of the expert witnesses are shielded from scrutiny in this way. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State listened with his customary careful attention to the various suggestions that we made for alteration of the procedural regulations so that they should pay closer regard to the principles of natural justice, and he had considerable sympathy. He
900
promised to look at them again to see how they could be improved.
I am very grateful and pleased to say that my right honourable friend met our main points of dissatisfaction with the procedural regulations most generously and altered them accordingly. As my noble friend has said this afternoon, he took our representations very seriously indeed. The expert must now attend the hearing so that he may be cross-examined by the parties concerned, and they, too, now may each bring an expert of their own. He may now be required to explain any matter contained in his report and will have to incorporate in it the representations of one party on the representations of the other. They may also demand written replies from him upon which they can comment.
The material factor defence has been clarified in the procedural regulations by the removal of a double negative in Rule 8(2E). The tribunal is now also given discretion as to whether it will hear evidence upon the issue of the defence of genuine material factor whereas before it had to proceed to hear that evidence. That is a significant improvement. Most important of all, the tribunal now has the power to reject the expert's report even if the parties do not so request. It is a most important prerequisite of natural justice that the industrial tribunal, having heard all the evidence, should itself make the decision, and now the decision does lie in its hands.
In The Times last week I read that two Government departments, those of the Inland Revenue and Social Security, received awards for good, plain English and the simple attractive design of the forms that they had produced. In receiving the award on behalf of his department, my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security—himself for 20 years a schoolmaster teaching English—declared:
"It's a winner, this form. Only one person in 20 now has to come into an office for help in making their claim".
It is generally accepted that this legislation suffers from complexity of wording. There is still a chance for the department to win next year's prize for good, plain English as regards the explanatory document and associated paperwork. I hope that they will make every effort to win it.
There are also more hurdles put before the applicant in obtaining justice as a result of the regulations than there are in the present Act. The Commission feel that this will inevitably lead to protracted and costly litigation which will prove to be a drain on the resources of applicants, of employers, of tribunals and of the public generally. It is very difficult for ordinary men and women to understand, and will be a feast for lawyers—not the quick and cheap remedy for injustices in the employment sphere which Parliament intended.
We as a country, and indeed particularly the Government, are deeply committed to the European Community and intend to remain within it. The European Community has a long-standing commitment to the achievement of equal opportunities for men and women as laid down in Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome. It is important that the Government should make clear their support for that principle too—and I am glad that my noble friend did that this afternoon—and that they are not just grudgingly

901
obeying the Community law. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in his letter to me of 24th November, when he explained the changes in the procedural regulations that the department proposed to make to meet our representations to the Secretary of State on the matter of natural justice, concluded his letter by saying:
"Finally, I should say that I accept the helpful suggestion you put to me…that in the explanatory document we should reaffirm our commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and underline our expectation that the procedures will be operated in a spirit which ensures that all receive a just hearing".
I was very grateful indeed for that statement and I hope that it is made absolutely clear to industrial tribunals in the guidance issued (as he promised) so that they have no doubt of the Government's intention. I hope then that industrial tribunals and their experts will interpret this law as fairly as possible, and will help both employee and employer to find a clear path of justice throughout their hearings.
Women today are increasingly going out to work and proving of great commercial value to their employers. Fair employers will pay them well, but they need means of redress against unfair employers. I cannot pretend that this draft order satisfies the Commission as it stands. The great improvement made by the Government in the procedural regulations is, however, a considerable step forward. I am glad that my noble friend stated quite unequivocally that the Government will now make it clear to all concerned that they wholeheartedly support the European principle of equal pay for work of equal value and, most important of all, will see that it is carried out in practice.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Denning:My Lords, when I sat in the Court of Appeal I heard most of the cases concerning equal pay for equal work which is prescribed by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and by a directive of the European Commission which laid down equal pay for work of equal value. Those enactments are binding on our national courts. Our national courts and tribunals must obey in the first place the treaty, and then the directives under it. We found in quite a number of cases—and one went to the European Court—that our legislation did not carry out the enactments in the treaty and in the directives. We quite clearly saw that the European Court would hold that our legislation did not conform to the treaty as it ought to have done. We foresaw what was going to be done by the European Court.
While the enactments of the treaty and the directives are reasonably clear and can be understood, our own enactments are deplorable, especially the Equal Pay Act 1970. We have suffered a large number of headaches in order to understand that statute. Its tortuosity and complexity is beyond compare. No ordinary individual can understand it. We in the Court of Appeal had the greatest difficulty. These regulations are no doubt a bona fide attempt to comply with the European Court's decision and with the directives. But they ought not to be so complex as all this. Ordinary individuals who are affected by equal pay for work of equal value ought to be able to read and understand the regulations. Not one of them would be able to do
902
so. No ordinary lawyer would be able to understand them. The industrial tribunals would have the greatest difficulty and the Court of Appeal would probably be divided in opinion.
It is difficult to know what to do in this situation. I have wondered whether to give the Government credit for good intentions or to give the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and his colleagues credit for pointing out the tortuosity and obscurity of these regulations. I do not know upon which side to come down as regards this issue. These regulations have either got to be thrown out altogether or accepted, and, on the whole, I am not sure whether it would not be better to throw them out altogether and make those concerned think again so that we get something clear and intelligible which ordinary people and ordinary tribunals can understand.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I find myself in a very anomalous position because for over three years, as the noble Earl will appreciate, I have been pressing the Government to amend the Equal Pay Act to include equal pay for work of equal value. Now I find myself in a position where I cannot support the proposals which the Government are putting forward. I am very grateful to the Government for the changes which they have made since the first consultative document was put out, and I am equally grateful for some of the changes that have been made in the procedure regulations during the past week or so. However, I would suggest that it is no good concentrating on the procedure regulations. They are largely irrelevant until we amend the main regulations themselves.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his forthright condemnation of the regulations as they are at present and for his request to the Government to take them back and bring forward something which is more in keeping with common sense and the general understanding of the public.
I think that there are a number of reasons why the regulations need to be changed. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, European legislation provides for a primary right to equal pay for work of equal value. These proposals from the Government have hedged that right and have built in a number of obstacles. In the first place, they suggest that equal pay for work of equal value should be the third definition after the first two definitions of the present Act have been exhausted. But, more importantly, the regulations and the procedure regulations taken together provide a new set of procedures for equal value cases, and equal value cases alone.
The present procedures will continue to operate for equal pay cases under the definition of the same, or broadly similar, work or work which has been rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme. It seems that it would be possible to start a case under the present procedures and then to move over to a completely different set of procedures if one's case was transferred from being one of the same, or broadly similar, work to an equal value case. What kind of confusion will this bring, not only for the tribunals but for the individuals concerned?

903
Then there are the differences in the proceedings for equal value cases under the new Section 2A, which gives the tribunal the power to dismiss a case without hearing the substance of the application. As other noble Lords have indicated, this is a new and additional power to the ones which the tribunals already have to warn against frivolous or vexatious cases or even to strike out a case in certain circum stances. In her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that in equal value cases we shall require a new approach to the traditional relativities. We are looking now at a completely new situation. I think that this will be particularly important in relation to this new power which the tribunals have been given.
The courts have already advised on equal pay and sex discrimination cases that a case should not he dismissed without hearing the two sides—in other words, without hearing the applicant's side and the defendant's side in case there should be defects in the defence. That applies under the present definitions of equal pay. But, under this more complicated definition of equal pay, the tribunals will have the power to dismiss a case without hearing the substance of the case. One wonders—and perhaps the noble Earl could enlighten us on this—on what grounds would an individual be able to appeal against such a dismissal of her case if she wanted to appeal before the EAT. It seems that there would be no grounds at all.
Then, as has already been indicated by noble Lords, we have the new Section 3 of the Equal Pay Act, which introduces a new material difference defence—a material factor, as it is now called, and a factor which my noble friend Lord McCarthy and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, both indicated could nullify the effects of the equal value provisions.
I shall not go into the market forces argument in detail because I think that that has already been explained fully. However, in his remarks, the noble Earl the Minister put the emphasis on skill and scarcity of skills, whereas his colleagues in another place put the emphasis on market forces. I would suggest to him that it is possible to build the skill content into the equal value assessment. Indeed, in its consultative document in September 1982—the document which was the first contribution to this discussion on equal value—the Equal Opportunities Commission suggested that in equal value cases the material difference defence would almost disappear because the factors which, under the previous or the present definitions, might constitute a material difference—such as red circling, being a time-served apprentice, or even skill shortage, to which the noble Earl referred—would be built into the equal value equation. It is not so much that side of the question about which we need to be concerned, but we need to be concerned about the individuals, as in the case of Clay Cross, who are trying to sell their skills for a different price from that which women have traditionally been prepared to accept.
Therefore, we have this very difficult, complicated and, indeed, negative set of proceedings. These proceedings will have three consequences. First, they will defeat the object of the amendment by discouraging applications in the first place, as applicants will
904
be both unsure of their rights and put off by the very complicated process to which they are subjected. Secondly, where cases proceed, they will be likely to involve complicated and expensive litigation involving appeals to the EAT, the High Court of Justice, this House and, of course, to the European Court of Justice, because Community law will be involved. The Equal Pay Directive, as well as our own amended Equal Pay Act, will be involved. If market forces are such that they can defeat the objective of our own Act, they will also defeat the objective of the Equal Pay Directive.
Thirdly, the complicated procedures will impose a further burden on the industrial tribunals. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, referred to this and to the comments by Lord Justice Lawton in the Clay Cross case. It seems that the quick and speedy remedy which the industrial tribunals were established to mete out will be undermined by complications of this kind.
Therefore, I would hope that for all these reasons even at this late date the Government would feel prepared to take the regulations back and have another look at them. The Minister who succeeded the noble Earl as Minister of State at the Department of Employment suggested that the European Court had identified a small lacuna in our provisions. If it is only a small lacuna, the Government have constructed a very elaborate and complicated structure to bridge this small gap.
Seeing the noble Earl at the Dispatch Box reminds me, as he will probably be reminded, that we have been here before. Over three years ago, when he was at the Department of Employment and I was chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, I offered the advice of the Commission that our equal pay legislation did not meet European requirements. The Minister and his department disagreed. Subsequently we had the infringement proceedings against us and the judgment went against the United Kingdom Government. Recently we had a further set of infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom in relation to sex discrimination and equal pay matters. Again the judgment went against the United Kingdom. For a second time the legal advice of the Department of Employment was found to be faulty.
I suggest that if these regulations go forward we shall find, once again, that the legal advice of the Department of Employment has been seen to be faulty. I believe that these regulations can and will be challenged in the European Court. If the Government do not agree to reconsider them again today, I am afraid that they will have to have a subsequent look at them in years to come. I ask that the Government reconsider them before it is too late.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—I am most grateful to her—may I point out that the Government are proceeding in the light of the full legal advice of their own Law Officers, not simply the law officers of one department?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, may I also include then the Law Officers as well as the Department of Employment.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on the Motion that he has presented to the House with his usual skill, particularly as it is a matter of great complexity, as many speakers have pointed out this afternoon. The Government have taken a more realistic approach to ensuring the introduction of equal pay than did the original decision of the EEC.
As a spinster who has worked all her life, I fully support equal pay for equal work, but it was not until I was elected to another place that I ever received equal pay. The debate today has spread a little wider than the limited basis on which both the EEC and our own regulations are based; that is, discrimination on grounds of sex. We may deplore the fact that the other considerations that come in—skill, experience and so on—are not provided for in the EEC measures, nor in our own. We are considering regulations which are based on discrimination on grounds of sex—claims by a woman against a man or by a man against a woman. There is no provision, of either authority, for a woman to challenge inequality in pay with another woman, nor for a man against a man. There is no European obligation to conduct an evaluation of two jobs where the difference in pay is genuine for a reason quite other than sex discrimination. Yet one can have "aggro" of a woman against a woman in a factory as one can have a man against a man. Anybody who thinks that does not exist is not living in the present world.
Members opposite, not least the present and former chairmen of the Equal Opportunities Commission, are seeking a judicial evaluation before the tribunal considers whether the difference in pay can be justified on other grounds. To accept this would be to turn this legislation as it exists in the EEC and in the United Kingdom on its head. Rightly or wrongly, it deals with discrimination on grounds of sex.
Your Lordships all know that thousands of pay agreements are worked out on the shop floor week by week with a variation for skills, the difficulty of the job and so on. They are worked out between the trade unionists in the factory and the employers. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, did not hesitate to point out that these problems would arise. To impose the procedure of a job assessment before taking a case to the tribunal would create a totally unnecessary disturbance to agreed pay structures and to industrial relations. A woman going straight to the tribunal would almost undoubtedly seek the advice and aid of her trade union. She will get sage advice about whether or not it considers that she has a case.
Job evaluation is not, and never will be, an exact science. Indeed, many Members have most frankly pointed out the problems that will arise. It is far more than the issue of sex. There are skills, long service and experience to be taken into account, and there is the shortage of certain skills and the value of somebody who can deal with one highly sophisticated piece of machinery and perhaps keep everyone else in the shop at work. That is not something one can just assess on the basis of "this man is doing a job" or "that woman is doing a job".
It is within the knowledge of everybody in this House that many United Kingdom industries are
906
fighting for their lives against the fiercest competition. I have had some experience in the textile industry. I know the shop floor arrangements that are made week by week with the full agreement of the union and the employers. They have a fine record of being practically strike-free. To bedevil industries that are climbing their way back with negotiations after those shop floor negotiations and before going to the tribunal proceedings would I believe lead to chaos within stable pay structures, honourably negotiated within the factory between employers and unions.
My noble friend gave an example of someone punching a typewriter or punching a computer. The stenographer—I was one—may be faster than the chap punching the computer, but she is probably dealing with scripts that were provided for her, dictated or put on an audio machine. If the stenographer makes a mistake it will be in front of her to correct when she reads what she has typed. If a computer operator makes a mistake—many of your Lordships will have had comic bills, as I have—that can cause absolute chaos and probably requires more intense and consistent concentration.
I must give one more example of the tremendous difficulty of being too rigid. A newcomer in her mid-twenties arrived to join a team of five other people in a design department. Her skills in drawing, her skills in making a prototype, were quite comparable. But in six months three of that young lady's designs were snapped up by larger chains. She had, in short, flair far exceeding that of her companions, even though they might be years older than her. The ensuing orders enabled the firm to employ more staff. Technically, her male colleagues could have complained that she should not have her salary uplifted; but the choice of the employer was that, with three or four competitors trying to entice this brilliant young woman away, she was worth a boost in salary because of the orders that she brought in and the extra people that they would be able to employ. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has pointed out, it is fraught with difficulties if we try to be absolutely rigid; because it can be for the benefit of employers and for the workers alike where flair or genius, extra effort or skills necessarily demand a differentiation. I think we have got to be wary of falling into the trap of legalistic rigidity.
On equal pay, frankly, I am far more concerned about the cheapjack operators who pay women working in their own homes an absolute pittance. Many of them, unfortunately, are immigrants who, because the average wage in their own country was £3 to £5 a week, think that £20 for doing a job for which they should probably be paid £60 is adequate recompense.
In our industries we are climbing back against enormous competition. I have seen the relationships and the day-to-day negotiations where the foreman works out the rate for this line of production of whatever it is—and particularly so in an ever-changing situation like a garment factory. I believe that my noble friend has struck the right balance in these regulations, which I fully support. I do not deny for a moment that the actual legislation, the EEC legislation and our own which followed it, is too rigid and has got to be considered at some time in the light of all the other factors which apply to equal pay, and not just

907
that of sex. But for the moment, when we want to get these regulations in as early as possible in the new year, I believe the Minister has struck the right balance.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton:My Lords, since the European Court ruled against the United Kingdom legislation on 6th July last year, the Government have tried three times, if not four times, to get it right. On that evidence, looking back, one is bound to say—and I say it not in any necessary condemnation of the noble Earl, because the House knows that the noble Earl is deeply interested in this area—that the Government have not shown any great enthusiasm for the principle of equal value which they must now submit to and which this country is now obliged to adopt. It is a great pity that Community legislation on a matter of this sort has to go through this House and another place by way of regulation which cannot be amended. That deprives certainly this House and it may be, in certain senses, another place of any function in relation to it in terms of getting it right. I suggest to the Government in this respect that, because it is impossible to amend, the Government should pay more attention to argument today perhaps even than to votes.
If it be the case that the Equal Opportunities Commission, some of their noble friends and many different interests are still dissatisfied with this most important matter, then surely the Government should be prepared at any rate to think again on the arguments, whatever the votes may he. I accept that what is put forward now is better than the three previous versions, which (as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, rightly said) were clear failures. Whether this is a pass or not, only the European Court will tell. I suspect that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has said, it will he there in not too long a time, because there are, I submit, four headings under which this legislation is defective.
The first is something on which nothing so far has been said in this debate—that is, that the new amendments say nothing about collective bargaining and collective agreements, whereas Article 4 of the directive clearly says that member states must take the necessary measures to ensure that provisions in collective agreements may be declared null and void if in conflict with the principles of equal pay. It may be said, and often is said, that this matter is dealt with by Section 3 of the existing Equal Pay Act 1970, which gives to the Central Arbitration Committee the power to nullify provisions in collective agreements if they offend the principles of equal pay.
But this was a golden opportunity for the Government to give a proper power to the CAC on this matter, more particularly because, in the case of The Queen v. The Central Arbitration Committee ex prate Hy-Mac in 1979, the Divisional Court has so confined the power of the CAC under existing legislation that the CAC cannot strike out any parts of collective agreements unless they are clearly and overtly discriminatory—and that surely is not the intention of the directive. The Government should, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, have given a central role to the CAC; in this field. But the Government are not very fond of the CAC; it gets in the way of market
908
forces that price jobs and price people into them and, more particularly, out of them. I will come to the CAC later.
The second reason why the House should reject these regulations if it had the opportunity is what I might call the absurdity of the employer's defences. It has already been explained in the debate that the employer has different defences in respect of the genuine material difference that may be proved in the case of a claimant in respect of a claim based on like work where the factor must be a material difference and a claim based now on equal value where it need be only to the effect that it may be a material difference. Why has that alteration been made to the law and is it in accordance with the directive? The first reason why it has been made, and this should be clearly said, is that it is the quid pro quo of the Government giving up what can only be called their impudent attempt to put the burden of proof on the claimant and to relieve the employer of it, which they tried to do, of course, in their early draft. Instead of doing that, and in the light of that improvement on the burden of proof, they have now put in this different defence for the equal value cases.
It is clear what the Government intend by this because the Under-Secretary for Employment, on 20th July this year, in another place said (in column 486) that the new defence would relate to the cases where the difference was—and I quote:
"due to skill shortages or other market forces".
Nothing has been said to withdraw that rationalisation or reason by the Government for these new defences.
It had already been explained to the Government judicially in the Court of Appeal in 1979 in the Clay Cross case which has already been referred to. I quote Lord Justice Lawton in a short passage which has not been put to your Lordships in this debate. Lord Justice Lawton said in that case in 1979 that the market forces argument was one in respect of which—and I quote:
"The European Court of Justice was most unlikely to evolve an exception"—
that is, a defence—
"based upon such a vague conception as economic factors or market pressures. To do so would strike at the object of the article. In the labour market women have always been in a worse position than men. Under both Article I 19"—
of the treaty—
"and the Equal Pay Act 1970 that was no longer to be so".
But under these regulations it is apparently expressly to be so.
One cannot look forward with great confidence to the ruling of the European Court on this matter. Indeed, the Government have gone very widely, as the noble Earl explained to us, in their consultation on legal questions. They recently had the incoming permanent Secretary at the Department of Employment consult Mr. Anthony Lester, QC, as has now been made public. Mr. Lester wrote in the New Law Journal on 28th October of this year as follows:
"the defence will swallow the principle of equal pay and allow the perpetuation of wage discrimination based on discriminatory market forces".
I say in passing in relation to those market forces that of course it is true that employers and men trade unionists sometimes go round the back of arrangements for equal pay. Of course, it is true; but I think it

