Sitting of 20 December 1983

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL Lords Amendments agreed to.
GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Thursday 19 January.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Monday 16 January.
DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order) Order for Second reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Beadnell Village School
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his decision to allow Northumberland education authority to close Beadnell village school at the second application was based on any change of general policy towards village schools.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): No, Sir.
    Mr. Beith: As there was no change of circumstances at the school between the first and second applications, why does the Minister think that his predecessor was wrong to refuse the original application? Is he aware that Northumberland and other authorities regard the decision as a signal of a change in general policy and that he will shortly receive another application to close a village school at Craster in Northumberland?
    Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 25 July he made it clear that he decided to approve the authority's new proposal to close the school because circumstances had changed. Numbers of pupils at the school were likely to fall. The extent of the decline might be a matter for disagreement, but there is no doubt that the school would have been extremely small and that
    256
    the educational disadvantages which that inevitably entails would have come about. Moreover, the authority had agreed to make arrangements for transport to alternative Church schools if parents so desired.

    Academic Results
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies are in hand to examine the relationship between academic results and the form of organisation of secondary schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The Department is not currently sponsoring any research studies which are concerned solely with this topic but it is assessing the possibilities for research in this area as a preliminary to considering whether public funds should be committed to it.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his statisticians are now satisfied, contrary to earlier press reports, that recent research into examination results in grammar, secondary modern and comprehensive schools for the National Council of Educational Standards by Lady Cox and Dr. Marks was valid, based on a proper sample and professionally sound? Will my right hon. Friend consider the NCES equally with the National Children's Bureau and other similar bodies for grant purposes, as both do valid research? Does he agree—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked about three questions already.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the blacking of that research by Opposition Members and some educational ideologues because they dislike its findings?
    Sir Keith Joseph: It is clear from the letter by my statisticians, which by normal convention I do not publish, that they never used the word "flawed" in referring to the report. They have accepted that the samples which were used for the report were valid and that the difference between them and the report is one which is often argued between professional researchers about the extent to which regression analyses should be used.
    I regret that the officials who advise me on this and other subjects have been accused of acting with political motives. One has been named in that context. I am satisfied that officials who advise me tender advice which is objective, that they well understand and respect Government policy, that it is for local education authorities to propose changes in the organisation of schools and that the holder of my office should decide each case on its merits.
    As to my hon. Friend's other question, I shall consider all proposals for research on their merits.
    Mr. Radice: I thank the Secretary of State for his handsome apology to me for misrepresenting my letter to The Times of 3 December at the Report stage of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill. Is he aware that the question still remains whether he is prepared to accept the professional advice of his Department that the Cox and Marks study seriously underestimated the impact of social and economic factors on examination results? Will he now reassure the House that he intends to live up to the standards of his high office and his personal standards as a Fellow of All Souls and re fuse to give the backing of

    257
    public moneys to Cox and Marks, who have broken the cardinal rule of research by fixing the evidence to produce the results which confirm their own particular prejudice?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I deny the proposition about the attitude of Cox and Marks. The area of disagreement is one that often occurs with statisticians, and I shall consider all proposals on their merits.

    Religious Education
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will monitor the way in which local education authorities provide religious education and daily corporate acts of worship in schools.
    Mr. Dunn: Responsibility for ensuring that the statutory requirements are met rests in the first instance with local education authorities and the governing bodies of schools. Information about current practice in schools is available to my right hon. Friend from Her Majesty's inspectors.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Manchester local authority has challenged religious education on the ground that to include Christianity might be offensive to non-Christian minorities. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a legal commitment to provide religious education and the opportunity for a daily act of worship in all state schools, and does he agree that those who wish to be exempted should be, but that the basis of our religious education should remain Christian?
    Mr. Dunn: I am happy to confirm that the legal requirements of the Education Act 1944 are as my hon. Friend has said. There are detailed requirements on the local education authority with regard to worship and religious education. No changes in religious instruction can take place without convening a conference of Churches and other interests, as laid down in the 1944 Act. My hon. Friend is correct in his understanding of the legal position.
    Mr. Jim Callaghan: How, in the monitoring of religious education in schools, has the Minister changed the balance of the historic share of places for religious education in colleges of education, in the light of the proposed closure of the De La Salle teacher training college in my constituency?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman's question does not lie within my responsibility. The responsibility for religious worship and instruction in schools lies with the local education authority. Her Majesty's inspectorate has certain responsibilities in that regard.
    Mr. Sims: While the legal requirements are as my hon. Friend has explained, is not the truth of the matter simply that there are not enough teachers qualified to teach religious education? What is my hon. Friend doing to improve the supply of such teachers?
    Mr. Dunn: I am concerned that there should be an adequate supply of teachers of religous education within the total number being trained. In the restructuring of initial training last year we gave guidance on the balance of places for secondary training between subjects, which involved an increase in the proportion of places devoted to religious education. This will go some way to meet my hon. Friend's fear.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that there is a greater adherence to religious education of one kind or another in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain?
    Mr. Dunn: I should ask the hon. Gentleman for his views on Marxism rather than on Christianity.