909
should be said, and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would accept, that among those who have fought long and hard for decades have been many trade unionists in this country whose record is an honourable one in trying to achieve this particular objective.
In relation to the employer's defence of "material difference" it has been said by my noble friend Lord McCarthy that there are two bites at the cherry. It may be that there are three, if not four. This brings me to the procedures, because the argument that there is a material difference that is relevant in the claimant's case can clearly come up on the pleadings in what is called the pre-hearing assessment, which is the existing procedure. Secondly, it can come up in the new hearing under the famous Section 2A(1)(a)—the famous double negative provision—where a tribunal has to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for the complaint, it not being clear exactly what evidence is adducible at that hearing. Thirdly, it can come up at the substantive hearing before the industrial tribunal refers the question to the expert. Lastly, it can come up after the expert's report.
Why is it necessary to have all those parts of the procedure? Again, I put it to the Government that there is grave doubt in many circles whether the procedure regulations are even intra vires, whether the Act as it is proposed to be amended allows for a tribunal to determine a case on which there are reason able grounds—and, therefore, it has passed over that hurdle—but before it is referred to the expert after hearing the employer's "material difference" defence argument. And if it is not open, as the procedure regulations appear to allow, ultra vires, to the tribunal to do that, what is the point of allowing the employer to argue the case before it is referred to the expert? These are procedures which are extremely ill thought through.
Had there been a proper occasion on which to move amendments, I would have urged the noble Earl to look with us at the new procedure regulations, Regulation 7A and Regulation 8, because the noble Earl, quite candidly and frankly, put it to your Lordships that one cannot understand the new regulations which we are technically debating now without putting them into the context of the new procedures. What we are debating now is the skeleton; the new procedure regulations are the flesh and living blood. If one looks at those new procedure regulations one finds a point of departure where a party cannot call evidence on facts in relation to the expert's conclusions, and then seven qualifications, many of which qualify the other qualifications, and which show quite clearly that the Government have not gone back to the drawing board in their procedural regulations after changing the rules about cross-examination of the expert.
On procedure, too, how will these matters work in practice? Obscurity has been mentioned in the debate; and the other learned lawyer whom the Government arranged for the incoming Permanent Secretary of Employment to see was the Master of the Rolls—thereby, in my view, imperilling and risking a compromise of judicial figures with a current controversy, but nevertheless they did it—and Sir John Donaldson, said something with which I an sure most
910
of your Lordships would agree. He took the opportunity, says the memorandum,
"of mentioning a different subject—his own concern with the obscurity of most labour legislation. He thought this a field where reasonable comprehensibility to the man in the street was of above-average importance".
Not only is this obscure but it also offends another principle. There is an old adage that, "justice delayed is justice denied". I have taken advice from many of those experienced in the practice of the tribunals. They tell me that the average tribunal case now takes eight to 10 weeks from the first application. But they were unanimous that under these revised procedure regulations an equal value case will take at least 26 weeks and more likely eight months or more. The reason is quite clear: it is because there are 10 if not 11 separate stages. First, there is the normal tribunal pre-hearing assessment; secondly, there is the normal attempt at conciliation by ACAS; thirdly, there is the new invitation to an adjournment, special to equal pay; fourth, there is the new preliminary hearing on whether there are reasonable grounds; fifth, there is the first hearing of the employer's defence on material difference or material factor; sixth is the new reference to the expert; seventh, the report back from the expert, which may be up to 42 days later, or more if there is the need for a new or amended report; eighth, there is the new hearing on the report; ninth, the second hearing on the defence of genuine material difference; and tenth, possibly at that hearing but possibly later, there is the substantive question, at long last, on equal value. After that comes the judgment and maybe a question of costs in certain cases, appeals and so on.
I suggest this is likely to be justice delayed and denied, at least to those 38 per cent. of applicants whom the Equal Opportunities Commission report showed last year to be unrepresented by a lawyer, trade union representative or friend in the tribunals. With that procedure, with this complexity and with these obscure regulations, for the complainants who come to a tribunal—helped as much as possible, I am sure, by the tribunal's valiantly struggling with this absurdly complex law—what hope is there for speedy and informal procedure and for a quick and cheap remedy which the tribunals are supposed to provide?
Lastly, there is a list of defects which could have been debated by amendment. For example, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, whom I have heard speak many times on this matter, would have wished to talk about the way in which the expert is told to go about his job. He is told to take account of effort, skill and decision, for instance—legislation by "for instance" is not a very good way of doing things but I suppose it is better than nothing. One wonders whether that is the best formula.
I turn to another, more important, matter, in my view. Those I have talked to about job evaluation always make the point that one of the ways you can get at the nub of the question is by going to the workplace and seeing what really happens. Indeed, the Industrial Relations Review and Report, a journal of some authority in these areas, on 27th September, put it like this on a previous draft of the regulations:
"It may be assumed the expert will visit the premises to see the jobs in actions but one would have expected an explicit provision allowing this to be done regardless of the parties' consent. Job evaluation involves seeing the work being carried out and it is hard

911
to imagine how an expert refused access to the place of work could reach such a conclusion".
The Government may say that most employers would of course permit access. I expect they will; but have the Government forgotten the name of Grunwick? I am sure noble Lords on this side have not. What will happen when the errant employer, not devoted to the principle of equal value—if the noble Baroness who raised the point likes, perhaps in collusion with some workers—refuses access to the place of work? I ask that more particularly because (and this is a paradox of the Government's improvements) that employer can now bring along his own expert who has had access to the place of work as a witness at a later stage in the proceedings.
There is one body which does not have a place in any of the Government's proposals and that is the trade union. For all the faults of the trade union movement, I say that it has a part to play in this matter—a critical part, a part which would have been better played and more easily played, and which could have been played as a party in discussion and proceedings, if the Central Arbitration Committee had been made a central body in these procedures. Indeed, it is ironic that the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, spoke of the need to have regard to stable pay structures, to the general pay structure position, in regard to these complaints about equal pay and equal value.
It is interesting that in their report for 1982 the Central Arbitration Committee themselves, in paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12, pointed out that individual cases, however justified, could be a
"potential threat to the stability of the overall (pay) structure"—
unless one acknowledged—
"the wider collective issues that are at the basis of that structure".
They went on to warn that making the minimum changes necessary to remove individual discrimination could cause a considerable number of new anomalies and dissatisfactions, unless one looked at that pay structure as a whole, thereby displaying the sensible approach of the CAC to these matters.
But by insisting that the only channel for determination on equal value should be the industrial tribunal with its expert, and by attempting to relieve employers of the burden of proof and then to give them the special benefit of multiple and market forces defences, the Government have been led into amendments and procedures that are highly likely to be denounced by the European Court of Justice, which more than justify the very moderate terms of the amendment in the name of my noble friend, and I urge your Lordships to support that amendment in the Lobby.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether I heard him say that he thought Grunwick was an example of experts not being allowed into a firm by the management? Was there any case of experts not being allowed into Grunwick?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I took the parallel that ACAS had certain powers to make
912
recommendations in that type of situation, which they could most easily do if allowed to go into the workplace and consult everybody within the workplace. That facility was never given to ACAS in that case. It was one—only one—of the causes of the difficulty. It seems to me that a similar position might arise with the expert in this case, because he is an expert of ACAS and is appointed by the tribunal.
Lord Mottistone:My Lords, does the noble Lord really think that he can stretch wide and draw in a parallel which does not have any relevance and say that it does have some relevance, and thereby try to persuade us that the whole thing is upside down in that way?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I have obviously failed to make the point clear to the noble Lord. Let me try to do so in one sentence. If you are asking someone to do a job, to make an assessment of a situation, he ought to have the right to go in and look at it.
5.13 p. m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as a layman admirer of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for a great many years, I should like to say how cheered I was to hear his remarks today and to listen to what he, with his great expertise, thought of the present business before us—a point of view which I thought was obviously held by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Lockwood. I should like very much to join them in that wish, I think expressed by most people in this House, that if it were possible to take these regulations away it would be a useful service to everyone.
I prepared my notes for this debate on the assumption that it would take place on 27th October. But I must say, having looked at what transpired in another place, it seemed most unlikely that the Government could expect a reasonable passage in this House, if a passage at all. The more I looked at it, the more unlikely this seemed, and obviously the Government reached a similar conclusion. As we know, the business suddenly disappeared from our Order Paper. Today, almost six weeks later, it has returned, presumably because ratification is required by 31st December.
But before moving on to that I have a bone to pick with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. I do not suppose that it is his fault, but he is in the unhappy position of replying for the Government today and I should like to know what he thinks about it. When I saw today's business on the Order Paper, I did what I expect most other noble Lords did. I went to the Printed Paper Office and asked for the new and current draft statutory instrument.
In my ignorance, while realising the peculiar constitutional relationship of this House with another place in so far as orders are concerned, I assumed that some way must have been found for making some alteration and I took the instrument home to study. That was a week ago. Perhaps this admission further illustrates my ignorance, but I was surprised to find no alteration at all—so much so that I came back to the Printed Paper Office the next day to ask whether they had

913
made a mistake and given me the old instrument instead, as though our own Printed Paper Office would ever make such a mistake! Perhaps here I might, as it seems apt, pay a tribute to the wonderful service given to us by Mr. Fryers and his colleagues. I am now coming back to the noble Earl.
Anyway, there was no mistake. The instrument was exactly the same. What I did get were 17 pages of The Rules of Procedure, as amended. That was last Monday—a week ago. It seemed to me then, as a layman, that one needed to be at least a QC to understand what was set out in those 17 pages, so I decided not to waste my time. It is always sensible to realise one's limitations. Then, seeking sustenance from the wisdom of my noble friend Lady Seear, I produced my 17 pages. She did not have these at all. What she had evidently had to be added to what I had—and I thought that that at least moved me up to Lord Chancellor level! I hope that the noble Earl is listening, because this is important and I shall want an answer.
Today I was in the Printed Paper Office and, quite by chance, I saw Amendments to the Laws relating to Equal Pay, so I took them along to the Library. I thought that I had never seen anything like that before. But before tackling the noble Earl, I thought that I had better get my facts right, so I went back to the PPO and I asked, "Can you please tell me when this paper became available?" and they replied, "Only on Thursday or Friday of last week".
I do not think that is good enough. I think that those people who are expected to take part, and who would like to take part, in a debate should have this ready. I do not wish to accuse the noble Earl, but I think that this was produced only because the Government were hounded by the Printed Paper Office, who had been inundated by inquiries as to whether there was any information. Perhaps the noble Earl would comment on that.
Leaving those difficult matters for those experienced in the legal profession, I decided that it was sensible to stick to what I know, or at least to what I personally had prepared. In particular today, apart from the point which I have just raised, I have three questions for the Minister and if he can set my fears at rest as we go along that will at least be some measure of progress. They are three very simple questions. I shall not be long and I shall soon come to them.
Thirty-six years ago seems a long time and it is, of course, a long time. Yet in 1947 I wrote a pamphlet entitled What is she worth? Apparently, by 1983 we have not yet found the answer. I want to say straight away, as I think is obvious, that I do not think a great deal of the amendment to the regulations that we are discussing today and in this—as must have been obvious to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie—I am certainly not alone. I think he has had one lukewarm appreciation, one semi-lukewarm and the rest of us are against. My feeling was summed up admirably in another place on 20th July by the Member who said that, if one considered the procedures set out in these regulations, their sole object appeared to be to deter the maximum number of applicants from seeking remedy, and to provide the greatest possible resistance to those who persisted. The Government must know
914
that many people feel that the suggested revision makes it even harder to claim equal pay than did the original Act.
If we go back to 1975, the Act was hailed as a landmark. It was to close differentials between men and women doing similar work. But this did not happen. Only last year, in 1982, as the House is well aware, the European Court declared it to be inadequate. Is it inadequate? How justified are those who state that this amendment will make it even harder to claim equal pay than did the original Act? And what are the reasons for this attitude?
First, and speaking generally, women are not now getting equal pay without having to put up a fight. Many fewer applications are being made. I expect the House knows that these fell from 1,742 in 1976 to 39 in 1982. I understand that only two claims were upheld last year. Could we be told whether the remaining 37 failed or were not heard? That is the first question which I ask the Minister today.
The Under-Secretary of State had a stormy passage (if "passage" be the correct word) in another place when bringing in this amendment. Members seemed to object to it as much as do we in this House. The whole statutory instrument was described as legal gobbledegook, which neither the Minister nor Members could understand, much less any would-be claimant. If he would allow me to say so, in much better language that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, implied today.
Mr. Alan Clark, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, spoke of criticisms made by the Equal Opportunities Commission. Included in those criticisms was the fear that too much power was being given to industrial tribunals when judging equality cases. As the House is aware, tribunals at present can either rule in favor of an equal pay claim or reject it, but now it is proposed to give them a third option: namely, to rule that there are no reasonable grounds for determining the question. Several noble Lords who have spoken today have mentioned this point. It arises in Clause 3. It was argued at considerable length in another place, where Members felt that tribunals already have powers to deal with trivial, frivolous or vexatious cases. Could the Minister inform the House: where are the guidelines to determine what are and what are not "reasonable grounds"? Are there any? If not, surely the tribunals have a basis that becomes unchallengeable. That is the second question which I leave with the noble Earl.
I have a third question before moving on to a final point. I read in Hansard of another place for 20th July last about independent experts. They arise in this same Clause 3. Perhaps I might ask three detailed questions on this aspect. First, what weight will be given by the tribunal to an expert's report? Secondly, is the Equal Opportunities Commission correct in its belief that an equal pay applicant will not have the right to cross-examine the expert about the report or to call expert evidence of her own? It was felt in another place that this was far from clear. Thirdly, is there to be an opportunity for the claimant to challenge the reasoning against her case?
In conclusion, the more I studied the debate in another place the more unhappy I became. Those

915
qualified in such matters felt it was entirely wrong to proceed by way of secondary legislation in a matter so complex as this. I believe that to be true and that there are many issues here which this House, too, would wish to debate. But what I believe to be even more serious is the contention made in another place that the Government, far from succeeding in their stated objective of bringing our law into line with that of the European Court of Justice, have failed to do so, with the result that we shall face further action from the court. We have heard that today from speakers in this House.
In introducing the Motion, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was quite convinced that this would not be the case, but Mr. Hugo Young, writing in the Sunday Times on 24th July, said of these measures:
"In bare form, they comply with the European Court's judgment. But in practice this is rendered almost null by the small print".
Well, what is she worth? Going back those 36 years I see that my last sentence was:
"The point at issue is the problem of translating the political equality of the vote—gained after the first world war—into social and economic equality, which must be the next stage".
How old-fashioned and how true!
I was always of the opinion that we could not just let these regulations go through without some obvious protestation, whatever the constitutional issues involved, so we on these Benches shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I find myself in a very difficult position today. I speak for many women and women's organisations who are not at all happy about the amendment of the regulations, the Motion which is before us today. I am pleased the Minister said that the Government are fully committed to this principle, but I do not believe the regulations bear out that commitment.
I am, perhaps, unusual in that I sit as a member of an industrial tribunal. I believe that very few Members of your Lordships' House are members of industrial tribunals. I was not allowed to sit as a member of an industrial tribunal for quite a long while after I was granted my peerage. The reason for the delay was that investigations had to be made into whether it was in order for me to do so. It took so long to get an answer that I feel I must have been the first test case.
For nine years I have sat as a lay member of an industrial tribunal. I am well aware of the complexities of the cases which come before us. I am also well aware of the fact that during those nine years I have heard only one case brought on the grounds of sex discrimination. At the conclusion of that case the representative of a major company in this country said, "We'll never have this worry again. We have reorganised our work structure so that there is no basis of comparison now". Sure enough, this is what has happened. Throughout most industries there has, I believe, been job segregation. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, referred to the very small number of sex discrimination cases which have been heard during the
916
last year. The reason, no doubt, is that people who otherwise would have wished their cases to be considered have found themselves so re-classified or so reorganised within departments as to have no basis upon which they could successfully bring a case under the present regulations.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, this will be an extremely difficult matter in legal terms. As I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House know, two lay members are appointed to industrial tribunals one from the trade union side and the other from the CBI. The chairman is always an independent and legally qualified person, of considerable standing. However, according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, somebody even more brilliant would be required to be able to determine the finer points of these cases. This causes me great concern. The lay members have only their chairman to look to for guidance on legal points. The lay members are there to assess the case in common sense terms and according to the facts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, asked what weight would be attached to expert evidence. I have no doubt that a great deal more weight would be attached to expert evidence if the expert had been allowed access to the property (a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton) because the tribunal would consider that the employer was trying to hide something if he did not allow access to the expert. I do not consider that that is a point worth worrying about.
A great deal was achieved earlier this year when a number of the women's organisations met with the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment to discuss changes in this amendment. I was delighted that as a result of that meeting—a direct result, but as a result of other pressures applied, too, I am sure, through other women's groups and the Equal Opportunities Commission—the onus of proving the case was removed from the woman. That is an absolutely vital point. Had the onus remained on the woman to prove the case, it would have been almost hopeless. I cannot see how any woman could ever have won, because it would have been so difficult and she would not have had access to all the necessary documentation and facts. The onus of proof now being on the employer, that is a most valuable change from a woman's point of view.
The change was made also to provide that if there was sex discrimination in a job evaluation scheme a woman covered by such a scheme could still claim under the equal value provisions. The third point I thought was good was that all this was to come into force in January next. I am much less happy about the fact that any claims for compensation do not appear to be possibly backdated before January 1984. That is an unsatisfactory element, and it is a point that has been made by a number of speakers. I would also mention to my noble friend the Minister that when it comes to appointing experts I hope he will have an equal number of men and women among them, and thus set a good example in terms of having no sex discrimination there.
It is very important that guidelines of a clear and simple nature be produced. The complexity of this

917
regulation has been made clear, but every person who considers bringing a case looks for a simple handbook to follow in learning how to bring their case and follow the procedure, especially if they are bringing a case for themselves. I would say to noble Lords here present who are members of the legal profession and who have represented such cases that I often think that cases in which there is no representation get the best hearing and the fairest hearing. Quite often, the panel of three find that the legal arguments going backwards and forwards between the two respective counsel can become very tedious. It almost reaches the point where they are overlooking the human being who is bringing the case and whose facts and situations should be heard. I do not see any difficulty as far as being unrepresented goes, provided there are excellent guidelines and procedure books available.
I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, that an estimated 26 weeks will elapse before a case can be covered. Our tribunal is a particularly efficient or rapid service tribunal, and we expect to have cases through in about four weeks at the present time. Our estimate is that the new procedure will take 17 weeks. The slight simplification in the procedural regulations today might reduce that 17 weeks, but it will still take four times as long as the present case which comes before a tribunal, so it is still a very lengthy procedure.
In respect of the phrase "material factor", those of us sitting on industrial tribunals recently underwent a training session at which we were addressed by a professor of law who made a great point out of the phrase "material factor". The word "factor", he said, meant something entirely different from a "material difference"; it was much wider and much looser, and could he much more harmful to the applicant. Although great comment has been made about "material difference", no one seems to have laid the same emphasis on the word "factor" which I see in the regulations and which the professor of law thought was so important.
I would also ask my noble friend the Minister—and this point has not come through quite so clearly to me in studying the document—whether it will remain necessary to have a man working somewhere in the company in order to bring a case. At the training session I mentioned we were told also that if there was no man working anywhere within the company one would still not be able to bring a case. I should like my noble friend to say whether or not that has been changed.
I must make it clear to your Lordships' House that women are still very anxious about this amendment and about the regulations, and they are also very disappointed that the main order has not been changed. I flew back from Paris specifically to take part in the last debate. It was a rather hazardous journey because an industrial dispute had cancelled my British Airways flight and I was made to queue for one and a half hours to get a "no show" ticket with Air France. I arrived in your Lordships' House just in time to discover that the debate has been cancelled. In fact, I thought that that was not too bad because it meant that the Government were taking the matter back to reconsider it. So I am very disappointed that the regulations have not been changed.
918
Although I accept my noble friend's goodwill on the point that he believes in complying with European law, it would be very sad indeed if time passes and we find that that is not so and Britain is taken once more to the European Court and loses again. That would be most unfortunate, and I know that many other people feel concern about that point.
Having given my views on both sides of this matter, I feel that I cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. But it will take some very convincing arguments from my noble friend the Minister to cause me to support the Government on this matter.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and myself are the only two laymen in this debate. We have heard from the women and we have heard from my two visiting noble friends on this side of the House—the noble professors Lords McCarthy and Wedderburn of Charlton. They both have not been content to floor the Minister but they have driven him into the ground. We have heard also from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has surely shown that the English language can be used to express principles and ideas, provisions and regulations in terms which people can understand.
If I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the trouble about many of his judgments was that people understood them and agreed with them. It was only the lawyers who disputed them. The noble and learned Lord has cause to feel aggrieved at what this House has done to some of his judgments—but he is here with us tonight to play his part in overthrowing your Lordships' House.
The noble Earl the Minister said that the Government were fully committed to the principle of equal pay for equal work. Right! The noble Earl said the Government were fully committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Right! He then went on to say that the Government were fully committed to obeying the directives of the European Community. He added that he believed our legislation of 1970 and 1975 did in fact do that and was a little surprised to find that the European Court decided otherwise. Nevertheless, the noble Earl swallowed his disappointment and said that the Government are committed to complying with the judgment of the European Court. What, then, are we arguing about?
Surely all that stands between us are the words to be used and the provisions to be made in complying with the judgment of the European Court. That is all there is to it. That may be difficult and it may be complicated but it is not insuperable. We have passed the stage in this debate where the Minister can be further affected by the weight of argument; I believe he can only be impressed now by the volume of dissent. That is where the two laymen in this debate can perhaps add a little influence to the weight of argument that has already been imposed upon the Minister.
I am one of the few survivors of the signatories of the equal pay agreement of the Civil Service of 25 to 27 years ago. It was so simple then. In this vast public service of nearly 1 million people we found it possible to introduce equal pay on the basis of equal work.