    Pupil-teacher Ratios
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to lay before Parliament an annual statement of pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools.
    Mr. Dunn: Summary figures for these ratios have long been included in the report on education and science presented annually to Parliament. More detailed information is given in the Department's statistical bulletins.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept that the proposed rate-capping legislation is likely to have a substantial effect on pupil-teacher ratios? Will he ensure that the figures are published within a few months after the passing of the rate-capping legislation so that we can see the effects on pupil-teacher ratios?
    Mr. Dunn: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. Staffing provision is the responsibility of local education authorities. It is for them to decide the number of teachers to deploy in their local areas. It is a matter for them and is clearly known as such.
    Mr. Powley: If we are to provide more teachers in the education service, does my hon. Friend agree that they, too, have a responsibility when their organisations seek wage and salary increases to keep those increases at a moderate level, so that more resources can be spent on real forms of education, instead of on wages and salaries?
    Mr. Dunn: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If costs are contained, with the cash that remains much more can be done in other essential areas.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Minister answer the question that was put to him by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud)? If, under the Bill that was published today, local education authorities are prevented from increasing their rates, what effect will that have on teacher-pupil ratios?
    Mr. Dunn: I cannot speculate on that. Local education authorities are responsible for the management of their cash flows and resources. How they behave is entirely a matter for them.
    Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that the real education picture, as shown in the HMI report, is one of shortages of teachers, inadequate curriculums, not enough books and materials, and an increasingly urgent need for repairs to school buildings? Does he agree, as the local education authorities told the Secretary of State, that the situation will only be made worse by the level of RSG settlement for 1984–85 and by the Bill published today to take away the ability of LEAs to charge rates as they think fit? How will the Government Actuary's report, which is published today, on the increase in teacher pension contributions affect the financial position of LEAs?
    Mr. Dunn: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that pupil-techer ratios are at their best level

    259
    ever. That is a matter of pride, and we expect the trend to continue into the coming year. I am happy to give the House that information. It is good news which should be welcomed in a robust fashion.

    Higher Education (Lecturers)
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that public sector higher education can attract lecturers of appropriate quality in sufficient numbers against competition from the universities.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Yes, Sir. I am not aware of any significant recruitment difficulties at present.
    Mr. Bowden: In considering the future funding and staffing of higher education in the public sector, will my hon. Friend take careful note of the views of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers, a union which is concerned with the interests of teachers in polytechnics as well as with maintaining academic excellence in those institutions?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend and I entertain representations from many bodies on many subjects, the APT among them, and we are always happy to receive them.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that there is often competition between the two? Has the Minister noticed in Northern Ireland, for example, where the new University of Ulster did not manage to get its intake of students, that as a result of the Select Committee going there and discussing the matter with them there is now a fusion between the Ulster polytechnic and the new University of Northern Ireland? Is that not a harbinger for the future, when the two should be wedded together? Is it not something about which we should all think deeply in the interests of higher education?
    Mr. Brooke: In fluid times a number of different proposals are put to the Government, including proposals for polyversities, and clearly the Government will entertain each on its merits.
    Mr. Flannery: The answer was too brief.