919
Admittedly, of course, in the organisation and grading and structure of a public service you have common grades with men and women with common duties, common lists for promotion. It was perhaps the A, B, C of equal pay. When we met difficulties, as in the case of the Post Office, we seemed to face them in simple terms. The women telephonists were not required to work at night. We said to them, "If you want equal pay you must work at night, whether your mothers or your husbands like it or not, and whether the wives of the male telephonists on duty at night like it or not. You must work at night. We will not impose it upon you because it is not in your existing conditions of service, but if you do it you will get equal pay and if you do not you will not. It is as simple as that. And for the future we will recruit on the basis that you work at night". I believe that is the last I ever heard of any real trouble in applying the principle of equal pay.
But in the public services there are no dirty tricks departments; they are all honourable men, and difficulties are overcome by negotiation. Surely most of the problems in industry, complex as many of them are, are overcome by negotiation, complying with the principles which have a superior writ in the field of employment. As I see it, the complications of this situation have arisen from adopting the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Then you have to bring in assessment and rely on experts to advise you, and in examining the nature of the work done, evaluating it, in the jargon of the regulations, it is not only desirable, or perhaps necessary, to look at what is, but why it is, and should it or could it be different?
I think probably in industry it is possible to come across a good deal of contrived discrimination, contrived changes of work which favor the discrimination between men and women. Therefore, I think it is desirable to have in the evaluation process an examination of whether the premises upon which the differential in the pattern or processes of work which justified the discrimination are in fact justified. This may be a nuisance to an employer, but I think he has to be willing to defend—as, indeed, he is given an opportunity of doing—the differences in work processes as between the men and the women upon which he relies for the differences in pay.
I do not think that, in applying the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, any job evaluation which discriminates on the ground of sex can rest upon premises which are not justifiable. I think that is the essence of the matter. What the Minister has to satisfy the House about is whether that principle, among others, is firmly entrenched in the combination of the legislation and the regulations. The Minister cannot really feel satisfied about forcing these regulations through the House tonight in face of so much bewilderment as to what they mean, criticism of what noble Lords think they mean, and disappointment at what some noble Lords think they do not mean. In those circumstances the Government should be prepared to take them away and have another go.
That, I am sure, is the wish of the House, because those who may support the Government in the Lobby on these regulations surely cannot feel happy about them, they cannot feel convinced that this does what
920
should be done and they understand is to be done. Goodness me, anybody who has spent his life reading the income tax Acts makes claim to a certain understanding of legislative complexity, but here one has only to see the regulations and really one wonders what words mean.
The Minister, I thought too briefly, in introducing the regulations, set about the job of explanation; he probably thought it was better to wait to hear it all and then deal with it at the end, so I think he has that task to come. If he is going to convince the House that these regulations should be passed tonight, then he has to convince us more than we are convinced at present that they are understood to do what we believe they should do, and nothing short of that can possibly give satisfaction. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl the Minister will accede to what I believe is the will of the House. A little time may be lost, but better to get it right, even if we have another go, than do something which is inadequate and proves to be inadequate in the course of its application.
I do not think I have any more to say. I cannot vote for these regulations, and it is obvious that noble Lords on both sides of the House will not be able to do so either. If there is so little between us, if there is in fact nothing between us, is it not nonsense to go on with regulations which we are not satisfied apply what is agreed between us? That is my difficulty. If the Minister says, "I am in favor of this, I am in favor of that, we are fully committed to that, we are complying with the judgment of the Court of Europe", and yet when he produces the paper which does so he meets with all this difficulty, does he not want to overcome it somehow; does he not want to explain it or to replace it?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The fact of the matter is a little bit simpler than the noble Lord is describing. The Government thought that the legislation was fully in conformity; it was found not to be. They introduced proposals which were found unsatisfactory by various representations and bodies. They went away, as we are again being appealed to do, and thought again. They brought back proposals which have been widely welcomed by the bodies consulted though, understandably perhaps, they would like some other ones. All the weight of the Government's legal advice is that it is now in full conformity with the law as defined by the European Court. This is not really quite such a complexity as the noble Lord is making out.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Well, my Lords, I will not detain the House any further. It is obvious that the Minister has something more to say. I think I have made my point. I can only conclude by reinforcing the appeal I have just made to him. This House is noted for reaching agreement where accommodation is possible. I think that the attempt should be made, because it will be a great pity if this important addition to the regulations is issued in face of the discontent, and indeed positive dissent, of so many people who believe they understand them, who are not satisfied with what they read, and who are entitled to have their wishes met, especially if there is no real grievance to be overcome, no real difference to be overcome between the Minister and the rest of us.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as always it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and I am so pleased. I had not spotted that he and I are the only lay contributors to this debate. There are other features your Lordships will see on which we are surprisingly well agreed, except that, having heard all the arguments and my noble friend's introductory remarks, as well as those he has just made, although the new regulations obviously are not satisfactory in several respects, they do—and I take my noble friend's word for it—legally meet the requirements of the European Court. Therefore, it would seem that a possible way through this is—and I strongly agree with the examples given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the actual wording is so abstruse, and has become more abstruse as it has been amended—that surely there could be an opening for clearing it up. Perhaps the Government could take advantage of the system of legislating by regulation. Many noble Lords opposite have objected to this, as I have for much the same reason when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches. But the system of legislation by regulation has the advantage that it can be further amended quite simply. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend will listen to the general theme of the debate and say to himself, "I got the message from all sides of the House that further amendments are necessary, but this has to be brought into force by 1st January 1984, so there is not time to amend it now. I will give full consideration to amending it thereafter".
If that is the case, he could go ahead with these regulations, which are all right so far as they go, and tell us that he will have another look at rewording them so that they make sense to the common layman. That is the key feature. If they are legal, fine, although I know that noble Lords opposite believe that they do not meet the European Court's requirements. The Government do. However, we are all agreed that, even if the Government are right, the actual wording—and I would go so far as to say the Equal Opportunities Act itself—is so unclear that the whole legislation requires reconsideration to put it in terms that ordinary people can understand. That is something that the Government could undertake, because it is ordinary people who have to understand it.
Having said that, I am concerned, as my noble friend is aware because we have exchanged correspondence, that there is still inadequate definition of what is "equal value", even if one accepts that Section 1 of the Equal Pay Act, 1970 must be tightened to meet the court ruling. Perhaps the pamphlet produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in 1947 gave a definition of "equal value". If so, perhaps she could give it to my noble friend so that he may learn from that. Loose definition and the reliance on experienced experts within the tribunal, like my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and in support of it, as is provided in the regulations, is perhaps acceptable if the law itself is sufficiently broad to allow for all the vagaries of real life employment situations. However, if the law must be tightened, as we are told by the European Court, then it must, but it can become unfair to some parties to potential disputes if the definition of "equal value" is not tightened in parallel. If it is not, I suggest that that is not good enough.
922
Here I tend to follow the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as the other layman. The problem that the European Court ruling has caused, remind me of difficulties that we experienced when introducing job evaluation for the staff of the Distributive Industry Training Board in the mid-1970s. Happily, both the employers' and the employees' side of the special committee that was set up to do this worked well together and readily obtained agreement on practically all the jobs. However, there were one or two on which there was great difficulty. I remember thinking. with regard to those job evaluations which were exceptionally difficult to fit fairly into the framework of our agreed joint evaluation system, "If only we did not have to start from here". However, these were not cases which involved any discrimination between the sexes. Indeed, we never had any difficulties of sex discrimination. I believe this was because we started the formation of the DITB's staff from scratch with the firm intention of making men and women eligible for each and every job. That is the key to the difficulty before us. Organisations starting from scratch with a deliberate policy of equal opportunity, or those which have introduced such a policy, do not have the problems of equal opportunity that others have. It is interesting that this very point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and, if I now continue with my speech as I have prepared it, I go on to say, "I suspect, for example, that sex discrimination is not now a problem in the Civil Service because for many years it has adjusted to a policy of equal opportunities for women". That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said just before I started my speech.
There are, however, many sectors of industry where discrimination on many grounds, including that of sex, has been normal personnel policy until very recently. Often the representatives of the workforce are even keener than the management to continue discrimination. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, will agree with me on that. I was rather depressed to hear my noble friend Lady Gardner say that this is being continued by having a deliberate policy of job segregation. That seems to be a move backwards of the worst possible sort. It is not unfair to say that companies and other organisations which have not had a deliberate policy of equal opportunity will take a lot of time to get used to it, particularly if they do not have both sides of industry working towards it. It has been my experience that when this sort of situation occurs it can take up to 15 years, or half a generation, for attitudes to change.
There must be an impulse from the top to make sure that they do change. It is sad to realise that that is something the legislation of the past 15 years or so has not managed to achieve. In the meantime, one has to do one's best in adjusting the law where necessary. Thus, although I have my misgivings over the precise wording of the regulations, I accept that the Government are doing their best, so far as British law writing practices permit, gently to adjust to the needs of the times. I therefore propose to support my noble friend and not support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
5.59 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate; one of the most interesting I have heard in your Lordships' House. The difficulty is that all of us, wherever we sit in this House, tend to be swimming in rather unknown waters with this kind of legislation. As he has done so often throughout such a distinguished career, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, put his finger on the dilemma. He was kind enough to accept that the Government's intentions on equal opportunities for women were good and worthy. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have been kind enough to echo the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in that, and have also been kind to me in respect of my personal commitment in this area. As I said on another occasion in your Lordships' House, I appear at this Dispatch Box only by courtesy of the support of a full-time professional in the form of my wife. Otherwise, I should find it extremely difficult economically to work here. I certainly have an interest in this field of achievement and activity.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, while patting us on the back for our intentions, was worried about the complexity of the regulations. This worry has been echoed by almost every speaker in the debate, even those who, like my noble friends Lady Hornsby-Smith and Lord Mottistone—and even, though perhaps with more modifications, Lady Gardner of Parkes—have wanted to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. These complexities are not because the Government are trying to rush the regulations through, or because they have not had sufficient time to think them through. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will recognise, the difficulty is that apparent simplicity can often mask real difficulty. In any case, the very concept of equal pay for work of equal value is simple only on the very surface. We may all think we know what it means, but it is clear from the enormous amount of discussion and consultation in which the Government have engaged that not everyone takes the same view as to what it may mean in practice.
This fact was echoed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone when he asked that its meaning be drawn rather more precisely. When I said that it was my view that the existing Act covered the European concept and the attitude of the European Court (which it is now clear I was wrong in thinking) what I meant was that we felt that our Act was drawn in terms of our legislation to give a fairly precise and narrow meaning as to what equal pay meant—a meaning that could be easily interpreted by courts and tribunals. But we found that we were wrong. The European Court took another view.
This very concept of equal pay for work of equal value is a very complex one in practice, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others acknowledged. The noble Baroness acknowledged that whichever way the Government drew up the regulations there were bound to be difficulties and complexities in them when translated into practice. Against this background it has been the lot of Parliament to try to create a well-defined right which can be enforced with reasonable certainty and consistency. We accept that this effort
924
as led to complexity, but in our defence we would say that this complexity is inherent in the very right which we are seeking to give in response to the ruling of the European Court.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, also expressed her dissatisfaction on these grounds of complexity. I say to her that of course it is difficult to lay down regulations that can be precisely defined. We will expect to see a body of case law emerging. Tribunals will need to judge the circumstances of individual cases, and in time case law will emerge. Where the rights of individuals are concerned, in any case, applicants will be able to appeal on any points of law to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
We are also working on what I would call a child's guide to these regulations. I, too, am a lay person, and am much in need of a child's guide to most legislation. In preparing its revised guide and leaflet for employers and employees, the Department of Employment will have very much in mind the need to make clear and simple the admittedly complex provisions of the amended regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is an experienced and skilled old hand in parliamentary tactics. I say to her that it is possible to take almost any piece of legislation, read out one or other of its provisions and ask people to provide an immediate gloss on it. We have to accept that in spite of all that we feel about plain English and the work of the late Sir Ernest Gowers, parliamentary drafting is necessarily complex. It has grown up for successive Governments, therefore, to try to issue accompanying guides for ordinary people which do not have the force of the legislation but which steer nine cases out of ten in the right direction.
I have dealt, at least in a preliminary way, with what I think has been the substantive objection made tonight—the complexity of the regulations. It is a complexity which, as I said in my opening remarks, is really conditioned by the problems of bringing British law in line with European law. Now may I come to some of the particular difficulties which have been raised and put to me? The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised two issues in particular. He asked how the power in Regulation 3 to throw out a case where there are no reasonable grounds for finding equal value fits with the pre-hearing assessment already provided. As he himself said, the pre-hearing assessment provided by the procedural regulations is no more than a warning to the applicant that to continue may bring an award of costs against him. The new power to throw out the case is in recognition of the fact that to allow a hopeless case to continue will be expensive and time-consuming for all concerned. I stress that it is only the hopeless case that will be excluded by this regulation. If there is any doubt, it must be resolved in the applicant's favor and the case will proceed in the normal way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, asked how many cases were heard by a tribunal in 1982. The answer—and it supports what I have just said—is that 39 cases were completed last year. In all, 13 were heard by tribunals; and two of these were decided in favor of the applicant. The remainder, or

925
26, were withdrawn by the applicant or were settled as a result of conciliation without reaching a tribunal hearing. I am sure that noble Lords and the noble Baroness will recognise that this is the best and most sensible way. We can be too legalistic about these matters. Tribunals will continue in most cases to help settle matters without recourse to legal or further legal procedures. I am sure that we should all wish that to be the case.
To return to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, he also referred to the new and wider defence of "a material factor". He seemed convinced that this would be bound to perpetuate sex discrimination in pay. As I thought I had made clear in my opening remarks, the defence is drafted in such a way that the employer can never succeed with an argument which rests on there being a difference of sex. After all, that sexual discriminatory element is what we are really debating tonight. In the case of Jenkins v. Kingsgate, which the noble Lord quoted, the European Court made it clear that European law acknowledges an employer's right to take account of non-discriminatory economic factors when settling pay. We, of course, agree with that and recognise the force of it. It would help no one if women should find themselves priced out of jobs by legislation which admitted claims not tainted with matters of sex discrimination.
It has never been suggested that the existing material difference defence allowed an employer to argue matters grounded in sex, whether directly or indirectly, and so I fail to see why the new test is open to that charge. All the new test does is to widen the scope of the arguments open to the employer. In devising the test we have had regard to Article 1 of the equal pay directive, which defines equal pay in terms of the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of sex with regard to all aspects and conditions of remuneration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, thought that it would be easier for the employer to use the material factor defence in an equal value case than in a like work case. That appears to be so at first sight, but in fact it is not so. In a like work case there is normally little room for a defence based on market forces, principally because like work is being done and the job in question is therefore not being done in differing economic circumstances. The very essence of equal pay for work of equal value is that comparison between different jobs to which differing economic circumstances apply is in fact possible. Because of that, and contrary to the noble Baroness's suggestion, it is important that employers should be able to argue that market forces account for the pay differential between the two jobs provided—and again I emphasise this—that there is no direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex.
I am very grateful for the speech made by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle, who I think acknowledged that the Government had really gone to very considerable lengths to try to meet some of the objections made and the cases put to them. I believe that one reason for anxiety tonight has been imperfect recognition that we have already gone away and thought again about this question—and not merely within our own enclave, so to say, but in full consultation with nearly all of the interested bodies involved.
926
My noble friend also said that the case of Jenkins v. Kingsgate establishes that economic factors can be a defence for the employer under existing law, and of course that is so in relation to the particular facts to which the case applied. Nevertheless, our view is that the case does not mean that the employer would be able to use the wider economic factor defence in other circumstances—the other circumstances which we want to cover, which we must cover, in equal value cases. Our new provision gives wider opportunities to bring claims to equal pay with wider implications for pay structures and for jobs. The wider defence protects employers from ill-founded claims which are not based on sex discrimination. As I said in my opening remarks—and this, too, is a reason for some of the complexity of the regulations—we must protect employers from ill-considered actions of that kind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who again was kind enough to pay some tribute to the meetings that we had together when I was the Minister directly involved in these issues, asked me what grounds of appeal would there be from a tribunal's decision to throw out a claim. As I said earlier, there would be an appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on the basis that the original tribunal had reached a determination which was contrary to the evidence, or where there was insufficient evidence.
I believe that this is the stage at which to reiterate to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who appeared cautious as to whether she was satisfied by my mention of these points in my opening statement, that we have now allowed the parties the right to cross-examine the expert and to bring their own expert evidence. I hope that from that it will be apparent that the expert can be challenged and that his report is simply evidence on the question of the value of the jobs at issue. It is for the tribunals to decide what weight to attach to all the evidence, and ultimately to decide the issue. As I have just said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the applicant can go on from there to the employment appeals tribunal on a point of law.
I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. How it took me back to several summers ago when the noble Lord and occupied much of your Lordships' time together debating industrial relations matters. The noble Lord said that the regulations say nothing about collective agreements. It is true that the regulations do nothing to amend the exisiting provisions dealing with discriminatory collective agreements, but it was not our purpose to deal with that issue. Our concern, the concern of the regulations, was solely to repair the breach in our compliance with European law, which was made known to us at the earliest opportunity by the European Court of Justice. Our concern was not to repair any other breaches which may or may not exist in the legislation. There are ordinary, approved and time-honoured ways of doing that. If there are defects in the rest of the law, we can of course look at them in a different context. It would not be appropriate to do so simply to bring our legislation into line with the European Court's ruling.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has again made much play with complexity, but this time not so much

927
complexity of the wording, but of the procedure, suggesting that there are too many stages in the procedures. I believe that the noble Lord exaggerates the number of stages. He said that in some instances there will be two stages, whereas there will be only one. Indeed, most cases will go through some of the stages only because there will be no application for a pre-hearing assessment or no material factor defence. Again, I refer the noble Lord to the answer that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in respect of our experience in 1982.
Finally, I wish to turn to the remarks on equal value made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Comparisons on equal value can be made between employees employed by the same employer or associated employer of the same establishment, or one where the same terms and conditions of employment apply. That is, of course. the same as applies at present under the Equal Pay Act.
As I said in opening, this will be a difficult area until a volume of case law has been built up, but this evening our aim has been solely to implement the European Court's judgment and to have regard to our need, which we fully acknowledge, to comply with European law. I honestly believe that we have achieved that aim. It has been our wish to do so. We have the greatest goodwill towards the European Court in respect of the matter. Every consultation has been held. We have amended our regulations in very considerable detail in response to anxieties that have been expressed. We have consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether we are now in line with the European Court. It is their full advice that we are. I hope that noble Lords will not throw this difficult issue further into doubt by following the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, into the Lobby tonight.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he remove a misapprehension that appears to prevail among some members of your Lordships' House—namely, that there is a time constraint of 1st January for this regulation to get through? I appreciate fully that it is the Government's own reaction to the European judgment. But will he assure the House that we are under no compulsion from Europe to get the regulation through?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, Europe wants us to do this as soon as possible and the European Communities Act suggests that we come in line through this process of regulation in order that there shall not be undue delay.
6.21 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have had a very distinguished, long debate. I do not wish to delay the House unduly. I think we can argue, on this side, that we have had the balance of the argument. We have certainly had the balance of the numbers. What we have been arguing can be summarised under a series of heads. We have been saying that this regulation is a miracle of complexity and obscurity and that simple men, and even non-simple men, cannot understand it. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord
928
Denning, said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and many others. We have said that it is procedurally unfair and unbalanced. That is what, as I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said, and also what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said. It is especially so, I say, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, called the double defence and what I call the a priori pre-hearing pre-hearing. We have said that it is of very considerable and unnecessary procedural length and will produce delay. It has also been said that there is now very considerable delay in hearing equal pay cases. Many Members of the House have made that point.
We have said that it is out with the EEC directive, particularly Article 1 and also Article 2. We have said that because of the material factor that is not a material difference, which allows the all round market defence, as stated in another place, it is therefore outside the EEC directive. We have also said that it does not refer to collective bargaining and that it rules out any productive role for the CAC. We have stated all these six or seven arguments as to how this regulation is unfair, discriminatory, complex and outside what we are asked to do by the EEC.
What has the noble Earl said? He told the noble Lord, Lord Denning, if I understood him, that these complexities were inherent and unimproveable unless we so narrowed the rights of equal opportunities that we were in a position where we were constantly challenged by the EEC. The House has to decide whether it accepts that. We do not accept it.
The noble Earl has promised us a child's guide to the future. But it cannot be a child's guide because it has to help the Master of the Rolls, the EAT and the industrial tribunals. They have to find their way through this extraordinarily complex piece of machinery. It will be a very adult child who can make head or tail of it. He told me that the pre-hearing pre-hearing is going to add to the existing pre-hearing, which makes it even longer. I repeat, "Why do we need it". What does it do that the pre-hearing does not do? And if it does something, why cannot one appeal against it? This is an unprecedented thing to put into a statute.
The noble Earl told me again that the material factor that is not a material difference will—he admitted it—widen the area of defence, but it will not let in sex discrimination. He did not tell me why it would not let in sex discrimination. He asked me to hope. The House must decide whether it can rely on that hope. He told the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, that there had been wide consultations on the regulation and that therefore we should accept it. The trouble is that most of the consultation produced a large number of groups, individuals and institutions who did not like the regulation. A large part of the criticisms remain valid because they have not been taken into account.
I would argue that virtually all the criticisms that have been mounted in this long debate have not been answered. So what are we asking the House to do? Let me first say what we are not asking the House to do. This regulation was passed by the Lower House. It is not our policy to invite the House to cancel, defy or reject regulations of this kind which are passed by the Lower House. What we are asking the House to do is something that we understand is quite normal and

929
customary practice—that is, to express a view. The objective of that view, if the House agrees with us, is, I suggest, that the Government should take some notice of that view and that they should take the regulation away. Of course, there are a wide range of things that they can do with the regulation. It is not for me to say exactly what they should do at this time of night. There are parts of the regulation that they could just drop—the pre-hearing pre-hearing. There are parts of the regulation that they could rewrite—the material factor that is not a material difference. They might decide to put something in. They might decide, indeed, to introduce a Bill if that is the way that they want to see it.
We are not saying how it should be done. We are saying that there are an overwhelming weight of thought and argument and, I believe, votes in this House to say that this regulation, as it is, will not do and will simply result in us coming back yet again, if not this year, then next year, or the year after, because the European Court has someone come before it to show that the regulation does not conform.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108, Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Annan, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Attlee, E.

Hale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Barnett, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Blease, L.

Jacques, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brimelow, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Haste, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lockwood, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

McCarthy, L.

Darwen, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Denington, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Denning, L.

Mishcon, L.

Diamond, L.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Plant, L.

Falkender, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Foot, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Raglan, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rea, L.

930

Roberthall, L.

Stone, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Seear, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Segal, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shinwell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Soper, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stallard, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Stamp, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Long, V.

Allerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Atholl, D.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Avon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bellwin, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Mansfield, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Melville, V.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Molson, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monson, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mountevans, L.

Croft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Daventry, V.

Nugent of Guilford, L.

Davidson, V.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Portland, D.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

Rugby, L.

Glanusk, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gowrie, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shannon, E.

Haig, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Spens, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hampden, V.

Harvington, L.

Swansea, L.

Hawke, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Homsby-Smith, B.

Teynham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Tryon, L.

Kilmany, L.

Vaizey, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Vivian, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Lawrence, L.

Young, B.

London, Bp.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [H.L.]
6.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Bar on petitions for divorce within one year of marriage]:
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("For").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. My amendment is very much connected with Amendments Nos. 2 to 5. It might be convenient if they were all taken together.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Yes, they can be debated together, but will be voted on separately.
Lord Denning: In those circumstances I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 as well.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("obtained)") to end of line 14 and insert ("shall be repealed.").
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
"Restriction on petitions for divorce within two years of marriage.
3.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, no petition for divorce shall be presented to the court before the expiration of the period of two years from the date of the marriage (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the specified period").
(2) A judge of the court may, on an application made to him allow the presentation of a petition for divorce within the specified period on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent; but in determining the application the judge shall have regard to the interests of any child of the family and to the question whether there is reasonable probability of a reconciliation between the parties during the specified period.
(3) Applications for the presentation of a petition for divorce within the specified period shall be heard and determined by a Judge otherwise than in open court.
(4) If it appears to the court, at the hearing of a petition for divorce presented in pursuance of leave granted under subsection (2) above, that the leave was obtained by the petitioner by any mispresentation or concealment of the nature of the case, the court may—

(a) dismiss the petition, without prejudice to any petition which may be brought after the expiration of the specified period upon the same facts, or substantially the same facts, as those proved in support of the dismissed petition; or

(b) if it grants a decree, direct that no application to make the decree absolute shall be made during the specified period.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the presentation of a petition based upon matters which occurred before the expiration of the specified period. ".").
Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 11, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years").
Amendment No. 5
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Application to court for financial orders.
.In subsection (4) of section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 after the words "from time to time" there shall be inserted the following words "and shall be exercisable on the application either of a party to the marriage, or in the case of a child over the age of sixteen, by the child".").
The existing law is that a petition for divorce cannot be presented within the first three years except in cases of
932
exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity. On Second Reading it was quite clear that everyone agreed that that provision should be repealed. The one question for consideration this evening is what should take its place. I would like to suggest that there be no time limit at all, that a person can present a petition for divorce if the marriage has irretrievably broken down, as it might do within three months, six months or a year of the marriage. In making that suggestion I think I have the great support of the Scottish law and the Scottish Law Commission. The law in Scotland is that if there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the petition can be launched within the three years or at any time after the marriage.
I should like to say as a matter of general principle that it is important that the laws of Scotland and England should be uniform on this matter. I know that, under the Act of 1707, Scotland had its own separate legal system and separate laws. But by judicial decision and legislation the two countries have come more and more together. For example, in regard to homicide and murder, Scotland, 100 years ago, had the defence of diminished responsibility. We followed Scotland's example just a few years back. Suicide was a crime in England until a few years ago—again, we followed Scotland in that respect.
As a matter of general principle, if these two countries remain separate it is easy enough for a couple who live and dwell in England to know that they must go to the divorce court in England and wait three years or whatever the period may be. But a couple married and living in Scotland may, if there is an irretrievable breakdown, go to the courts at once. I ask the question, what is to happen when an Englishman marries a Scotswoman, or vice versa, and the marriage irretrievably breaks down—which court are they to go to? Or, if one of them is living in Scotland and the other in England, which court are they to go to? To answer that question involves very complicated research into the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, because now a wife can have a separate domicile from her husband and does, and a person can live in Scotland and still have a domicile in England.
There are many complexities in the case of an Englishman married to a Scotswoman, and there ought to be none. Therefore, my first point is: remove all differences between England and Scotland in this matter. Marriage is being brought together. Long ago we did away with the smithy at Gretna Green. The Scottish law on marriage is uniform with ours. When we introduced the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, Scotland followed us. This is about the only matter of substantive law where there is a difference between England and Scotland. So my first point is that England and Scotland should be the same, because Scotland has tried it out.
In its report the Law Commission has drawn particular attention to the good working of the Scottish system, where there is no time limit. It says that only a very few marriages break down in the first two or three years. In my experience they break down only in extreme cases when the husband goes off with another spouse or the wife goes off with another spouse and perhaps has another child by him; surely the innocent spouse ought to be able to get a divorce. If they have

933
to wait for three years, it only delays the divorce, it does not save the marriage. To wait for three years, two years, or even one year does not save a marriage; it only delays it. The Scottish experience shows that. Therefore, I would say that we should follow the Scottish experience, because that has been shown to be good, working well and apportions justice between the parties.
I should like to say how valuable are the reports of the Law Commission in showing all the arguments, pro and con. The only argument in favor of one year is that it is a provision which helps to stabilise marriage and gives the parties a better idea of the permanence of marriage. I do not think that that is legitimate or a good argument in the least. When people marry they do not contemplate separation. The Scottish experience shows this. This one year is simply something and nothing.
Perhaps I can tell the Committee how the original three years came into being. Before Sir Alan Herbert's Act of 1937 divorce could be granted only if there had been adultery. Noble Lords may not remember, but I do, the collusive divorces prior to that Act where, if the marriage had broken down, one of the parties would go to a hotel and give a faked hotel bill as proof of adultery when, in fact, there had been none. Then Sir Alan Herbert introduced his Bill giving cruelty and desertion as grounds for divorce.
It was at that stage that everyone thought that divorce should not be made too easy and so the three-year period was introduced. That is how that provision came into being. Now we have got rid of all those provisions. They have been replaced by a new principle—the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That old three-year limitation has gone in logic completely, and it seems to me that that applies equally to two years or even to one year. Therefore, I should like to suggest that we simply repeal that old, out-of-date provision, and put no new limitation in its place, not even a limitation of one year. I recognise the force of what the Law Commission has said, but I do not think that we should have even that one year. I think we should leave it, and at the same time bring the law of Scotland and the law of England together. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has suggested—and I think helpfully—that we should discuss together (but, of course, they will have to be divided upon separately) Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, which it falls to us to consider. The noble and learned Lord has greatly emphasised the complexities which will arise if the law of Scotland is different from that of England and Wales. Unhappily, that conflict has arisen frequently in the past in the realms of crime, family law, civil law and in many other ways. Somehow the amity between the two nations and peoples has survived, and I have little doubt that it will survive again if we have a difference in this important field of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill.
We have here a difference of opinion, and I suspect that there will be no great feeling of dogmatic conviction on any side. One view is that there should be no restriction whatever in terms of time; that is to say, there could be proceedings for a divorce within
934
weeks or even days of the marriage taking place, and all would be well, all would be happy. The other view which the Bill takes, which I confess I take and which the Law Commission took, is that there ought at least to be some interval before the plunge into divorce takes place. The majority of marriages are between the fairly young, and perhaps it is a conviction and a weakness of old age which seems to think that a little waiting time would be very good. It is certainly my view, and it was the view of the Law Commission, that there should be a reasonable interval in order to decide whether or not the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and that there has not just been a quarrel or a crisis about this or that difference. I, personally, would have thought that a year was a reasonable interval in which to enable the parties to decide whether that is so one way or the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, moved towards a suggestion of two years. That is twice as long as one year, but I should have thought that the conclusion of the commission and of the provisions in the Bill was satisfactory. No great difference of principle arises between one year and two years. It is just a judgment—I hope a sensible one—of how long the time should be.
Amendment No.3, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, again proposes a two-year period, but then maintains what has been almost universally condemned—certainly by the judiciary and elsewhere—that if a party wants to petition for divorce within those two years, the husband or the wife can do so if he or she can show "exceptional hardship or depravity". The strongly expressed view has been that such applications, even if made in closed court, would only increase the mischief between the parties. To do so in closed court would certainly not eliminate the mischief, the bitterness and humiliation which could arise if those issues are to be fought again, which could well prejudice any reason able settlement between the parties about financial provisions and arrangements for custody of and access to the children. Therefore, my view, which I express in regard to that matter in a somewhat dogmatic way, is that that would be a retrograde step and contrary to experience in the courts and elsewhere. We have no whip on in this debate; the vote is a free vote, and accordingly I support Clause 1 as it stands.
The Lord Bishop of London: I rise to support Amendments Nos. I and 2, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I much regretted that I could not be present for the Second Reading, but I had to be in Jamaica for the centenary of the Province of the Church of West Indies. However, I have read the debate carefully and can appreciate the difficulties which a three-year time bar has created for the administration of justice. I must admit that I find the arguments in favor of the one-year time bar less than convincing.
The Lord Chancellor: I am so sorry; I was consulting the learned Clerk on a point of order. I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate. It was very rude of me, but I had to know what to do next.
The Lord Bishop of London: If I may, I shall continue. I thank the Lord Chancellor. I find the arguments in favor of a one-year time bar less than convincing, and certainly not such as to convince me that there are reasons why the Scottish practice should not be adopted here.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said about the effect on the understanding of marriage which the reduction in the period of the time bar might have on the expectation of marriage when it is undertaken and on the willingness to work for the success of a marriage. I remind your Lordships that that willingness is necessary in all marriages, and not just in certain marriages which are difficult. I must confess to a certain sense of disappointment on reading the debate that comparatively little was said about this aspect of the matter. Much was said about the administration of justice, which I accept and appreciate, but little was said about the effect upon public opinion of what is proposed in the Bill. However, if the three-year time bar is not to be retained it would seem to me much better to have no time bar at all. That would resolve the judicial difficulties which are pleaded as a reason for its reduction. But it would also avoid giving the impression that one year is an adequate time in which a couple can and should judge whether their marriage is to be a success. With all respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I think there is a great difference between one year and two or three.
I hope that we all here desire to encourage the stability of marriage. I do not believe that the introduction of a one-year time bar would do that, but rather the reverse. Putting into people's minds the notion that within the first year the marriage must show all the signs of a lasting relationship and if it does not it can be ended forthwith, can only undermine this essential and God-given institution. Two years is a lot better than one. It is difficult to say why. but I maintain that two years is better not merely in degree but in kind. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, used the phrase "a reasonable interval". I would suggest from my not inconsiderable pastoral experience of dealing with marriage problems and with education for marriage that a reasonable interval might be two years. I do not think it could be one year. It takes that time to get used to being married, however good a marriage is.
In his opening speech on the Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke of the Scottish practice and said:
"the Scots would not be particularly complimented by the implied criticism that they are less zealous than the English for the Christian religion and doctrine, the stability of marriage or the sanctity of family life".—[Official Report, 21/11/83; col. 33.]
I quote those words in my own defence now as saying that in pleading for the abolition of a time bar I do not believe that I am in any way undermining the institution of marriage, but rather the reverse. The noble and learned Lord then went on to point out that the Scots have facts on their side as illustrated by the graph on page 56 of the Law Commission Report.
When I come later in his speech to his arguments in favor of the time bar I find what he says far less convincing. He says:
936
"a reduced time bar will not in fact impose intolerable hardship and is unlikely to operate at all, except in a relatively insignificant minority of cases".
If it is only for an insignificant minority of cases, why do we need it? He goes on to draw attention to the fact that the Commission originally sounded a rather uncertain note in its consultation paper, and he says:
"I believe with their final report that an absolute bar for one year is the right rule for England and Wales. Otherwise I must say at once that I would get rid of it altogether and conform to the Scottish practice".—[cols. 33–34.].
I find it hard to see convincing reasons why we should not conform to the Scottish practice, and I find the arguments in favor of the Scottish practice by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor much more convincing. I hope that he might accept the force of his own argument in favor of Scotland and give a lead to your Lordships in supporting this amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: On Second Reading there was great concern in all parts of your Lordships' House not to diminish marriage as an institution, nor to do anything that would encourage the break-up of marriage. I think the one-year bar in itself diminishes the institution of marriage. I do not think it gives the parties a sufficiently long time to work out the marriage and to make sure that the marriage will continue. But it is difficult for us to determine just how long is required to make a successful marriage. The marriage itself and the two parties involved should be the determining factors. We should concentrate on the quality of the marriage. Therefore, in that sense I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. This puts the onus and responsibility on individuals to ensure that their marriage will continue.
I say to those noble Lords who feel that a time bar should be imposed on the institution of divorce that, whatever the time bar, it does nothing to discourage the break-up of marriage itself. In the few exceptional cases which occur in the early stages of marriage, I think it would be much better if those individuals could have a clean break rather than that we should impose upon them a bar of any period. I support the first amendment.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I rise to put the case for a two-year time bar. I enter your Lordships' discussions with considerable trepidation. I find much in the Bill to welcome, and I accept that it is largely a tidying-up operation. I would not have spoken at all in Committee had it not been that a number of organisations have expressed concern to me, and much of this concern stems from the proposal to reduce the time bar to one year.
At the Second Reading debate your Lordships heard the doubts of the Church of England expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Rochester. I have heard from the Baptist Union who are of the opinion that the one-year time bar is too short. They say that in the early days of marriage there are difficultues created by learning to live together. In their view, a lengthening of the time would encourage couples to try reconciliation rather than go for the easy way out of dissolving the partnership. The Responsible Society and Care Campaigns have expressed to me the same view.

937
The National Council of Women of Great Britain have stated to me that they consider that—and I quote:
"A longer time than a year is desirable to give couples the chance to adjust to each other, resolve differences and reach a fair compromise on the matters in dispute".
The Mothers' Union are also in favor of a two-year time bar, an absolute time bar of two years. Indeed, 50 per cent. of their members are in favor of three years and the Mothers' Union have expressed their view that the existence of a time restriction helps protect those who marry from doing so casually or without due consideration.
This brings me to my own reason for supporting a two-year time bar which is based on the word "commitment", which I would explain as follows. In the field of human relations, with the possible exception of conceiving a child, marriage is the greatest commitment that one can make. That being so—and this I say with the utmost respect to your Lordships—I wonder whether sometimes we tackle the problem of divorce from the wrong end. Once a marriage has started on the wrong foot, there is often little that can be done, certainly by the law. It is what happens before the marriage that matters. For this reason, I have always felt that the key to a happy and lasting marriage is the degree of commitment given by the two people concerned to each other at the outset, having considered the implications of what is involved. The question therefore is whether this Bill, and this clause, in particular, is likely to help or to hinder commitment.
May I say that I accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the Second Reading debate about the effects of the Bill having been exaggerated and its contents distorted. When the leading article in a Church newspaper said that the Bill—and I quote:
"makes possible divorce after one year of marriage"
it was making a gross over-simplification. Nevertheless, I believe that that is just what many people will think. Rightly or wrongly, couples will enter marriage believing that if it does not work they can always call it off after a year and try again with someone else. The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, would not be helpful in this respect.
Therefore, at a time when we should be doing all we can to help people getting married to deepen their commitment to the marriage, I believe that the reduction of the time bar to one year, or, indeed, its abolition, would have a psychological effect in the opposite direction. I would therefore prefer to see a two-year bar on petitions if only to encourage couples to stop and think before marriage about the step that they are taking and to consider the degree of commitment which they will need to develop.
Furthermore, a two-year bar would be consistent with the view taken by Parliament that a two-year separation constitutes a prima facie case of breakdown. I wonder whether, if we have a time bar that is less than two years, we shall not get a great many cases under the first two grounds of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, adultery and what we might call impossible behaviour. In the context of a promise to live together and to love each other for life,
938
two years does not seem an unreasonable period to wait before taking steps to undo that promise.
7.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: In supporting Amendment No. 3, I speak with even greater hesitation than I did on the Second Reading debate. In that debate, I expressed the hope that we would look in Committee at some of the alternative options that the Law Commission themselves considered before recommending a one-year bar with no exceptions. I am therefore very glad that we are now looking at four of those options simultaneously. I would remind your Lordships again that the Law Commission themselves said in their report:
"There is an obvious danger that any move which would appear to make divorce easier to obtain would be seen as eroding the stability and dignity of marriage"
and that I was not alone in suggesting that the reduction of the time restriction to one year does just that.
Speakers on both sides of this House, while in general they welcome the Bill, have raised doubts about a one-year bar. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has referred to the views expressed by the Mothers' Union to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nearly a year ago. Those views are echoed by many social workers and marriage guidance councillors who are often involved before any lawyers come on the scene. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in speaking the other day of the importance of reconciliation and conciliation said that the right procedure before the parties go to a solicitor is for them both to go to a marriage guidance councillor. I would remind your Lordships that the Booth Committee have already said:
"Moreover, there is evidence that conciliation can lead to reconciliation, sometimes in apparently unpromising cases".
For these reasons, I presume to ask the Committee to consider this amendment, the effect of which would be to re-enact Section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 with a two-year bar instead of a three-year bar and with the addition of subsection (3) which provides for applications to be heard by a judge in Chambers, as I understand has been the custom for several years.
This amendment offers some relief in the first year as well as the second, while the proposed absolute bar does not. I believe that we all accept that there are cases of extreme need which require immediate relief. The present rule provides for this; the new clause does not; my amendment does. I submit that this is a less harsh procedure than that which the Government are proposing. We have been told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and others that the present procedure is open to abuse and that it is an embarrassment to the judges. If that is so, then surely it must be possible for new guidelines on exceptions to be issued—which was one of the Law Commission's options—or for new rules to be drawn up for the courts.
The Bill has been described as a lawyers' Bill and not a social workers' Bill. I believe that many Roman Catholic priests, Free Church Ministers and Anglican clergymen feel the same. The Law Commission may consider this Bill to be a tidying up of the existing law; distinguished judges may consider it a good Bill which

939
will relieve hardship; but there are many people of all religious beliefs and of none who have serious anxieties lest the reduction of the time bar to one year will further undermine the public sense of the value placed on marriage in the law.
It is because I believe that, in its content and its procedure, law must do all that it can to underline the seriousness of the marriage contract and encourage people to enter marriages with this in mind, that I ask the Committee to think again about the proposed one-year bar, if we must legislate now rather than waiting for the Booth Committee report or for the Government proposals for family courts.
I acknowledge at once that I may not have got the wording of this amendment right. But, given any assurance that the Government will think again before Report stage, I would withdraw my amendment at once. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will do me the courtesy, as the longest-serving Member of these Benches and one who has had 44 years of pastoral ministry, of believing that I understand as well as any lawyer the misery and unhappiness which are caused by all divorce proceedings.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: May I very briefly add a word? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was very persuasive about trying to make the Scottish law the same as the English law. I was married to a Scotsman but I am a Sassenach and half French. Therefore I do not feel I can go all the way with him on those grounds only, and I am afraid I do not go very far with his argument either. As I tried to say, very inadequately, on Second Reading, I have done a lot of homework. During this last weekend I have seen young people of one's children's ages—not necessarily very young still, but they know what is happening in the world—and I asked them how they feel. Every single one said that he or she thought it would debase marriage still further if we allowed young people or newly-weds of whatever age to take divorce proceedings at any time that they so wished. They all felt, oddly enough—as I, very much older, also felt and tried v to say on Second Reading—that a couple should not enter marriage knowing that if they had quarrels or if there were problems they need not necessarily fight on to try to make the marriage work, but could go round the corner to the divorce court within a year.
It is all making it very much too easy. I am sure that all of us in your Lordships' Chamber value marriage. Some of us may have had the good fortune to have had happy marriages. On the other hand we all know, from our own experience, that there are many people who are unhappy in marriage. But under two years, I feel, would be too short a time for any young couple or newly married couple to get used to each other. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, in his Amendment No. 4.
Lord Mishcon: How right it is that this should be made a completely free vote, with members of your Lordships' Committee anxious to do as justly, as reasonably and as mercifully as they can with a very difficult social problem. If one wanted to be persuaded of the rectitude of that course, one has seen a very distinguished former Master of the Rolls differ from an
940
equally distinguished former Lord Chancellor in the shape of my noble and learned friend; and one has even seen a right reverend Prelate differing from an equally right reverend Prelate. So it is a judgment that each one of us has got to take.
I suppose one ought to start off logically by deciding whether or not the present law needs to be amended or indeed repealed. I shall not take a lot of time in regard to that, because this was debated on Second Reading and I believe your Lordships will be convinced, if the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Rochester will forgive me for saying so. by the way in which everyone seemed to realise that the present law was both impossible, and indeed harmful, to administer.
As a humble legal practitioner, may I repeat to your Lordships in, I promise, somewhat different words what I tried briefly to say at Second Reading? That is, that you will find that a lawyer for the petitioner endeavouring to obtain leave to file a petition within the three years has, as a matter of professional duty, almost to ask his client: "Is that the worst you can say about your spouse? If so, the court will not find this to be exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity. Can you not search in your memory for something a little more distressing, harmful, cruel and horrible to say about your spouse?—because otherwise I must tell you that you have no chance of succeeding".
Apart from that, we asked ourselves the question as to what, in hardship, is exceptional and what, in depravity, is exceptional. We found that that was an impossible question for us, as lay members of your Lordships' Chamber, to answer. How difficult therefore it must also be for the judges. So one came to the conclusion that the present law is not a good law. Then the question arose: is this the time to alter it? I ventured to express the opinion that this was not the time to alterit. Possibly I was expressing a minority view in saying that at a time before we knew anything constructive about conciliation procedures and courts, before we knew what was going to happen to Bristol, for example, and before we knew what the recommendations of the Law Commission (now considering the matter) would be on the grounds for divorce, and before we had anything other than an interim report from the Booth Committee. This was not the time to alter the law.
Your Lordships may feel that that is a view which is not going to find favor in this Committee, and so I move from there to say this. If you do not find it favourable to wait and you do decide that the law ought to be altered or repealed, then it is a question of deciding upon the period. Your Lordships may feel that three years, if we are altering the law, is too long. It is my respectful opinion that one year is too short; and my opinion, most definitely, is that to have no period at all—and I say this with the utmost deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, because I know he will forgive me if I say it with all humility—is, from the legal practitioner's point of view, a very, very harmful provision.
I would assure your Lordships that there are cases where it is possible for the lawyer, for the marriage guidance clinic, for the parson and even perhaps for the family friend, the family doctor and the sensible mother-in-law—and such a person does exist—to