    Village Schools (Closures)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish guidelines to be used when closures of village schools are proposed.
    Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend sees no need to change the present procedures. Proposals to close village schools, like proposals for all schools, are decided on their merits, having regard to all the relevant factors involved.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep concern about the closure of village schools? Does he think that publishing guidelines about the size of schools, distances of alternative schools, travelling conditions and so on would be helpful in reassuring the public?
    Mr. Dunn: We have made such details known from time to time, in particular in a recent Adjournment debate, of which I shall send my hon. Friend a copy. There may be good and special reasons for keeping a small school open. When that is so, my right hon. Friend decides
    260
    accordingly. When such reasons do not exist, it is not sensible to devote scarce education resources to keeping such places in use because that diverts resources from better uses, perhaps for a school in another village.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware that in my area the county council, district councils, parish councils, Members of Parliament and the villages concerned do not want to close schools? Why is the Minister receiving applications to close them?
    Mr. Dunn: Applications are made on the ground that existing financial resources can be better used elsewhere. I am always ready to see any hon. Member with a deputation relating to a section 12 proposal, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Lord: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when a local education authority is considering closing a small village school it is vital that it explains carefully whether it is closing that school for educational or for financial reasons, and that it does not confuse the two?
    Mr. Dunn: I agree that it is incumbent upon local education authorities to give as much information as possible about why it is proposed to close a school.

    Higher Education (Parental Contributions)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional number of families is expected to be deemed to be paying parental contributions for higher education in 1984–85 over 1983–84, allowing for an average increase of incomes in line with Government forecasts.
    Mr. Brooke: The adjustment of the parental contribution scale in line with the average increase in earnings should ensure that there will be no significant overall increase in the number of families assessed for a contribution in 1984–85, although there will he some additional families simply because of higher student numbers.
    Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. Friend please give the House the date by which the party of the family will do away with this pernicious tax on families?
    Mr. Brooke: I am aware of the many arguments that can be advanced for the abolition of the parental contribution system, but it is estimated that the cost of abolishing the system in 1984–85 would be about £250 million and resources are simply not available for that at present.
    Mr. Rhodes James: I thank my hon. Friend for making the scale of contributions rather more equitable. Is he aware that I, like him in happier times, regret the parental contribution principle, and particularly regret the fact that over the next three years an additional £90 million will be taken from the parents of students? Will he at least consider the possibility of moving the beginning rate from £9,700 to a higher level of income, perhaps £12,000?
    Mr. Brooke: Now that we have announced the scales for next year, my hon. Friend's suggestion must be for another year. Of course, we keep the matter permanently under review.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that until his announcement this autumn about student grants

    261
    there was almost a political consensus that we should treat students as independent? The only problem was how soon we could do that. Is he aware that it seems that the Government have reversed that policy and are saying that students from 18 to 25 should be more and more dependent on their parents? Is that not regrettable?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government needed to find savings within the education budget. It was felt that this was the way least damaging to higher education provision.

    Free School Transport
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the provision of free school transport.
    Mr. Dunn: Representations are regularly received from hon. Members and parents about free school transport. These typically take the form of complaints that a local education authority has withdrawn free transport, or does not provide it, in particular cases. In addition, a number of hon. Members, local authorities and parents have argued that the Government should seek to change the law.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend recall the representations that I made on behalf of my constituents in Theydon Bois, who resent the fact that pupils just outside a 3-mile limit do not have free transport while those inside the limit do? Despite the early difficulties, will he consider recommending to local education authorities a small flat-rate scheme, or something similar?
    Mr. Dunn: We are always prepared to consider any suggestion. The House will recall that in 1979 we attempted to make a change in the 1944 Act to allow local education authorities to introduce a charge for pupils, while enabling them to provide transport more generously. That move was defeated in the House of Lords and we have no plans to make further changes.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister realise that in areas such as south Yorkshire the passenger transport service is able to provide for hundreds of school children a 2p fare to school whether they live within 3 miles of, or more than 3 miles from, a particular school? Does he recognise the threat which the service faces because of the policies of some of his hon. Friends?
    Mr. Dunn: The House will be aware of the implications for jobs of such subsidies. Local education authorities have the right to decide how they provide transport and under what conditions. We do not intend to deviate from that.