941
point out that, "In any event, my dear, I know you may be disillusioned after your honeymoon to come back to the humdrum life that does exist by way of contrast after a honeymoon but, before you can file a petition, you know you have to wait for a certain period. It cannot do any harm, can it? Go back and try to make a success of things". The lawyer plays his part in this. It is his first professional duty, as I understand it, to try to see whether there is not a chance of reconciliation. But if there has been a bitter quarrel and a petition can be filed tomorrow, the wayward young wife or the wayward young husband will say: "No, please, I have come to you for a divorce. Can you file the petition tomorrow?—because, if you can, please do it." Once that is done the harm is done too.
So it is a question, in my humble submission, of "No" to no period at all and "No" to three years. Then comes the question: should it be one or two years? I go instinctively for the longer period, to give the opportunity for second thoughts. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind, with respect, that we are thinking in the main of young couples. They have not had a great experience of life and they have not had a great experience of compromise perhaps, or of the give-and-take which makes up marriage—marriage. So let all of us who are rather more adult than the people we are thinking of give ourselves the opportunity of saving marriages instead of destroying marriages within a too-short period of time. That is why 1 find myself, if we have to legislate now—but I hope I have made my view plain about that—supporting the two-year period which was so eloquently dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.
Lord Monson: Although I was here for only part of our Second Reading debate on this Bill, I subsequently read from cover to cover the Hansard which reported on that deabte. Although, as always, I found the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor powerful and persuasive, I am bound to say that I was far more convinced by those who opposed what we might call the one-year rule and nothing I have heard this afternoon in our deliberations has caused me to change my mind.
Indeed, my attitude has been reinforced by the quite amazing unanimity among people outside your Lordships' House of widely varying ages and social backgrounds with whom I have discussed this matter: and here my findings accord entirely with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. All of them were worried at the implications of the state appearing to say to young people, "Very well, you can give marriage a go for one year and, if it does not work out, you can pack it in at the end of 12 months".
Of course, that is not what the state is actually saying to people, but that is the impression given to people who do not take the time or the trouble to analyse legislation, or even to analyse newspaper reports thoroughly—and that, after all, includes most people. In other words, the one-year rule appears to be a psychological blunder, however logical it may appear to members of the legal profession—or to some members, because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, agrees with me on this.
942
Of the various alternatives I prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, or possibly that of the right reverend Prelate. But if neither of those should be acceptable to the Committee, I would prefer no time bar at all to a one-year time bar.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I apologise for being so late in coming into your Lordships' House, but responsible tasks in my diocese made it necessary for me not to be here earlier. I should like to take up one word which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used on Second Reading, because I believe it to be particularly apposite tonight and I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said to make this point.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that, although it may not deter marriage it defers marriage, and he made some play at Second Reading, at column 33 of the Official Report, on the deterrence and the deferment. I should like at this late stage of this part of the debate to suggest that we ought to support either the noble Lord opposite, or my fellow Prelate the Bishop and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in pressing for at least a two-year period.
This is not in any sense a wrecking amendment. Obviously, we would not after Second Reading be party to a wrecking amendment. But it is, at least, a gentle, small and modest attempt to strike a blow for young marriage and for the idealists who have recently set out on marriage. When all is said and done, even in the Old Testament, as your Lordships know, the young soldier was let off his national service in the first year of his marriage, so that he might bed down—yes, that will do—with his young wife for that first year, and we should do no less than that.
Therefore, before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack replies to these amendments, we should just say that it is one of our tasks and duties in this historic House to maintain the Christian emphasis on marriage.
In no way can we call a one-year period a Christian marriage. I would not use the word "laughable"—if I can think of a better word to use I will use it—but it is totally opposite to the Christian view of marriage. Your Lordships will remember that we are not simply concerned with Christian marriage in our nation, because marriage is a creation ordinance from the early dawn of time. We are concerned, therefore, with marriage as an institution, whether for Christians or for people who feel towards the stability, happiness and joy of Christian marriage. Therefore, though we strike but a very small blow for the idealism of marriage, let us at least vote not to wit but to conscience on the matter of at least a two-year period.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: May I very briefly support one aspect of what my noble friend Lady Lockwood said? I feel that there has been a lot of talk about marriage being debased, but in the end it is only the two partners to a marriage who can debase it. After all, what will eventually keep those two partners together is either their love for each other, or, if they are not so lucky and as time goes on, it will be the discipline which they exert. It is a matter of how the law can best help them exert that discipline, and I feel that any time bar—and I do not mind how long it is—could well deflect them from exerting that discipline of concen-

943
tration and effort to keep their marriage together. Therefore, as it is they, those two human beings, who are either going to honour marriage or debase it, they should be given all possible help to exert and focus on the concentration of keeping it together; and no time bar is, possibly, the way in which they will best be helped.
The Lord Chancellor: I think it is time that I said something. First, I am afraid that I must speak a little longer than I would have liked. I apologise again, but this is virtually a Second Reading debate on Part I of the Bill. First, what are we discussing? I do not believe that a single Member who has so far spoken has even got to the beginning of what we are discussing. We are discussing, first, whether we are going to substitute an absolute bar of time for a discretionary bar in certain circumstances which exist. Nobody has said that, but that is the basic fact that we have been discussing. Obviously, if we are going to discuss an absolute bar instead of a discretionary bar, we must have a shorter period rather than a longer period. Let us get that absolutely plain.
Secondly, we are not discussing one year, two years or three years for divorce. That has nothing whatever to do with it. The period which we are discussing is the period before you present a petition and not the period in which you get a divorce. The principal Act, which nobody has yet referred to, indicates that after a decree nisi there might have to be a six months' delay, anyhow, and of course there are other ancillary matters which have to be discussed. So that those who want a two-year period are really arguing for a three-year absolute period and not for anything else. That is what they have to face and none of them has faced it.
I begin by reminding the House not of what I said, but of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said when he spoke on Second Reading, because I think he said something with experience that we ought to remember. He said that unless the recommendations of the Law Commission are demonstrably wrong, they should be supported as being the product of detailed consultation and careful consideration. I start from that premise.
We are not discussing conciliation. I must tell the Bishops that we are dealing now with a discretionary bar which has existed since 1937. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning reminded us of that. So we have had nearly 50 years of this provision and it is wholly unworkable. It is conceptually disgraceful, because it suggests that there is an acceptable degree of depravity along with which judges can work. It is unworkable, because, there being no acceptable and normal degree of depravity, each judge applies his own idea of what is exceptional. Therefore, it is incapable of just or consistent application and it has, as a matter of fact, been proved to have deleterious effects.
I want to remind the House of something, and I want to remind, in particular, the Bishops, to whom I am afraid I am going to say some harsh words. I am going to say harsh words as a Christian and I am going to say harsh words as a member of the Church of England. The only Bishop with whom I agreed was the Bishop of London and I hope he will forgive me for
944
saying that: if not, he will probably excommunicate me for saying it.
First, we heard a remarkable speech during Second Reading from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Her father, whom I remember, was a Scot. The noble Lady lives in Scotland. She wants to impose on the English a law which the Scots have never been prepared to bear. I rather suspect that my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, although she is a crypto-Englishwoman, carries with her the experience of a Scottish title, too. I do not myself believe that the Scottish law must necessarily be in harmony with the English law. Nobody has ever suggested that it should, but it is an advantage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said. However, the point about the Scottish law is that it has proved beyond any possibility of doubt that the time bar makes no difference to the divorce rate. If only the Bishops would read the report of the Law Commission, they would find that that is so, but they do not appear to be interested. As I must put on record—
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: After making that statement, would the noble and learned Lord comment on the leader in the Daily Telegraph of Thursday last, which quoted what the noble and learned Lord said when he was a learned and wise member of the Opposition Bench in another place? The noble and learned Lord then,
"confined himself to the sage observation that if divorces were made easier they would become more numerous".
The Daily Telegraph continued:
"He has been fully justified by events in this action of productivity".
Would not the noble and learned Lord agree that, as he is now speaking to an amendment concerning the lengthening from one year to two or more years, he is not correct when he states that making divorce easier does not in fact make more of them?
The Lord Chancellor: I shall comment, although I was trying to present a coherent argument. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not intervene too often. The Daily Telegraph was quite wrong. I did not confine myself to the alleged sage remark. It was one of very many remarks that I made. I thought the conclusion they arrived at was ridiculous. So I have commented rather briefly on the right reverend Prelate's intervention.
I wish to say something about conciliation because it seems to worry a certain number of people. I do not know, but I cannot imagine anything less likely to make two young people come together again than to say that what one of them is determined to try to do he cannot possibly do. I can say, with some experience of attempting to save marriages (as has the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon) that the first thing to do is to ask them to try to see whether or not they can make a go of it and come back to one another. The wise mother-in-law, or whoever it may be, will do that, but, if one tries to put them into the straitjacket of the law, they will go ahead with greater determination. As for the idea which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put forward, that two passionate young people about to engage in marriage would solemnly say to one another, "If it doesn't do we can get out of it after a year", it shows

945
a misunderstanding of the young which I personally regard as totally incredible.
I just want to remind your Lordships—this is why I have to spend a little time upon it—of what the Law Commission in fact said. I am afraid it involves me in one or two quotations. I make no apology for this because the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich does not appear to have taken it in. This is what the Law Commission said in their report, after they had had the fullest consultations, except that in these consultations the Church of England did not surface at all, although the other major denominations did. They said:
"This proposition"—
the one they were putting forward and which is now in the Bill—
"was overwhelmingly endorsed by the great majority of those who wrote to us, several with distressing experiences of both marital breakdown and applying for leave to petition in the first three years of marriage. A few commentators, however, thought the present system operated satisfactorily. The most vigorous criticisms of the present rule were directed at the need to establish exceptional hardship on the part of the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent in order to obtain leave to petition for divorce within the first three years of marriage. The effect of this provision is said to be to encourage, if not actually to require, the petitioner to make the most unpleasant allegations possible about his or her spouse in order to make out a convincing case. Both practitioners and others who responded to the Working Paper wrote of the embarrassment of having to 'wash one's dirty linen in public;' and the prospect of judicial scrutiny of such sensitive matters was seen as degrading. Thus, although the present law of divorce is designed to minimise 'bitterness, distress and humiliation', it seems that the making of the allegations thought to be necessary to ensure that leave is given often causes considerable bitterness, distress and humiliation, even to the extent of jeopardising any reasonable settlement between the parties about financial provision and arrangements for custody of and access to children. As if this were not bad enough, it appears that the distasteful process of applying for leave, coupled with its unpredictable outcome, is such that practitioners sometimes advise clients against it, suggesting either that they seek some other less distressing form of relief or simply wait until the three years have expired when the more neutral fact of separation can, perhaps, be relied upon. We were particularly troubled to note that such advice is apparently sometimes given even in what would appear to be extreme cases of hardship or depravity which should be allowed to proceed to an early divorce. Thus, it seems to us, the system has been turned against itself."
Then they quoted from Lord Justice Ormrod. I must say to the right reverend Prelates, as they sit there, that we lawyers are the social workers. We have had to fight this battle again and again and again during our lives. We do think that we know what we are talking about. This is what Lord Justice Ormrod said about the existing law. I claim in addition both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said on Second Reading.
"The principal difficulty lies in knowing what standards to use in assessing exceptional hardship and what is meant by the phrase exceptional depravity. Both involve value judgments of an unusually subjective character…moreover, standards in society in these matters are not stable and are subject to considerable changes over comparatively short periods of time;…the change in the basis of divorce from the matrimonial offence to irretrievable breakdown with the expectation of relatively easy divorce may have increased the hardship involved in waiting for the specified period to elapse". "The fourth criticism"—
here I am quoting again The Royal Commission—
"of the present provision concerns the way in which it is used and to what effect. As we have seen, the permitted exceptions to the rule are not always taken advantage of and, where they are, it seems that making an application for leave to present a petition is capable of producing considerable and suffering. The response to the
946
Working Paper has confirmed us in our view that the main achievement of the restriction is to defer rather than to deter divorce".
That is not my phrase but the phrase of the Law Commission which the right reverend Prelates chose to quote.
"Further comment as to effectiveness, however, begs the question of what effect the restriction is intended to have. This is a matter which we will consider below".
If the right reverend Prelate will turn to page 55, which is the page before the graph to which I drew attention on Second Reading, he will read this. I think that we ought to take it into account:
"If it be accepted that the main effect of the present restriction is to delay rather than prevent divorce, it would follow that the restriction only preserves, for an arbitrary period of time, the legal bond between some couples whose marriage has in fact irretrievably broken down. The restriction cannot compel them to live together, but it can and does prevent them from creating a new legally recognised relationship. This (it may be said) is tantamount to imposing a penalty for having made a mistaken choice of partner: and the penalty may in some cases be severe—for example, a wife deserted soon after marriage might wish to re-marry and have children; a wait of three years could make child-bearing difficult or dangerous for the mother and imperil the health of her child. Such cases undoubtedly involve hardship, but possibly not such as would qualify as 'exceptional' for the purposes of an application for leave to present a petition within three years from the date of the marriage".
Then follows the graph, and this is the relevance—and the only relevance from the point of view of this side of the argument—of the Scottish experience, which shows quite conclusively that not one single marriage, so far as one can judge from figures, has been saved by the imposition of the time bar which is so dear to the heart of the right reverend Prelate.
Having said that, it seems to me that one comes back again to the experience of the Law Commission about which such careful consultation took place. Supposing a young woman finds herself married to a person who, without her knowledge, is a paedophiliac and under charge of a serious sexual offence; or who is a homosexual? Supposing a young man finds himself—as only too often he has done in the past—married without his knowledge to a woman pregnant but with a child who is not his own? Supposing one party to the marriage without informing the other—and, alas, how common this is—is suffering from syphilis, gonorrhoea, AIDS, or herpes? I know of a case—but I will not give the name because he would be known to most of your Lordships—of a man who married a young woman who, on the honeymoon, told him that she had only married him because she wanted to remain the mistress of an French aristocrat and was using his name as a cover for her continuing to do so. I can think of a woman who was a prostitute and who married in order to prevent herself being deported. Those are the kind of cases with which lawyers have to deal.
The right reverend Prelate asks me to respect his position on the Bench as a person who has been in the ministry for 44 years. I have been a lawyer and a communicant of the Church of England a great deal longer than that, and I think that I know what I am talking about when I am talking about this subject. It is the situation we are faced with after not quite 50 years—between 40 years and 50 years—of this particular restriction. I say, therefore, that the worst of all possible worlds is the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. That

947
amendment retains exceptional depravity and exceptional hardship. It imposes a bar which precisely retains the very features of the law which have been declared to be intolerable by the Law Commission after nearly 50 years' experience. That is what the right reverend Prelate is proposing to do.
If the right reverend Prelate will not listen to me and if he will not listen to the Law Commission, and if he does not care about the experience of the legal profession, then—and I have given him notice that I was going to say this—let the right reverend Prelate ask himself who said this:
"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers'."
And who said this?
"Woe unto you also, ye lawyers!"—
and he did not mean practitioners of the law when he said that; he meant people who were using the law as an instrument for purposes for which the instrument of law was not appropriate. He said:
"Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers".
The right reverend Prelate can disregard the Law Commission if he likes, but he cannot disregard the words of the founder of our holy religion. I told him that I was going to speak as a Christian, and I am speaking as a Christian. I must say that the worst of all possible worlds is created by the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.
So far as concerns the difference between two years and one, I have only this to say. The one year was, after profound consultation by the Law Commission, chosen as better than two for the reasons which they set out. It was not in order to save marriages, because the Law Commission had already decided that it could not be done that way. It was done in order to put down a marker about the importance which the state of England attaches to the institution of marriage. It was to say that there are cases where the institution of marriage is being abused at the moment.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will pardon me if I interrupt his flow as one who does not claim a monopoly of wisdom in these matters for my profession. Since we so often get divorce cases and marriage breakdowns after the marriages have broken down, the Church and others who work in different religions get them before they break down. Before the noble and learned Lord goes on, as he has quoted other portions, will he please quote paragraph 2.14 of the Law Commission's report? I am referring to the last three sentences of that paragraph, on the reasons why the Commission went for a period?
7.47 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly will. Paragraph 2.14 states:
"We have already referred to the question of what policy is intended to be advanced by a restriction on the availability of divorce in the early years of marriage. It is appropriate here to
948
comment further on this question. It is perhaps a little simplistic to think of measuring the effectiveness of the restriction solely, for example, in terms of the number of marriages saved, as the underlying objective is more subtle: it is to shape an attitude of mind. That is not to say, however, that there is no merit in the direct effect on particular individuals. There will no doubt be some cases in which a restriction on divorce is an obstacle which causes re-consideration of the decision to divorce, with the result that the marriage is preserved. Equally a restriction can be regarded as a valuable restraint on hasty re-marriage—a view which a number of commentators voiced strongly. On this view there is still some force in the opinion we expressed in 1966 that a restriction 'is a useful safeguard against irresponsible or trial marriages and a valuable external buttress to the stability of marriages during the difficult early years'.".
In fact, they came to the conclusion, after taking that fully into account, that a year's delay with an absolute bar in place of a discretionary bar was the best solution to what is admittedly a difficult problem. They went on to say that such evidence as they had—which was based on a very long period of Scottish experience—showed that, statistically at any rate, there was not one single particle of evidence that even one marriage was saved by the additional bar.
I am sorry to have spoken strongly, but I feel strongly about this matter. I myself am quite sure that your Lordships' Committee would be making a grievous error if it failed to back the Law Commission in what is a relatively small change. But, on the same side, I must say without any hesitation whatever that if I had to choose between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, on the one hand, and a two-year period of absolute bar, on the other, or the right reverend Prelate's return to "exceptional depravity" or "exceptional hardship", then I would choose the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, every day of the week.
Having said that, I agree with the remarks of the two noble Baronesses opposite. I think they got it exactly right so far as the psychology of the matter is concerned. I can only say that I have tried in good conscience, believing as much as anyone and as much as the right reverend Prelates in the stability of marriage, to do the best I can in advising the Committee both as a Christian and as a man.
The Lord Bishop of London: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down I feel constrained to ask him one question. He has quoted holy Scripture and the words of Our Lord. He has not quoted the words of Our Lord about marriage and divorce. Is he aware that for those of us who sit on these Benches we, as all Christians in our society do, face the great problem and agony of trying on the one hand to be faithful to what Our Lord says while at the same time trying on the other hand to be as compassionate and realistic about the needs of people as they are. Will the noble and learned Lord not, misguided as he may think some of my brother Prelates are, give them the credit for trying to live within that agony?
The Lord Chancellor: We must all try and live within that agony. The right reverend Prelate makes a perfectly fair point. I have always had a very strong respect for, and temptation to agree with, what I understand to be the Roman Catholic view of marriage. They have holy Scripture very largely on their side. I did not quote it because it was not relevant

949
to the argument. What I have been saying has been about the secular status of marriage and not about the sacrament of marriage as it is practised in the Christian Church. I have always had a very great respect for the Roman Catholic view of marriage, which is very largely supported by the three Gospels, and is that it is in fact indissoluble and when you talk about divorce you are talking about an impossibility. I can understand that. But the Church of England has abandoned that; it was very largely responsible for the change in the law in 1969—the part of my speech that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich quoted from the Daily Telegraph—by suggesting that irretrievable breakdown was a thing which ought to dissolve civil marriage. Once you have accepted that, you must accept the consequences.
The Church is perfectly entitled to preach, although it does not in the case of the Church of England, that you cannot have divorce because marriage is indissoluble. Then you are faced with a whole set of problems about nullity and other things which we do not have to face. But once you have got off that standpoint and recognised that marriages have to be dissolved from time to time on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, then I do not think you can have it both ways.
The right reverend Prelate asks me to quote the Scripture. I have not got it with me, but I had it in mind all along, but it is based on a view of marriage which is different from that which the state is bound to impose and which the state deliberately imposed as a result of the Church pamphlet Putting Asunder. I personally feel very strongly that the view of marriage thus discussed, that it is in fact indissoluble, is in fact wrong. But this is not the argument today. What we are asking today is whether, assuming the dissolubility of marriage on the basis of irretrievable breakdown, you should have a discretionary bar or an absolute bar, and, if you are going to abandon the discretionary bar for what period of time the absolute bar should be imposed, assuming that the absolute bar for one year will take at least 18 months and it may be two years to complete. That is what we are arguing about. Of course I do not dispute the good faith of the right reverend Prelates, or either of them who have spoken. I do hope they will give me a little credit for having good faith too.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I, with some nervousness, correct him on one point of fact, when he said, with all the majesty which his position means the nation gives to him, that the Church of England has departed from the standard of marriage set out by Our Lord? May I remind the noble and learned Lord that the text of Canon B.30 has not been rescinded, is the position the Church of England stands to, and says with the greatest clarity:
"The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and life-long, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."
950
At the end of that canon the Lord Chancellor will know that the Church is in fact agonising on how it can stand firm to the ideal of Christian marriage set out in its canon while at the same time with compassion it can care for those who have fallen short of that. But the standard remains firm.
The Lord Chancellor: I thought I had made it clear on Second Reading that I agreed with that standard. I did also say on Second Reading, and I hope the right reverend Prelate will take this to heart too, that the Church has every right to legislate for its own communicants. All Churches claim that right and they have all got it. What they have not got the right to do is to impose their views about marriage on the kind of marriages which the state has to celebrate. We have to celebrate the second, third, fourth and fifth marriages, we have to celebrate marriages between Jews and atheists, we have to celebrate marriages between Quakers and Presbyterians and Methodists, all of whom have different views of marriage from that of the right reverend Prelate. The suggestion behind the right reverend Prelate was that I was trying to suppress something. I promise the Committee that I am not trying to suppress anything. I say, as I said on Second Reading, that the Church has every right to legislate for its own communicants, but we can have only one law of marriage in England and Wales, even if it is not to be the same as Scotland, and it must cover all the types of marriage that we have to celebrate.
Lord Denning: There is very little I would say now, except that I should like, if I may, to commend the attitude taken by the Bishops of the Church of England here. It seems to me that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester had a really good point in keeping, if you please, the case of divorce, in the case of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity, from the very beginning of the marriage when it has irretrievably broken down. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has given those graphic illustrations of the wife who is pregnant by another man, and the party who has syphilis. I have had cases where the wife has gone off immediately after the honeymoon and gone back to a former lover. I have had cases where the husband, after being on honeymoon, has gone off to he a homosexual within a few weeks of the marriage. In those cases I always gave leave to proceed at once with the petition of divorce well within the one year. Those are the very sort of cases which the right reverend Prelate is saying must be preserved.
I agree they must be preserved, but you do not preserve those cases as exceptional cases by making a one-year absolute bar or a two-year absolute bar. What we are contesting is not only the discretionary cases. This is to be an absolute bar even in those extreme cases for the whole of a year, or two years, as the case may be. It is the absolute bar which I suggest is not really to be commended by this Committee. And if you are not having an absolute bar you ought to have a discretionary one. I would simply say I would prefer no bar at all, because that leaves scope for those cases where there is irretrievable breakdown of the marriage to be remedied at once. With all respect to those who think otherwise, the taking away of this one year, or imposing an absolute bar, is wrong, because if

951
there is no bar at all then people will not think, "Well, we can always get a divorce after a year". They have not thought that before. They will realise there is no time limit at all, but when the marriage has irretrievably broken down. In cases such as I have put and those other cases we are dealing with they can plead for a divorce at once without waiting for an absolute bar of one year. I would still press my amendment to do away with any time bar altogether but let the divorce go forward when there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
7.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 63.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

London, Bp.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Melville, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denning, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Norwich, Bp.

Foot, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Glenamara, L.

Raglan, L.

Hacking, L.

Renton, L.

Hale, L.

Roskill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Killearn, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Lockwood, B. [Teller.]

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

John-Mackie, L.

Avon, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bellwin, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beswick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bishopston, L.

Long, V.

Blease, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Croft, L.

Marley, L.

De La Warr, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glanusk, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gowrie, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rodney, L.

Gridley, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haig, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hawke, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Wise, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Inglewood, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.8 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester had given notice of his intention to move amendment No. 3:
[Printed earlier: Col. 931.]
The right reverend Prelate said: I remain unconvinced that this is the right moment to legislate, but in order to support the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved: Col. 931.]
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge move amendment No. 4—
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: I move amendment No. 4—
Lord Denham: We have probably reached a moment when we should—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Denham: I am sorry. This amendment has already been discussed, has it? In that case, if there is to be a Division, of course we have time to take it.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: Clearly I am persuaded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I must weigh against that the eloquent speeches of support from noble Lords on all sides and the opinion of organisations in the pastoral field. May I just say that we are legislating for vulnerable people, who are subject to tremendous pressures from the media and other sources which portray—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I beg to move.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32: Not-Contents, 66.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Bishopstone, L.

Macloed of Borve, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Norfolk, D.

Coventry, Bp.

Norwich, Bp.

Croft, L.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gardiner, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Harvington, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Hawke, L.

Rodney, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wise, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

953

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bellwin, L.

Lockwood, B.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blease, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mansfield, E.

David, B.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Denning, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Melville, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Foot, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glenamara L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Portland, D.

Gowrie, E.

Raglan, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Roskill, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Seear, B.

Haig, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trumpington, B.

Jeger, B.

Tweeddale, M.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Underhill, L.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Lawrence, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I think it might be a convenient moment to break for dinner on this Bill until a quarter-past nine. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fosdyke Bridge Bill [H.L.]
8.18 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to repeal restrictions contained in an Act of 1870 which determine the type of bridge to be maintained and built at Fosdyke on the River Welland in Lincolnshire. Passage of this Bill will permit the Department of Transport to come forward with proposals under the Highways Act 1980 for a new bridge at Fosdyke. The Bill does not authorise the new bridge, but in repealing four sections of the 1870 Act is an essential piece of preparation in the department's planning of a new bridge.
The A.17 trunk road is an important part of the department's national network. It connects East Anglia, and particularly Norfolk, with Lincolnshire, the East Midlands and the A.1. It crosses the River Welland at Fosdyke by means of a swing bridge. That bridge is now 72 years old. The bridge is narrow, to the extent that it must be controlled by traffic lights, so
954
that it serves only one direction of traffic at a time. It is on a poor alignment with respect to the road approaching it from either side, mainly because it was built alongside an earlier bridge. So there are some rather tight corners to turn where the approach roads meet the bridge. Also, it is in poor condition, and consulting engineers advise that it should be replaced. For the moment it is quite safe, but that will be decreasingly the case without significant expenditure on an overhaul.
The bridge is unsuitable for modern traffic. Indeed, last summer the department was obliged to issue a press notice warning drivers of likely congestion at the bridge. Replacement is the obvious answer, and my right honourable friend has included such a scheme in the road programme which was published in September, in Cmnd. 9059.
There is a snag. The department inherited the bridge and the restrictions governing it when the road was taken into the trunk road network in 1946. The restrictions are embodied in the Fosdyke Bridge Transfer Act 1870, and, in particular. in Section 25 of that Act. Section 25 states:
"In repairing and maintaining Fosdyke Bridge, the justices or the county surveyor or any other person acting on behalf of the inhabitants of the said parts of Holland"—
now, perhaps less picturesquely, that would be my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport since the road has been trunked—
"shall maintain a middle waterway not less than twenty-seven feet in the clear, and if the said bridge shall be rebuilt"—
which it was, in 1911—
"then a middle waterway not less than thirty feet in the clear, together with an opening or openings of waterway on each side thereof not less than eighty feet, and the centre of the bridge shall be so constructed and maintained as to open at the top for the purpose of permitting vessels trading to and from the town of Spalding to pass through without striking any mast; and the said justices shall at all times employ and shall remunerate one or more fit person or persons to open the said bridge for the purpose of permitting vessels to pass through the same, and to close the said bridge after the passing of the vessels".
Just as the 1911 bridge had to be built as an opening bridge so, under present law, must any replacement for that bridge. That is just not sensible. The river traffic on the Welland which the 1870 Act sought to protect has disappeared above Fosdyke. Investigations by the department reveal that the last vessel,
"trading to and from the town of Spalding",
left that port in 1947.I further understand that the local highway authority has since built over the river a bridge which now landlocks the town. There is, I understand, an operational wharf to the seaward side of the Fosdyke Bridge, but this is unaffected by the present proposal.
The river traffic protected by the 1870 Act no longer exists. But like many other waterways the River Welland is used by a variety of leisure craft. This is an increasingly important use of inland waterways, and the Government welcome the sensible use of water space for recreational purposes, though they are conscious of the need for a balance among the various interests in and around the waterways.
In the present case it is fairly clear that the bulk of the leisure traffic on the Welland would be unaffected by this Bill and the subsequent building of a fixed

955
bridge. Over the last few years the present bridge has opened only very rarely, the great majority of river traffic passing beneath without requiring a bridge opening. However, it is important that all interests should have the right of comment on proposals for the new bridge. That can happen only when the department publishes in draft the Section 106 order, which will contain details of the new bridge.
As to the effects on road traffic, I understand that there is local concern at the delays which now occur at Fosdyke because of the inadequacy of the present bridge. We are in the course of spending significant sums on improving the A.17. Late last year we opened a by-pass for Heckington, in Lincolnshire, costing nearly £3 million, and a new stretch of road nearly seven miles long from King's Lynn westward towards Fosdyke. In addition, there are a further five schemes, costing in total over £21 million, which we hope to start over the next few years. They are in the current programme. There is also the proposal for the bridge at Fosdyke, which would cost just over £2 million. To enable that proposal to play its part in our general policy of improving the capacity and safety of the A.17, we need to repeal the restrictions on the type of replacement bridge that we may build. These restrictions are now unnecessary.
I now turn specifically to the Bill before your Lordships. It has two clauses. The first of these contains the repeal of four sections of the 1870 Act concerned with the replacement of the bridge. The sections are as follows. First, there is Section 25, which I earlier read out. Then there is Section 29, which requires the bridgeowner—now, as I have explained, the Secretary of State—in his proposals for rebuilding to submit plans of the new bridge for the approval of the Board of Trade. Section 30 requires the exhibition of lights on or near the bridge during rebuilding, as required or approved by the Board of Trade. Section 32 concerns the recovery of costs of any Board of Trade survey of any bridge constructed in the stead of the bridge then existing.
I think that I have adequately explained why Section 25 should be repealed. The three other sections—Sections 29, 30 and 32—protect the position of the Board of Trade in the event of rebuilding the bridge. Those sections of the 1870 Act are redundant and need to be repealed because the Secretary of State is now, and will remain, the highway authority for the bridge, and now also exercises those powers of the Board of Trade which the sections protect. In promoting a new bridge the Secretary of State for Transport would have to satisfy himself as to the plans of the new bridge and as to the exhibition of lights, as he would do for any other bridge that he proposes to construct over navigable waters. There is no need for a specific requirement. The Bill's second clause contains its citation.
Although the department's proposals for a new bridge lie beyond the scope of the present Bill, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I explain what are the department's intentions in this regard. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will promote an order under Section 106 of the Highways Act 1980 describing in detail the proposed new bridge, and he will publish the order in draft for public comment. In
956
the event of opposition from those with a direct interest in the proposal there would be an independent public inquiry into it, since Section 106 attracts the provisions of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act. There will thus be the opportunity for public consideration when the design of the new bridge has been developed in detail.
To set that course of events in train we need the repeal of those sections of the 1870 Act which I mentioned earlier. That will enable the department to provide at Fosdyke a bridge adequate to modern needs.
Finally, I should tell your Lordships that my department has undertaken extensive advertisement of the present Bill, and I understand that no petitions have been entered against it. My Lords. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Bill in detail. This certainly gives those such as myself a much better understanding than hitherto of what is intended by the Bill. Although it is a few years since I was in the Spalding area and travelled over the bridge, I recognise the importance of its replacement. The Minister has made clear that, in recent years, there has been really no commercial traffic at all.
I should like to ask whether there is the possibility of any commercial firm taking advantage of the 1981 Section 36 provision for grants to be made for facilities to assist persons who wish to use the waterway for commercial use. If that is a possibility, one should not overlook the potential of a bridge with a waterway in the middle. I take it from what the Minister says that the matter is completely open and that the type of bridge has not been determined. If it has already been determined in the mind of the Department, the issue of Section 36 grants becomes very important. The House would not wish to approve a measure that may be determined on cost if it will prohibit commercial use of the waterway.
It is important to know whether there are any concerns that are likely in the future to wish to use Section 36 grants. Once a lower bridge—a fixed bridge—is built, there is no possibility of doing that. Has the Minister any idea of what would be the cost of not having a fixed bridge in relation to the £2 million which he says is estimated by the Department. I take his reference to the order being published means that, if necessary. there will be proper planning consideration and that all the organisations concerned will be able to put their point of view. The Minister said that the Government had published the terms of the present Bill. Has there been any direct consultation with the local authorities in the area? Has there been any direct consultation with commercial and other users of the river?
8.33 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of this small Bill. It is a measure of some importance to the communications of East Anglia. I think, if my memory is correct, that

957
I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in February 1969. Again, if I recollect correctly, I think I stressed that, in my opinion, improvements to the A.47, continuing to the A.17, were of equal importance to East Anglia as improvements to the A. 11. I stressed that with the expansion of the port of King's Lynn and the other eastern ports and the considerable industrial development taking place in Norfolk at that time, together with the ever-increasing volume of holiday traffic, a modern east-west route to the northern part of the region was essential.
I appreciate that since that time much has been done to improve East Anglia's road links with the rest of the country. The improvements to the A.12 and the A.45 have been most useful, and we now have, not the A.11, but that wonderful motorway the M.11, which I find most useful in journeying to your Lordships' House. However, I also use and frequently travel along the A.17. I have to confess that I still become bad-tempered and frustrated every time that I do so. There is a fair amount of work still to be done on it. Travelling to Norfolk one feels as though one is coming to a remote corner. This is especially true when travelling from the Midlands because it is such a twisty, twirling and shocking road.
The population of East Anglia is growing rapidly and industrial development, much of it light industrial development, is taking place. We deserve good roads. They are an absolute necessity. The A.17 is our main road to the Midlands and to the A.1 and from there to the North of England. The main obstacle in Norfolk has been removed by the bypassing of King's Lynn, Swaffham and Dereham. This constitutes a welcome reduction in the time taken on journeys either way. Recently the stretch of road to the west of King's Lynn has been improved tremendously. Two or three villages have been by-passed. I think that my noble friend said that seven miles of new road is being constructed. I was most interested to hear of the other improvements planned for this road in the road programme. I hope that they will be carried out quickly because it seems a long time since I first asked for them in 1969.
Obviously, improvement or, better still, replacement of the bridge at Fosdyke is an essential part of this programme of improvements. The A.17 is a busy road. I suppose that it is surprising to think of congestion in the middle of the Fens. But this bridge causes considerable congestion especially in the summer when the road carries much visitor and holiday traffic. In fact, it is busy all the year round with all types of traffic, much of it heavy duty lorries. It is a bottleneck. So far as I can see, there is no easy route for diverting the traffic around the bridge. I suppose that one would need to make a detour by Spalding, but that is a long way round. I would not like to estimate the number of miles, but I do not imagine that the townsfolk would welcome more traffic being sent their way. They would probably be calling very quickly for a bypass to be constructed.
It is difficult to see that widening the present bridge would serve much purpose because it is old. It would probably be more expensive to do this than to replace it completely. In fact, complete replacement seems the only sensible solution. I understand from the speech of my noble friend that the department is inhibited
958
from proceeding by the outdated and unnecessary restrictions contained in the 1870 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was concerned about the commercial traffic that may need to use this waterway. I would not have thought that that fear arises. I cannot see much commercial traffic of any size wanting to use it.
Obviously, the building of a new bridge could cause inconvenience to the occasional yachtsman who wants to pass underneath it. Being a yachtsman myself, I can appreciate this. But in all probability the bridge would be high enough—at least I hope that it would be—to enable small sailing dinghies to pass underneath without any problem. Against this, we have to balance the needs of East Anglia and the thousands of drivers who use this road daily. I suggest that the advantages to them greatly outweigh the disadvantages to the occasional yachtsman. There is simply no comparison. I wish strongly to support the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships give it a Second Reading.
8.38 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I have come very late to this problem. In fact, when I came up today I did not even know we were debating the Bill, but I have received some information from the locality of the Fosdyke Bridge. I should like to put some points of view. Whenever we talk about a bridge, we are balancing the interests of two groups of people—the people who go over the bridge and those who go under it. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, devoted most of his speech to the former group. I do not dispute that the bridge apparently needs to be replaced and that many motorists need to use it. We are not suggesting that it should be done away with. However, my information does not entirely accord with that of the noble Lord the Minister on the use of the river at present.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me something or, if necessary, write to me about the question of dredging. If the new fixed bridge is high enough to permit a dredger to pass underneath it, then I imagine that any other normal river traffic would also be able to pass underneath. Certainly I imagine that sailing dinghies will not require as much clearance as a dredger.
I was born in the Fens although I do not live there now. However, I understand that silting up is a constant problem. I am told that the banks are maintained with stone from beyond the bridge so that dredgers must be able to pass underneath the bridge. That is the first and probably the most important point that I want to make. I am also told that fertiliser reaches Fosdyke from the east, from seaward. So it would equally seem necessary that the bridge should permit the passage of whatever boats are involved. Clearly if they are barges they will not need very much clearance. I am told—and this may be a vanishing activity—that there are still fishermen who pass under the bridge on their way to their fishing grounds. It would he a pity if that activity were to be stopped. But again I imagine that if the bridge will permit a dredger to pass underneath it, then it will also permit a normal fishing boat.
Pleasure craft have been referred to by, I think, both noble Lords who have spoken previously. Clearly any bridge that will permit a dredger will also be all right

959
for those craft. I do not want to detain the House. However, I should be very pleased if the Minister would consider these points and feed them, if necessary, to those people who will be concerned with the preparation of the Section 106 order of which he has told us.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Wise and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for taking an interest in this small but very important Bill. I do not have anything further to add to what I said when introducing the Bill. However, I shall answer as many questions as I can because we appear to have ample time this evening. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I am a little long winded. Those noble Lords who will be returning for the Committee stage will be some little while yet.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me a number of questions. He specifically asked me about the position as regards Section 36 grants. I can confirm that that matter is completely open. It would probably be a matter for debate in the event of there being a public inquiry. However, we know of no concerns such as those of which the noble Lord spoke. That answer will probably also apply to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who spoke about commercial shipping and the fertiliser trade. Apart from a small boatyard up-river of the bridge—that is somewhere about five or six miles from Fosdyke Bridge towards Spalding—there is no commercial activity. The existing wharf shown on any map has been derelict for some years. However, the boatyard has a thriving business in small craft, but the number of times that the bridge has been opened during the last four years is as follows; in 1979 it was opened six times; in 1980 it was opened 21 times—we do not quite know why the number shot up then—in 1981 it fell back to seven times and in 1982 it was opened six times. Not one of those openings was for commercial craft. The waterway gives certain rights for commercial craft but none for pleasure craft. So if these openings were for pleasure craft going to the boatyard, it would seem unlikely that the boatyard would be seriously disadvantaged in the event of any subsequent bridge being too low or in any other way prohibiting the passage of those six vessels.
On the other hand there is a wharf on the seaward side of the bridge which is busy and which I understand has had quite a lot of money spent on it. Their concern, as expressed to the department, is that, in the building of a new bridge access from the road must not be impaired in any way. That again is a matter that would come out in the consultation process that would follow a draft order.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked about the bridge being a fixed bridge. I do not wish to be negative about this matter, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who spoke about a "new" bridge. I do not know what the new bridge will be, because the design has not yet been put in hand. It would seem sensible, in the light of what I have said, for it to be a fixed bridge. The difference in cost is something between £1·9 million for a fixed bridge and
960
£2·2 million for an opening, lifting bridge. That is the capital cost involved at 1983 prices. There is, however, the additional cost of maintaining an opening bridge. That is reckoned to be, in capital terms, something like £39,000.
Consultations have taken place already both with the River Users' Association and with the local authorities. Perhaps I should add that the navigation authority for the River Welland is the Anglian Water Authority. Upstream of the bridge the Welland is designated as a recreational waterway and it is the Anglian Water Authority Act 1977 that gives them the powers to improve moorings and the river bed, and to levy charges and so on.
Downstream the pilotage authority is Boston/Spalding and they have indicated that they do not oppose this Bill. So there need be no confusion in the minds of noble Lords that anybody is being denied anything to which they have a right. Certainly the light craft interests, to which my noble friend referred, will have an opportunity of making their feelings abundantly clear when the draft order is laid.
My noble friend Lord Wise spoke about the time element. He will recall that I said in my opening remarks that there are five schemes currently in the road programme totalling £21 million. This represents, therefore, a continuing process of improvement to the road. I think my noble friend also asked about the timing of the bridge. One would anticipate, standing here shortly before Christmas 1983, that 1987 might not be an unreasonable time to realise this new bridge.
I think that I have answered all the questions which have been raised by noble Lords. If I have missed anything, noble Lords may be quite assured that I shall write to them. Indeed, if, on reflection, they have any further questions, I shall, of course, be very pleased to deal with them.
The real purpose of this Bill is to prepare the ground for proceeding with a sensible piece of modernisation of an important road. Although it carries some 10,000 vehicles a day, about 2,000 of which are heavy goods vehicles, we are also not unmindful of the half dozen vessels that pass underneath the bridge. This is an important development. If, indeed, my noble friend, who has such knowledge of this part of the country, has any great interest in the old bridge or has any contact with the Industrial Archaeological Society, my right honourable friend will be very happy to receive offers for the old bridge when it is taken away. On that basis, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.52 to 9.10 p.m.]