    Youth Training Scheme (Further Education Colleges)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet local education authority representatives to discuss the future role of colleges of further education in the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have no immediate plans to do so but the Department has regular opportunities to discuss the youth training scheme with representatives of local education authorities.
    Mr. Madel: Before the next scheme begins in September next year, will my right hon. Friend have a close look at the content of the courses offered at colleges of further education in relation to the youth training scheme? If it seems likely that many young people, when they have completed youth training, will want to go back to some form of further education, will the Government have a close look and see what form of financial support might be granted to such students?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, but I think my hon. Friend is aware that there is already a 21-hour rule which enables those seeking employment to do some study while they are seeking jobs.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Secretary of State agree with his hon. Friend's question on the need for youngsters, on completing a youth training scheme course, to consider going back to further education, as only 38 per cent. of those completing the schemes get jobs? As the schemes are not designed to create jobs that is the only option, other than going back on the dole.
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman may have observed that there appears to be an increase—I do not want to exaggerate; a modest increase—in the number of jobs available to people of that age.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Secretary of State accept that colleges of further education are facing bankruptcy because of the low take-up of the youth training schemes? Will he introduce legislation to ensure their future?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The position of different colleges of further education in relation to youth training schemes varies very much, but the terms on which they are paid for their provision of youth training will be open to renegotiation in the new year.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the local education authorities when he meets them the problem of recognising a year on YTS as a qualification for going on to further education in colleges of higher education, as this is disturbing many people? Is he aware that it is not clear whether a year on YTS is a qualification to pursue anything afterwards?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not see that the scheme can conceivably provide in itself a qualification for higher education, but there are many courses of further education which are open to those leaving YTS, as for others, with financial conditions which vary according to the circumstances of the individual.

    Students (Unemployment Benefit)
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the findings of the recent report published by Youthaid about students who receive unemployment benefit.
    Sir Keith Joseph: The report gives a useful indication of use of the 21-hour rule in further education colleges and schools and proposes ways of improving access to education for the unemployed. I shall shortly be discussing these recommendations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 21-hour provision will be extremely useful for young

    263
    people coming off the YTS? What is his Department doing to persuade those colleges which do not offer the 21-hour scheme to do so?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be a useful option for those concerned while seeking jobs, particularly as the qualification of three months' unemployment has been removed by the DHSS. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I shall consider what ways are open to us.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Christmas 25 per cent. of teenagers will he on the dole and that many of them would very much like to pursue courses of education rather than merely signing on to the dole queue? Will he admit that the interface between availability of work, eligibility for benefit and the ability to qualify for the youth training scheme is in a complete mess and is understood by neither DHSS managers nor local education authorities? The result is that many young men and women who would like to pursue education while waiting for a job are not able to do so.
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman carefully limited his remarks to teenagers and avoided accepting that, thanks to the work of the MSC and employers, there are very few 16-year-olds, as a proportion of that vintage, on the dole. The 21-hour rule is an extremely useful option for those who wish to undertake some part-time study while awaiting employment.

    Youth and Community Services (Thompson Report)
    Mr. Watsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation on the lines suggested by the Thompson report on youth and community services.
    Mr. Brooke: This recommendation is under consideration and the Government's decision will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Watson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he be slightly more specific about the date of the announcement? It is over 20 years since people first started talking about a statutory basis for the youth service and there has been no progress since then.
    Mr. Brooke: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a written answer on 1 November, we are currently examining relevant material in the recently completed report on the National Youth Bureau, which has a bearing on, for example, the recommendation in the review group's report on the youth service for a national advisory council. My hope and expectation is that our response to the review group's recommendations in total will be announced well before Easter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that youth clubs throughout the United Kingdom operate in difficult financial circumstances, suffer great hardship and have to survive from week to week? Does he accept that he has a duty to the country and to young people nationally to ensure that enough moneys are made available to secure the future of the clubs, especially as they ensure that many young people are taken off the streets, where they could engage in anti-social activities?
    Mr. Brooke: I am happy to pay tribute to the youth service throughout the country. Total expenditure on the
    264
    youth service amounted to about £93 million in 1981–82. The Government's plans for local authority expenditure in 1984–85 should enable the great majority of local education authorities in aggregate to maintain the 1981–82 level of provision provided that costs, especially pay, are contained and resources are managed effectively.

    Adult and Continuing Education.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on future Government policy for adult and continuing education.
    Mr. Brooke: In consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend has carefully considered how future developments in this important field should be promoted. He has decided not to set up a national development council. Discussions are taking place with the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and the local authority associations about the role that the institute might play in these circumstances.
    Mr. Dormand: In view of the Government's pathetic record on adult and continuing education, is not the Minister's decision not to set up a development council for continuing education a clear sign that the Government have no interest in his important area? Does he agree that without such a council adult and continuing education will become virtually meaningless in the future?
    Mr. Brooke: We see no prospect of funds being available to support a national development council on the scale envisaged by ACACE in the foreseeable future. We would not have been convinced of the case for channelling all central development funds into a single body even in a more favourable financial climate, bearing in mind the existence of other bodies which have a valuable contribution to make in this area and the proven success of single-purpose initiatives using existing or specially created agencies such as PICKUP and ALBSU.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm the great value of adult education in furthering people's careers by giving them retraining? Is he aware that special courses give self-dignity to the unemployed while other courses give meaning to life for the elderly and others in the community? Will he do all that he can to restore adult education to the forefront of our education system?
    Mr. Brooke: Historians of the adult education movement paid tribute to the role of Baliol college, Oxford, at the turn of the century, in setting adult education on its way. As a loyal son of that house, I am delighted to be as supportive 80 years later.
    Mr. Pavitt: In order to help a small and specialised area of adult education, could the Secretary of State set up a working party with the Department of Health and Social Security to consider the question of lip-reading classes for the deaf? Because of the demographic situation there is an increasing demand for that service, but because of the public expenditure cuts it is difficult to meet it.
    Mr. Brooke: I will, of course, bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind and consult my colleagues in the other Department.
    Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that the tremendous amount of unemployment means that the Minister's

    265
    Department has a duty to make a response, particularly since many hon. Members feel that the Department opted out of the youth training scheme? Adult unemployment gives us an opportunity to give special weight to the adult education movement, but the Department is failing completely.
    Mr. Brooke: We are actively considering possible ways and means of encouraging the development of suitable provision to meet the education needs of unemployed adults. I cannot say more at present. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of a statement on adult training issued by the Manpower Services Commission last month, which fully acknowledged the need for constructive partnership and co-operation between the MSC and the education service. Useful discussions have taken place between officials of the Department and of the MSC on issues of common concern.

    School Places (Reductions)
    Mr. Traceyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many proposals under section 15 of the Education Act 1980 he has received; how many he has approved; and how many he has rejected.
    Mr. Dunn: Since the 1980 Act came into effect, 103 section 15 proposals have been published but five were subsequently withdrawn by the proposers. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have approved 33 and rejected four such proposals, and approved part and rejected part of one further proposal. In the absence of any statutory objections, local education authorities have determined to implement a further 33 such proposals. Twenty-seven section 15 proposals are still current.
    Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that some education authorities are artificially reducing the intake of some popular schools, thus acting against parental preference? Will he take steps to prevent such artificial reductions, as it is contrary to the spirit of the 1980 Act to limit the intake of popular schools below their physical capacity?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is quite right. Some local education authorities are abusing the spirit of section 15 of the Act. I am concerned about that abuse, and I can assure the House that the matter is under review.
    Mr. Radice: The record of the Tory Government since 1979 in closing down a quarter of the grammar schools is now nearly as good as the record of the Prime Minister, when the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State. She closed down a third of all the grammar schools. Why cannot the Government admit that most parents — including Conservative parents in Richmond and Solihull — reject the 11-plus, reject selection, and reject grammar schools and secondary moderns?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is making a bogus point and attempting to cover up the difference between the Government and the Opposition, which is that we would allow local education authorities the right to decide the nature and variety of secondary education organisation in their communities. In 1976 the Labour Government took away that right, with the support of the Liberal party.

    Students (Travel Costs)
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is yet in a position to make an announcement about his proposals regarding the future of the system of reimbursing students' travel costs.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.
    Mr. Eastham: If, at some future date, the Minister makes a proposal to the House about changing the scheme will he ensure that there is no oversimplification for administrative purposes which may be expensive for the student? Usually, whenever a change is made to any scheme, it is the recipients who suffer.
    Mr. Brooke: Details of new travel arrangements will be announced as soon as they have been settled after consultation with the National Union of Students. Any change that achieves a worthwhile simplification of the present arrangements will inevitably involve an element of rough justice.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will not many students be alarmed by those proposals? Does the Minister agree that that "rough justice" could well penalise those students who live at home and travel considerable distances to colleges and universities?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's point will be taken into account by the Government in formulating their arrangements.

    Further Education (Allowances)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much it would cost to provide an allowance for every person in post compulsory non-advanced education in schools and colleges at the rate of £30 per term-time week.
    Sir Keith Joseph: About £700 million for England and Wales, assuming that the allowance was restricted to 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education and there were savings on child benefit.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that income support for teenagers is completely chaotic and that there should be some rationalisation so that people can remain at school and colleges to benefit from education rather than be forced to go through devices such as the 21-hour rule, which often gives income support but not the best education benefits?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that there could be some tidying up. but it would involve a great deal of extra money. There is no evidence that young people are leaving school to join the YTS solely because there is no allowance for staying on at school.
    Mr. Madel: Would it not help if there could be considerable flexibility on the 21-hour rule in relation to certain technical and accredited courses?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The 21-hour rule is largely the province of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government are anxious that the 21-hour rule should not become a substitute for a student support service. I shall discuss my hon. Friend's point with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Flannery: Does not the system compel young people who want to stay at school—many of whom show their sincerity by staying, in face of other

    267
    inducements — to leave school? Was not the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) an attempt to obtain enough money to allow our young people to continue at school as long as they wish and educate them to our greater benefit?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I repeat that there is no evidence that the youth training allowance, as opposed to the youth training scheme, has been a factor in moving young people from school to the youth training scheme.

    Degree Course Places
    Mr. Bowen Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many degree course places at universities and polytechnics were available in 1982–83; what this represents as a percentage of the relevant age group of young people; how this compares with previous years; and what is the expected figure for 1989–90.
    Mr. Brooke: It is 137,000 or about 11·3 per cent. of the age group. About 13·4 per cent. of the age group were involved in higher education of all kinds in 1982–83, the highest level since 1975. Demand for higher education is projected to come from 13·8 to 14·8 per cent. of the age group by 1989–90.
    Mr. Wells: Does that not mean that the Government have provided more places at degree level in polytechnics and universities, and that those polytechnics and universities have a responsibility to provide relevant courses with a vocational element for those students?
    Mr. Brooke: Last year there were 51,000 more full-time home students in higher education than in 1979. I dare say that the figure will have risen further when we have this year's intake figures. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is a shift towards vocational subjects in universities and polytechnics in the way that he mentioned.

    Pupil Numbers
    Mr. Powleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils there were in maintained secondary schools in 1982–83; what was the figure for 1979–80; and what is the expected figure for 1986–87.
    Mr. Dunn: There were 3·74 million pupils in maintained secondary schools in England in January 1983, and 3·87 million pupils in January 1980. The projected number of pupils in maintained secondary schools in England is 3·3 million in 1986–87.
    Mr. Powley: I thank my hon. Friend for that informative answer. Does he agree that, while it is regrettable that any secondary school has to close, there comes a point when the numbers in a secondary school fall below a certain level when it is not viable to provide a broad curriculum? Does he further agree that it is to the benefit of future pupils to be educated in a school large enough to provide the wide range of facilities that our children's education needs?
    Mr. Dunn: That point is continuously before us when we decide a section 12 proposal. The House must accept that there are limits to what the country can afford to spend on education. What we spend must be spent constructively and not wasted on keeping open empty classrooms and buildings.

    Teachers (Dismissal)
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the procedure for dismissing teachers.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Procedures for the dismissal of teachers are a matter for local education authorities and other employers. They should be used whenever it is necessary in the best interests of pupils.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall improve the standards of education in schools only if it is easier for authorities to dismiss that minority of teachers who are inefficient and incompetent?
    Sir Keith Joseph: It is possible, even though laborious, for that to be done now. I must simultaneously pay tribute to the majority of teachers who do a good job.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Colvinasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to endorse the line taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regarding Americans' attitudes to the activities of Noraid, the fund-raising organisation in the United States, for the IRA? Does she agree that the tragic death on Saturday at the hands of the IRA terrorists of a United States citizen and the injuring of two others might bring home to the American people the fact that money given to Noraid does not go to help widows and orphans, but goes to create them?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and agree with what he says. We condemn very strongly as, indeed, does the President, money given to Noraid. It is given to those who reject democracy and pursue their ends by violence and the death and destruction of innocent people. It has also, possibly on this occasion, resulted in the death of one American citizen and the injury of others as well as those of other nationalities.
    Mr. Kinnock: As well as endorsing the views expressed on American television yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I am sure that the whole House will want to commend the helpful and forthright response of Dr. Garrett FitzGerald and, indeed, the positive statements of the American ambassador on Saturday's atrocity. Could the Prime Minister tell us what consideration has been given to increasing formal joint efforts between Governments to block off the flow of munitions and money to terrorists, wherever such resources come from?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Dr. Garrett FitzGerald was very sympathetic and sent a sympathetic message. Likewise, we were able to congratulate him on the tremendous efforts that were made in the Republic to secure the release of Mr. Tidey.

    269
    I know that that resulted in the death of two of their security guards. Co-operation is very close between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in trying to block off munitions or, if they get over, in trying to find them. Indeed, the destruction caused in the Republic of Ireland by the activities of the IRA is very damaging indeed to the Republic and we therefore cooperate on these matters to the maximum extent. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in being very grateful for what the American ambassador said when he came to see me last evening.
    Mrs. Currie: May I turn my right hon. Friend's attention to another important question and ask if she will find time today to study the remarks of Judge Gibbens in the High Court on Friday and yesterday in which he expressed sympathy for a man who had unlawful intercourse with a 7-year-old girl and described it as an accident. Does she agree with me, as the mother of a 7-year-old girl, that the judge's remarks were disgraceful?
    The Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. The Government regard with very great seriousness all sexual offences against children, and I cannot emphasise that too strongly. As my hon. Friend will know, the Lord Chancellor has called for a transcript of the proceedings so that he may first find the facts, which I believe is the proper course to take.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of her fellow citizens will, this Christmas, be contemplating the new year with some dread in view of her overruling of the Secretary of State for Energy on electricity prices. coupled with the Government's cuts in housing benefit? Does she begin to understand their anxieties?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend answered questions very forcefully yesterday and pointed out that, as electricity prices had been frozen for two years, the possibility being considered might mean an increase of 2 per cent. over what would turn out to be the course of two years, whereas the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported, and whose life that support extended, had an increase in electricity prices of 2 per cent. every six weeks.
    Mr. Conway: Bearing in mind that 490 people were convicted last year of sexual assaults on children, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing public concern at the leniency of sentences passed on such attackers, such as the one passed yesterday on the attacker of a 7-year-old child?
    The Prime Minister: Within the statutory limits for sentencing that are laid down—and the statutory limits usually allow for very severe sentences — the precise sentence that is given is a matter for the judge. However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government intend to introduce legislation that would subject a sentence alleged to have been too lenient to the scrutiny of the Court of Appeal. While that court could not then overrule that particular sentence, what it said might be a guide for future sentences.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Prime Minister dampen down the hysteria in this country about Irish-American support for violence in Northern Ireland by recognising that the vast majority of Irish-Americans, of whom there are 44 million, do not support violence in Northern Ireland and that opposition to it is forcefully, strongly and
    270
    constructively expressed by their political leaders, such as Speaker O'Neill, Senator Kennedy and Senator Moynihan?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including those in the Government and in prominent positions—indeed, I think all in the Government and in prominent positions—and the Irish, condemn violence as a means of pursuing political ends. Violence is the negation of democracy and we pursue democracy. They have the chance of pursuing these things through the ballot box. We hope that one day they will take that course and reject the path of violence.
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlile: In the light of the recent crash of the first ground-based cruise missile to be tested operationally. what new steps do the Government propose to take to secure at least equal control of these very unreliable weapons?
    The Prime Minister: The cruise missiles are not yet fully operational and will not be fully operational until the end of December, because that is the time appointed by the agreement with NATO. With regard to the control of these missiles