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [H.L.]
9.12 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
(Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Orders for financial relief after divorce, etc.]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("while a minor").
The noble and learned Lord said: When I spoke to the last amendment I made the foolish observation that I did not think that it was a matter that called for dogma and that I, myself, did not propose to make any dogmatic statement. My goodness, what a mistake that was! I was plunged into dogma and wondered where the Welsh Congregationalists came into it. Happily, there is nobody listening; so may I go on like this? We are now fortunately in an amendment free, I hope, from dogma, but it would be an exaggeration to say that there is no room for a difference in opinion.
The matter arises out of the provisions of Part II dealing with financial relief in matrimonial proceedings and in paragraph (2) (a) of the new Clause 25, your Lordships will see that it is provided that:
"It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers",—
under the relevant financial provisions—
"and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not attained the age of eighteen".
The effect of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 is to require, in effect, that consideration should be given to the welfare of the child of the marriage up to the age of 21. The reason for this amendment is to meet the criticism (which has been expressed by various bodies that have been particularly concerned with the protection of the interests of children) that it failed to meet the situation of the children, many of whom go on to college and university—to full-time education. They are still dependent on the family provision, many of them at any rate, and on contributions from the family; and I feel—and it is felt by those who have written to me about this matter—that the consideration that is given to the welfare of the children of the marriage should include consideration of the position of those who are in full-time education.
That is why we have proposed the amendment to raise the age from 18 to 21. I do not know that I need elaborate upon the argument a great deal. It will affect quite a large number of young people, if I may so describe them, at university, and not only at university but undergoing training in various technical and other institutions where the training often, if not always, in the cases that we are concerned with, goes up to the age of 21. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support this amendment, having two grandchildren of
962
18 who go to university—luckily without divorced parents. I can see how important it would be if the parents were divorced that their education should not be risked by all assistance being cut off at the age of 18.
The Lord Chancellor: At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord pointed out that many children remain dependent on their parents beyond the age of 18 for educational, medical and other reasons. Of course, in the majority of cases the children will cease to be dependent on their parents on leaving school at the age of 16, or shortly thereafter. These two first matters are dealt with in the principal Act in Section 29(2)(a) and Section 29(2)(b), but I think it possible—and I hope that I say this with due diffidence—that the noble and learned Lord has omitted to read Section 29(3), where the matter is already dealt with in the principal Act. Section 29(3) reads as follows:
"Subsection (1) above",
which I think we can ignore,
"and paragraph (b) of subsection (2),"
which limits the period to the child's eighteenth birthday,
"shall not apply in the case of a child, if it appears to the court that—

(a) the child is, or will be, or if an order were made without complying with either or both of those provisions would be, receiving instruction at an educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not he is also, or will also be, in gainful employment; or

(b) there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order without complying with either or both of those provisions.

I am not at the moment able to see why that does not completely cover the point which the noble and learned Lord has made and which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has also made. I will, having regard to what he has said, look again at the matter, but my provisional view at the moment—and I think there is no difference between us about the facts and other circumstances—is that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Foot: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws the amendment, as I imagine he is about to do, may I just make this observation? It is well known to those who practise in this field that there is a power in the court to award maintenance in favor of children who are undergoing higher education above the age of 18. That I fully understand; but it does not seem to me to be a full answer to the noble and learned Lord's contention, for this reason: that what Section 25 provides is that, in considering the matter of maintenance, first consideration shall be given to the welfare of any child of the family who has, under the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, not attained the age of 21.
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was right in saying that this amendment was unnecessary, I suggest that it is not really quite right because you would actually have three categories of children. You would have those who were under the age of 18, to whom special attention must be given; you would then have the category of children between the ages of 18 and 21 who were undergoing a course of education, who would not acquire that special consideration which is required for a child under 18; and, apart from

963
that, you would have the child over 21 who did not come into the picture at all. So, when the noble and learned Lord is considering this matter, would he give thought to whether indeed it is right to say that the statute he has quoted is a sufficient answer to the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Bench?
The Lord Chancellor: Of course, I will do exactly that, but I would go on to say that my own feeling is that, in the ordinary case, when a child has reached the age of 18, rightly or wrongly—at the time I thought wrongly, but irreversibly—Parliament having made the age of majority 18, I rather doubt whether the child's interests should any longer have the same priority as we would all tend to give it in its period of pupilage before the age of 18. But obviously the existing Act does deal with the situation which I think the noble and learned Lord had in mind.
I think his amendment is defective because, if we are going beyond the age of 18, there are factors other than education we have to take into account. For instance, take a child suffering from Down's Syndrome, for whom continued provision would plainly be justifiable, that is clearly covered, I think, by Section 29 of the principal Act. It is not covered by the amendment.
What I promise to do is to look at it again in the light of what has been said, without commitment on either side. I do not think there is any difference of principle between us and one wants to do the right thing. There are really two questions to be considered: first, whether after 18 the child should have the same priority as it
964
has in pupilage; and, secondly, whether the educational factor is the only one to be considered.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his obviously sympathetic response to the amendment. I emphasised the educational aspect, but I see no reason why it should not apply also to the Down's Syndrome case of the dependent child of the marriage who should at least be protected and provided for until the age of 21.
What troubles me—and I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Foot—is that the court dealing with divorce matters will be governed primarily by the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act, as it will ultimately become, and, as it stands, the first consideration is to be,
"given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not attained the age of eighteen".
I can visualise a good deal of difficult argument if an endeavour is made to protect the position of the full-time dependent student by reference to another Act of Parliament.
But I also will examine the other legislation to which the noble and learned Lord has referred and we must come back to this matter again. In view of the assurance of the noble and learned Lord, and in the light of my expectation that I shall return to this—if I may say so without threat—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("not have regard to the conduct of each of the parties unless in the opinion of the court there exist such exceptional circumstances as would render it inequitable for such conduct to be disregarded but shall").
The noble Lord said: I believe that we are coming to a very important matter in this Bill. It is one upon which the Law Reform Commission had quite a bit to say and it is one which was adverted to on Second Reading with some amount of emphasis so far as some Members of your Lordships' House were concerned. It is the issue of how far conduct should come into the question of the award of financial provision, whether by way of maintenance or capital provision, in divorce proceedings.
If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to quote from the Law Commission's report of 14th December 1981: on page 13, paragraph 37, the Law Commission state as follows:
"We adhere to the view expressed by us in the Discussion Paper that the courts as now constituted cannot reasonably be expected to apportion responsibility for breakdown in any save exceptional cases. This is because (in the words of Ormrod J.)"—
and these words were in the very well-known 1973 case of Wachtel v. Wachtel—
" 'the forensic process is reasonably well adapted to determining in broad terms the share of responsibility of each party for an accident on the road or at work because the issues are relatively confined in scope, but it is much too clumsy a tool for dissecting the complex inter-actions which go on all the time in a family. Shares in responsibility for breakdown cannot be properly assessed without a meticulous examination and understanding of the characters and personalities of the spouses concerned, and the more thorough the investigation the more the shares will, in most cases, approach equality' ".
The quotation from Mr. Justice Ormrod ends there and the Commission continue:
"It seems to us (and our view was endorsed by the majority of professional and academic commentators on the Discussion Paper) that it would be quite wrong to require the court to hear the parties' mutual recriminations at enormous expense to the individuals involved (or, if they have legal aid, to the taxpayer) in those cases where such findings as the court could make would have little effect on the order made".
The Law Commission goon to discuss the matter, but their discussion is wholly on the basis that conduct is not capable of being dealt with adequately and that in matrimonial cases it is not advantageous, unless public opinion and the question of a feeling of justice make it absolutely essential, for the court to inquire into it.
At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought that he had adopted this principle and had got the matter right. He quoted the Law Commission report and felt that the matter had been adequately dealt with if one used the Law Commission's word "inequitable". However, it must be remembered that this is not a case where the Law Commission drew up the Bill for our consideration. We were considering a draft of the words which the Law Commission thought ought to be employed in an Act of Parliament. The wording in the Bill could be very misleading and, as I tried to say at Second Reading but not to the entire satisfaction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it could create difficulty, in my view, for the legal practitioner and very substantially increase the cost of divorce cases.
I ought to say in parenthesis that in the course of these remarks I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 11, 29 and 32.
Page 4, line 7, leave out paragraph (g).
Page 8, line 24, at end insert ("not have regard to the conduct of each of the parties unless in the opinion of the court there exist such exceptional circumstances as would render it inequitable for such conduct to be disregarded but shall").
Page 9, line 7, leave out paragraph (g).
What the Bill says at paragraph (g) at the top of page 4 is that the matters to which the court shall have regard shall include:
"the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it".
As a legal practitioner I can say that if that paragraph were read to any client in an average matrimonial case—in which unfortunately there is considerable bitterness, as a rule, until the passage of time heals the bitterness and more civilised conduct can be hoped for—the reaction of that client, whether it be the husband or the wife, would be, "I can tell you about my husband's—or my wife's—conduct and in my view it would be quite inequitable for the court not to have regard to it". This means that the legal practitioner on instructions would have to bring in conduct and argue before the court that it would be inequitable to disregard conduct. I have no doubt that the adversary on the other side would tell whoever was pleading before the court that it would be quite equitable to disregard that conduct.
I submit that the wording of the Bill has got the matter wrong and creates grave doubts as to how it should be construed. I submit to your Lordships that the view of the courts as to what might be inequitable or equitable to exclude would differ from judge to judge. Therefore, it is our duty to be more precise. I hope your Lordships' Committee will consider that in this amendment we have got it about right. We dispose of paragraph (g) as being a. matter to which the court shall have regard, since we ask for the deletion of paragraph (g) in Amendment No.11 and we insert instead at line 24, after the word "shall", these words:
"not have regard to the conduct of each of the parties unless in the opinion of the court there exist such exceptional circumstances as would render it inequitable for such conduct to be disregarded but shall".
So there have to be "exceptional circumstances", and then the legal practitioner can say to the client. "There is nothing exceptional in what you have said; this is the sort of thing one hears of in all matrimonial cases, and the court will not accept this as some exceptional matter".
We ought to be quite specific that we are trying to keep conduct out of cases as much as we possibly can, because all of us know that in 90 per cent. of cases—I go as high as that—it is six of one and half a dozen of another, if one knew the whole story.
Apart from that, going into the question of conduct and arguing whether it is equitable or inequitable to go into ordinary matters of conduct and not exceptional conduct merely increases the bitterness between the parties. In many cases, where the children are old enough to understand what is happening, it is clearly

967
upsetting to the children of the marriage, who have quite enough to put up with knowing that father and mother are going to separate. I beg to move.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Denning: I should like to support this amendment. I was engaged in the case of Wachtel v. wachtel, in which we had to consider how far conduct should be taken into consideration in these matters. We have long memories of cases in which for day after day we heard trifling evidence of cruelty on each side—one staying out late and the other using abusive words. It went on for days and days, and all at the expense of legal aid! This occurred not only in cruelty cases but also in many others. It was a scandal to the law, the way in which, in divorce cases, conduct had to be taken into account.
It was because of that that Lord Justice Ormrod said what he did: that we should have an end to all those mutual recriminations in such cases. In the case of Wachtel v. wachtel the whole court said that conduct should not be regarded except when it was obvious and gross. That has been a catchword which went too far; so much so that if the conduct of a wife was appalling, it was still disregarded and the husband was, if I may say so, very aggrieved. I may tell the Committee of a letter which I received, and which may amuse your Lordships, after we had decided against the husband:
"Dear Sir, You are a disgrace to all mankind: to let whores break up homes and expect us chaps to keep them. They rob us of what we work for and put us on the street. I only hope that you have the same trouble as us. So do us all a favour—take a Rolls and run right off Beachy Head and don't come back".
That is what a husband wrote when the courts were disregarding conduct altogether; when a wife who had gone off with another man would nevertheless get, while living with him, pretty well the same maintenance and access to the children as a woman who was innocent. No, conduct must be taken into account in such cases as that.
But how can it be done? I feel the same nervousness as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does about the wording as it stands in this Bill—just deciding whether or not the matter is inequitable. It seems to me that that opens the door to all those mutual recriminations and long inquiries which we had in the past. It seems that the way to get back on the right course is simply to use the words:
"not have regard to the conduct of each of the parties unless in the opinion of the court there exist such exceptional circumstances as would render it inequitable for such conduct to be disregarded",
for it seems to me that this amendment catches exactly what we sought to lay down in wachtel v. Wachtel but which has been misunderstood by other courts. I would support the amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I wish to state to the Committee a layman's argument in favor of this amendment. It is of vital importance to the community and to the general law that the law regulating family relationships should be respected, and it will not be respected unless it is regarded as fair. And to be regarded as fair it must be understood. I
968
think, from what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, it is clear that the amendment will be far more easily understood by ordinary folk than the phrase in the Bill as it stands.
We face really three groups of people who are anxious about this point in the Bill. The first are those who fear, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, that we may be taken back to the squalor of the inquests on the pathology of marriages; there are those who fear that we may be taken back to a situation in which conduct may be used as a fine upon the guilty parties to a marriage; and there are those who fear that under the present law men are suffering because of the absence of a consideration of conduct. I submit to the Committee that for ordinary folk there must be a touch of conduct, because there are certain circumstances in which people will feel moral outrage if conduct is not regarded. But most people regard those as exceptional circumstances. I think that the amendment as phrased meets those needs of public understanding and respect for the family law which are not to be found in the Bill as unamended.
The Earl of Halsbury: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, could explain a difficulty I have with the drafting of this amendment. We have heard much of the difficulty of construing "exceptional hardship" and "exceptional depravity" due to lack of any standard of normal hardship or normal depravity. How far does that difficulty not arise in the use of the word "exceptional" in this amendment? Presumably in contrast to "exceptional circumstances as would render it inequitable" would stand "normal circumstances as would render it equitable". Does not that involve the same sort of difficulty, and, if not, can the noble Lord explain?
Lord Mishcon: I think there is a difference between adjectives that define hardship and adjectives that define depravity—which were the two contexts in which we were judging the word "exceptional"—and circumstances which one states to be exceptional. They are out of the ordinary and that is something that the layman, and the judge, if I may say so with respect, would understand. Our difficulty in regard to the other context was to know when hardship becomes exceptional hardship, when depravity can be tolerated as being perfectly all right and when it becomes exceptional. I do not think the difficulties apply in the same way to this amendment when you ally it to the word "circumstances".
Lord Coleraine: Nevertheless, I think the layman who is looking at the clause is going to ask why the circumstances should be exceptional. If there are circumstances which render it inequitable, why should those circumstances be exceptional? I understand "exception" as meaning very much out of the ordinary. I have in mind the case we have heard of many times before, the young girl who marries a rich man and walks off and takes a share of his fortune. I do not think that in a layman's use of the word that would be called an "exceptional" case: it is a fairly ordinary one. If an ordinary case is inequitable there is no need for the word "exceptional".
Lord Foot: I took the view when I was considering this part of the Bill that the best course was to strike out all reference to conduct. That would mean deleting paragraph (g) on page 4 and putting nothing in its place. I still adhere to that view. However, I am bound to say that I think it unlikely that the Committee would be prepared to accept so draconian an amendment as that and is likely to prefer the amendment moved by the noble Lord, which would, as it were, take up an intermediate position between striking out "conduct" altogether and trying to improve upon the wording of the Bill as it stands. I think that there are evident objections to the wording of paragraph (g), which have been admirably expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
There are two faults in the present wording. It tends to bring back all those concepts of blame and fault which everyone apparently agrees are manifestly unwanted and it does that without giving any guidance as to what cases fall within the definition of "inequitable" and which do not. Therefore, it seems that the words suffer from every conceivable defect. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that this is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission and we must give due regard to that.
My view of the point as it was put by the Law Commission is that this is possibly one of the weakest parts of its recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has quoted extensively from the beginning of its observations on this matter of conduct. I should like to give two further quotations; from the beginning of paragraph 38 and from paragraph 39 which contains the recommendations. The beginning of paragraph 38 states:
"The second issue relates to the question of identifying these exceptional cases in which the court can not only identify responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage but should also allow that assessment to influence the financial orders that are to be made."
Paragraph 39, which gives the Commission's proposals and recommendations, says:
"We would accordingly propose to preserve a reference to the conduct of the parties as one of the specified list of circumstances to which the court should have regard in those cases where it would be inequitable to do otherwise. Any further elaboration can, in our view, best be left to case law development."
That recommendation seems to suffer from two major defects. The first is that it gives no indication as to how the court is to identify inequitable cases—to use that shorthand—without embarking upon an inquiry into the whole history of the marriage. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, how can one tell whether the conduct of a party is conduct that it would be inequitable to disregard unless one has enquired into the conduct itself? If one once embarks upon that process, what is to stop an inquiry into the whole history of the marriage with all that that involves? The second defect in the reasoning is that there are likely, inevitably, to be the widest possible variations between the decisions of different courts as to what constitutes conduct which it would be inequitable to disregard.
Therefore, I do not think that the present wording will do, but I am nevertheless faced with the question whether the amendment proposed by the noble Lord
970
is an improvement. I do not think it is good enough but I do think it is better. It is better, first, because it is expressed in this way: it proposes that the general rule should be that you shall not have regard to conduct. It goes on to say that that general rule should be excepted from only in the event of the court finding that there are exceptional circumstances. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the different effect of "exceptional" used in that context as compared with when it is used in connection with depravity and hardship.
The other point of merit in the noble Lord's amendment is that it provides that conduct shall be considered only in exceptional circumstances. I do not think that that is the best that we can achieve. I think that it would be better to delete the reference to conduct altogether, but I have to recognise that the noble Lord's amendment, together with the deletion of the paragraph, is much more likely to commend itself to the Committee than is my simple proposal for the deletion of the paragraph. I am not particularly enthusiastic about it but am nevertheless a supporter of the noble Lord's amendment and would commend it to the House.
9.51 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not rightly know either whether there is any difference of principle between us or whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, realises quite the effect and the rather radical approach of his amendment, which he seemed to speak of as if it was simply a question of clarification, which it is certainly not.
The first question is, should conduct be considered at all? That was the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I think it would outrage public opinion if conduct, either by the man or the woman, were not to be taken into account. It so happens that I had a letter from a Member of Parliament this very morning which included a letter by a lady who was the aunt of the husband. This is what she wrote:
"On 30th September she deserted my nephew, committed adultery and the same night went to live with another man. This man had money to burn and had bought a house and furnished it in which to take her. She is still working full-time. He is also working full-time at the bank, so that there is no home life for the children. No one worries about money or pleasures and yet she can still under the divorce laws demand half of everything, including my nephew's house, which will mean his taking up a mortgage for £20,000, payment of interest thereon and reducing his standard of living. So she gets away scot-free and proposes to give the new fellow the £20,000 to enable him to sell the house he provided for her to buy a much larger house, so the £20,000 will never come back to my nephew or his children. I think this is extremely unfair".
That letter happens to relate to a wife's misconduct.
I know less than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps it has been forgotten. but many years ago he was actually a practitioner. But my curious experience—such as it is—is that, when it is a question of misconduct, on the whole, I think, men behave rather worse than women. I may be wrong about that. I think one must be even-handed between the two. I have known men knock their wives about and drive them to divorce or desertion. I have known men undermine their wives' health to the extent that they can no longer earn their living. I can think of a case of a woman who worked for me as a part-time secretary.

971
She had one breast sawn off for cancer. She had forgiven her husband for adultery about three times. But he went off for another piece of fluff and left her without a penny.
Is it all right to say that conduct does not enter into all these things? I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I think there is a difference here between us. I think that there is something to discuss about principle. I think that conduct must enter into it, and I believe that it would outrage the conscience of mankind if it did not.
I must keep on saying to the Committee, because I think that it is in danger of forgetting it, that we are concerned here only with an amendment to a principal Act. The Act says that conduct shall enter into it. Upon that broad statement of the Act there arrived the case of wachtel. I think that that was a very great advance, if my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill will allow me to say so. I see him sitting there—though not my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, who spoke earlier. My noble and learned friend Lord Roskill was also a party to the decision. That said in effect that we cannot go back to the awful business of who threw a plate of soup at the other on the third day of the marriage. It was degrading, it was hopeless, and it did not help us to decide anything.
So the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, invented the phrase—he is a great master of phrase—that conduct shall be disregarded unless it was gross and obvious. Anyone who understands law and judges knows that that was a piece of judicial rhetoric. But for a time it caused great confusion because people tried to apply it literally. Since when a number of cases have arisen, after wachtel. I shall give the names of some of them: Armstrong, Martin, Kokosinski, Evans and Robinson. They have all really shown that the courts have settled down to a state in which they disregard conduct unless it would he inequitable to disregard it.
That, curiously enough, is what the Bill says, and it is what the Law Commission in effect reported, though of course the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was quite right in saying that they did not draft the legislation. I hesitate to read, indeed I do not think that I shall read, paragraphs 36 and 37 of the report. But that is what the commission said, and on the whole it said what we have put into the Bill, assuming that the parliamentary draftsman has done his duty all right: and I think that he probably has.
Following that situation, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, prefer to paragraph (g) the amendment which they have proposed. I say respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that, whatever else it does, it does not make the situation any plainer—and I say it with respect also to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—because it destroys with one fell swoop all the case law that has taken place since Wachtel, since it is no longer applicable.
What the amendment does is to have a very peculiar effect. It directs the court not to have regard to the conduct of each of the parties unless in the opinion of the court a condition is satisfied. The condition is the existence of "exceptional circumstances", and they must be such to make it inequitable for the conduct of
972
each of the parties to be disregarded. However, by virtue of the amendment, were it carried, the reason for taking conduct into account would not therefore be the nature of the conduct, which it is at the moment, but the existence of circumstances—whatever that may mean—which would make it inequitable to disregard the conduct. Contrast that with the Bill as it stands, contrast it with paragraph (g), which makes the nature of the conduct the decisive factor. Surely that is right.
Furthermore, the effect of the amendment is not to make conduct itself exceptional although that might be difficult to define. It is that some circumstances, apparently external to the conduct, should be exceptional but nonetheless circumstances relating to the conduct. Once the court is satisfied of the existence of the relevant circumstances, it might have regard to any conduct, any trivial matters. It is not easy to see what is meant by exceptional circumstances. But since they must be circumstances such as to make it inequitable to disregard the conduct, they must be in some way related to the conduct. It appears that exceptional circumstances must be the continuing effect of the conduct though not the conduct itself.
Moreover, the way in which the amendment is drafted requires that the exceptional circumstances must be in existence at the time when the court has regard to all the circumstances of the case. Thus, the amendment creates obscurity. It creates obscurity because it will be for the tribunal in each case to decide whether, at the time the court is considering all the circumstances of the case, exceptional circumstances exist. The present current authorities on when regard should be had to conduct of the parties would provide no guidance any longer to the courts. These authorities direct the courts to have regard to conduct when it is such that it would offend a reasonable person's sense of justice to ignore it. That is a very different test to that which would be introduced by the amendment since the effect of the amendment might be to leave conduct out of account for practical purposes. But a good many litigants wish the court to have regard to the other spouse's conduct. The amendment would inevitably give rise to a considerable amount of litigation until the appellate courts had once more established in a number of decisions what exceptional circumstances render it inequitable to disregard conduct.
I believe that the noble Lord's amendment would introduce greater obscurity. Of course, I understand that there are people who think that conduct should not enter into maintenance at all, but I have known cases and I have quoted one that happened to be on my table when I entered the office this morning. My own sense is that the public as a whole would be astonished to hear that conduct should not enter into it. I doubt very much, if we were to talk across the table less publicly, whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I would differ very much about individual cases. I am sure that we would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that conduct should be disregarded altogether. I doubt whether I should be entirely persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that this is as plain a matter as he seemed to think. I will, of course, having regard to what has been said, have the whole of this debate looked into to see

973
whether I want to change my mind, but I do not think that this improves the Bill.
If I may point it out, the Law Commission treated conduct and how you phrase the way it should influence decisions under the heading of X, which I suppose is Roman for 10, to two intractable problems. That is in paragraphs 36 and 37. It comes to the conclusion that it should unless it was inequitable; that conduct should only be used as a factor in maintenance when it was inequitable not to do so. I think that this is what we have done in the Bill in paragraph (g) as it stands. But no one is infallible. As said in A Thousand and One Nights, "Allah is all-knowing". But I shall have it reviewed. I suspect that there is no real difference of principle between us. I suspect that the parliamentary draftsman has succeeded in hitting on a better form of words than those requested in the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: While not agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that conduct should never be regarded and that it should always be disregarded, we are nevertheless seeking to avoid the appalling situation with which we are so familiar and have all suffered where conduct comes inevitably to be regarded as the awful inquest into every detail of the matrimonial relationship. I remember one occasion, during a case of this type, appearing for the wife of a gentleman who alleged as an act of cruelty that his wife required him to empty the grate, bring in the coal and the firewood and clean the oven from time to time. I remember the learned judge asking me, "Do you do that, Mr. Elwyn-Jones?" I said, "Constantly, my Lord" and the judge said, "So do I". We won that case.
However, to be serious, the position of the Law Commission on this matter is somewhat interesting. The word "exceptional" comes from their own report. I ask the noble and learned Lord to look at paragraph 38 of the Law Commission report, where it states:
"The second issue relates to the question of identifying those exceptional cases in which the court can not only identify responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage, but should also allow that assessment to influence the financial orders that are to be made".
The amendment, therefore, prefaces consideration of the problem by requiring at the very beginning of Section 25 that there shall be inserted that the court shall:
"not have regard to the conduct of each of the parties unless in the opinion of the court there exist such exceptional circumstances as would render it inequitable for such conduct to be disregarded".
That creates an entirely different emphasis, in our submission, from that in the present draft of the Bill which lists paragraph (g) as one of the matters to which the court shall have regard. So it becomes, in the light of that approach to the matter, an automatic duty of the court to consider all those items in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) and then the conduct of each of the parties. So the conduct of each of the parties is immediately subjected to microscopic and, indeed, magnifying glass examination; whereas it could be made clear at the very beginning of the consideration of the matters to which the court ought to have regard in making the financial provisions that consideration of the conduct of the parties should be exceptional.
974
I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will look at the matter again. We are aiming at the same thing up to a considerable point, but what we want to avoid is the appalling list of allegations of cruelty. I do not wish to add any macabre examples to what could be said or, indeed, trivial examples of the kind which I mentioned which really turned divorce proceedings in that type of case, with that type of expectation of proof, into a most odious conflict which ended all possibility of any conciliation, least of all reconciliation.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very reluctant to address the Committee again. I really do not think that there is an issue of principle between me and the noble and learned Lord. I must tell him, if only to amuse him, that he was reading from a different document from the one that I was reading from. Our Bill is founded on Law Commission report 112. I was referring to paragraphs 36 to 39 of that report. I will just read paragraph 39 and ask the noble and learned Lord to compare it with paragraph (g). It says:
"We would accordingly propose to preserve a reference to the conduct of the parties as one of the specified list of circumstances to which the court should have regard in those cases where it would be inequitable to do otherwise. Any further elaboration can, in our view, best be left to case law development".
That is what I accept and that is what the Bill does.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If the noble and learned Lord will allow me to say so, I was in fact reading from the same document, but from the earlier paragraph.
The Lord Chancellor: I think I still prefer paragraph 39, where they come to a conclusion. However, I shall of course refer this matter back to those who advise me on such things. I really do not think that there is any difference of principle between us. I think we would probably decide the same cases in the same way, whatever form of words we used.
Lord Mishcon: I do not think it would be appropriate to divide the Committee at this hour. In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, that he is well apprised of the goal at which we aim and that he himself is aiming at the same goal, if he could only find himself somewhere with our team in scoring the eventual goal I am sure the Committee would be satisfied. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne):The next amendment is Amendment No. 9, but perhaps I should inform the Committee that if it is agreed to it will not be possible for me to call Amendment No. 10.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Foot Lord Foot moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("future") to end of line 33.
The noble Lord said: I was trying to absorb the words we have just heard, as to the effect of my amendment upon Amendment No. 10, but I think I understand it. Perhaps I may explain the purpose of my amendment. Under the law as it stands at the

975
moment, Section 25(2) of the 1973 Act, as set out in Clause 3 of the Bill, reads as follows:
"As regards the exercise of the powers of the court under section 23(1)(a), (b), or (c), 24 or 24A above in relation to a party to the marriage, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters—
(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future".
There the paragraph comes to an end. Under the Bill, what is proposed is that there should be added to that paragraph the following qualification:
"including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire".
My submission is that those words are both unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable. As it stands today, the existing section already requires that the court shall have regard, not simply to a party's earnings or to what the party has earned in the past, but to the party's earning capacity: and not only the earning capacity at the moment when the decision is made, but the party's earning capacity now or in the foreseeable future. In other words, the present law requires that the court shall have regard to the earning potential of the party concerned.
Therefore, the new words are simply a refinement or, if you like, an elaboration of the old words. The question which I raise by my amendment is whether that elaboration is either necessary or, indeed, desirable. My contention is that it is neither. First. I submit that the effect of these additional words is minimal or, at any rate, marginal. Secondly, I submit that the new words introduce a new element of speculation into the whole process. Under the law as it stands at the moment, the question is: what is the party's earning potentiality? Since the person who is at issue here is usually the wife, the question is, what is the wife's earning potentiality? Under the new words the question is. in what way might the wife be expected to add to her existing potentialities? I suggest that that introduces a new element not only of speculation but of uncertainty into the whole matter.
Thirdly, I suggest that it adds considerably to the complications confronting the court that has to decide this matter. I also suggest that it is a very unattractive complication. I do not see how the court will answer the question of what capabilities the wife might acquire in the future without going into questions of her character. behaviour, conduct and general attitude of mind.
For these reasons, I do not think that these words improve the matter. They introduce this element of speculation and uncertainty. I do not know any reason for thinking that the law, as it has been operating for the last 10 years, has caused any difficulties in this regard. There is no difficulty under the present law for the court in trying to determine what the wife's earning potentialities may be.
On the question of the importance of each party doing everything possible to become self-sufficient, to quote the words of the commission. I suggest that that matter is adequately coped with by the new Section 25A, especially subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) directs the court to consider the
976
possibility of an early termination of payments, and subsection (2) requires the court to pay regard to their termination after giving the recipient time to adjust. In so far as the Law Commission was concerned with the importance of each party doing everything possible to become self-sufficient, it seems that that matter is adequately covered by the provisions of Section 25A. In those circumstances I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I suppose I have to say something. One is never quite sure whether there is a difference of principle here. The fallacy of what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said is that he was always talking about the wife's earning capacity and not that of the husband. As it stands, the Bill is even-handed to both. I expect he has had, in his extensive practice, as I have had in my rather more modest one, experiences where the husband has deliberately limited his earning capacity, especially where he has not married again, to avoid paying maintenance to the wife. In the extreme case, it is not uncommon for a husband to go on to public assistance rather than pay maintenance to his wife and instead of trying to work. In periods of unemployment this is a comparatively easy thing to do. Sometimes he avoids promotion and sometimes he avoids an increase in earnings.
Lord Foot: Before the noble Lord moves on from that point, may I remind him that the Law Commission themselves, when they were considering this particular matter. considered that the real question at issue was the wife's earning capacity? The words I would quote in support of that are that, when they were setting out what are called the policy objectives, the second of the policy objectives was described by them in this way:
"Greater weight to be given to a divorced wife's earning capacity, and to the desirability of both parties to becoming self-sufficient".
In the opinion of the Law Commission at any rate, what they were concerned with here was mainly the wife's earning capacity, as opposed to the husband's.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not need to be reminded of that. I am dealing with the terms of the Bill and with the effects of the amendment. I am only saying that my humble experience, such as it is, is that the thing requires to be fairly evenly handed between the two parties to a marriage, the variable factors in each of which are almost infinitely variable.
I quoted in connection with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a letter that I had had only this morning. Let me remind the noble Lord, Lord Foot, just what it says:
"This man had money to burn and had bought a house and furnished it in which to take her. She is still working full-time. He is also working full-time at the bank, so that there is no home life for the children. No one worries about money or pleasures and yet she can still under the divorce laws demand half of everything, including my nephew's house, which will mean his taking up a mortgage for £20,000, payment of interest thereon and reducing his standard of living. So she gets away scot-free and proposes to give the new fellow the £20,000 to enable him to sell the house he provided for her to buy a much larger house, so the £20,000 will never come back to my nephew or his children. She deserted my nephew, committed adultery and…went to live with another man".
She apparently deserted the children, too. The fact of the matter is that earning capacity is a factor which I think has to be taken into consideration: and it is

977
totally wrong and contrary to fact and experience to say that one must always talk about the wife's earning capacity or the husband's earning capacity. It is, of course, true. I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that this was dealt with in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the report of the Law Commission. It said in paragraph 30:
"The response to the Discussion Paper indicated wide support for the view that the courts should be more clearly directed to the desirability of promoting a severance of financial obligations between the parties at the time of divorce; and to give greater weight to the view that in the appropriate case any periodical financial provision ordered in favor of one spouse (usually the wife) for her own benefit—as distinct from periodical payments made to her to enable her to care for the children—should be primarily directed to secure wherever possible a smooth transition from marriage to the status of independence. We believe that this general objective should he embodied in the legislation."
These things have to be looked at in the light of the context, and I myself do not feel that there is any danger whatever that the effect of the words in the Bill as it stands would be contrary to the interests of mothers and children.
In the end I think that one has to make a broad political decision above these matters whether one is going to give greater flexibility to the courts or going to tie them up more tightly. The view that we have taken is to follow the Law Commission in these respects. I think it fair to say that the Law Commission said that it must be accepted that the occasions on which it is possible for the parties to arrive at a final, once-and-for-all settlement on the occasion of their divorce will be comparatively few and almost non-existent where there are young children.
One knows, of course, and so do the courts—because they deal with it every day—that a wife's earning capacity is impaired, and perhaps destroyed, by the duration of the marriage and by the obligation to look after young children of which she has care and control. But I rather doubt whether it is right to do the only thing which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, purports to do because the purpose, and I think the effect, of the amendment is to eliminate from the matters to which the court is to have particular regard in consideration of all the circumstances of any case any increase in earning capacity which, in the opinion of the court, it would be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire.
If it is true that both parties can err in this respect, I think those things should be in the Bill and not out of it. Whether in practice there is any real difference of principle between the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and me I am not sure, but it seems to me that what is contained in the Bill is better than his amendment. I will, of course, as I always do on these occasions, ask those who advise me to consider what he has said, to relate it to the purposes and policies in the Bill, and to see whether we can improve it either in the way he suggests or in some other way. But my own conclusion at the moment is that the Bill is about right.
Lord Mishcon: It may be convenient—in the hope that possibly we can conclude at least the argument on this amendment before we adjourn our proceedings, so that the noble and learned Lord can, with his usual courtesy, consider the arguments—if I enlarge upon
978
what has just been said and do so with due consideration for brevity. I hope to be able to do that in a few short sentences.
As I understand the difficulty here it is this. We are asking the court to decide upon the financial provision which should be made, first of all, for the child and then for the spouse, and are asking the court to take certain matters into consideration. In this part of the Bill we are asking the court to take into account certain matters and we have in mind certain priorities, as I said, the first one being the child or children of the marriage. The Bill already provides, as I see it, for dealing with the financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.
I am not saying that I necessarily support the amendment because there is a later, very important one to be debated which I think clarifies the position for the court, and that I think would be the amendment to be moved later in the Committee proceedings by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. All that we are saying here, and I think all that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is saying, is that provision is already here for looking at the foreseeable income of the parties. We do not want to go on to say that we include in the case of earning capacity,
"any increase in that capacity which would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire".
If the court is really to carry out that process, I suppose that what one has to do is almost to conduct an IQ examination in order to see whether it is reasonable to expect one of the parties to a marriage not to be a private secretary, for example, but to aim at being a non-executive director of the establishment, or indeed not to be content with being a sub-manager but to be a manager, because if the party were to apply for such a position, in the view of the court a greater earning capacity could be acquired. It is an impossible position for a judge to have to adopt, and the words as they are now in this Bill say precisely that.
I am not saying by any manner of means—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will forgive me—that the deletion of the words after the word "future" will necessarily give the court sufficient guidance. I say that because I happen to support a later amendment, which I hope will be moved on another occasion in the Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. What I am saying is that, whatever the position, the words after the word "future" should in fact go. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, in his consideration of the whole of the speeches that have been made on this amendment, and especially the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will take into account what I have tried to say by way of supplementing his remarks.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope I will take everything into account. But I still think that a man who goes on supplementary benefit rather than help his wife and children ought to have that fact taken into account by the court.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: What difference does it make?
The Lord Chancellor: I think they would treat his application for variation in a downward direction in a somewhat less enthusiastic way.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In fact what happens—and I happen to know of a particular case—is that the man refuses to work and the wife does not get any money: that is all. The court cannot do anything about it.
The Lord Chancellor: That is exactly what I think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was rather overlooking. He quoted the Law Commission in the opposite sense. People rather assume that it is the wife's earning capacity which is being hit at and that it is not an even-handed attempt to stop people not earning in order to get more money, or to give less money, to the persons with whom they are embittered: I think, with great respect, that one is trying to be even-handed as between the two parties to an unhappy situation, and not to take sides. That is what I am trying to impress upon the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I must come back once again. There is a very great difference, as a rule, between the man who refuses to earn more money and the woman who does not see how she can. I do not at all like the idea, nor do a lot of other people like the idea—I have heard many complaints about this—of a court telling a woman that she ought to go out and get a job when it is very difficult for her to do so. This has caused great offence—I think rather unreasonably—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take it into consideration. It is a very important view of a great many perfectly reasonable people, who do not include me.
The Lord Chancellor: I am glad to know that it does not include the noble Lord. It rather defeats the purpose of his argument. Of course we take into account all possible fears and anxieties which may occur, but we try when we legislate to achieve the result which, in spite of those fears, will prove to be equitable.
Lord Foot: The noble and learned Lord is, of course, quite right in saying that the words of the clause are, on the face of them, even-handed as between the husband and the wife. But the practical reality of the matter is that these words are of particular concern to the wife. This was amply recognised by the Law Commission when they were considering this matter and that, I suggest, was the reason why, when they were stating the second proposition with which they were concerned, they described it in this way:
"Greater weight to be given to a divorced wife's earning capacity; and to the desirability of both parties becoming self-sufficient."
However, I do not want to pursue the matter any further.
But, as a practical matter, these words will be applied to the wife in nine cases out of 10 and to the husband in only one case out of 10. I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for having, as he said, supplemented what I have said and for expressing what I wanted to say very much better than
980
I did myself. I entirely agree with him that the words which have now been imported into this clause are closely involved with the amendments which we are to consider at the next stage from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. They are intimately connected. Pending the discussion of those amendments, I hope the noble and learned Lord will be good enough, as he has indicated, to reserve his judgment and to consider together this amendment and the noble Baroness's amendments. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: We have probably gone as far as we usefully can tonight. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  FIREARMS: WORKING PARTY
  FIREARMS: WORKING PARTY
  PRISON REMISSION
  PRISON REMISSION
  MESOTHELIOMA: APPLICATIONS FOR BENEFIT
  MESOTHELIOMA: APPLICATIONS FOR BENEFIT
  MESOTHELIOMA: DISABLEMENT BENEFIT
  MESOTHELIOMA: DISABLEMENT BENEFIT
  MESOTHELIOMA: BENEFIT REFUSALS
  MESOTHELIOMA: BENEFIT REFUSALS
  MESOTHELIOMA AND ASBESTOSIS DISABLEMENT BENEFIT: COMPARATIVE FIGURES
  MESOTHELIOMA AND ASBESTOSIS DISABLEMENT BENEFIT: COMPARATIVE FIGURES
  RETIREMENT PROVISION: SPECIAL INQUIRY
  RETIREMENT PROVISION: SPECIAL INQUIRY
  OPTICIAN SERVICES: COMPETITION
  OPTICIAN SERVICES: COMPETITION
  DIOXIN: REGULATIONS
  DIOXIN: REGULATIONS
  HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
  HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
  BIRDS: LICENSED KILLING
  BIRDS: LICENSED KILLING
  CYPRUS: CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
  CYPRUS: CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
  DEER: SLAUGHTERING
  DEER: SLAUGHTERING
  GRASS SICKNESS IN HORSES
  GRASS SICKNESS IN HORSES
  AGRICULTURAL ARBITRATORS: APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE
  AGRICULTURAL ARBITRATORS: APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE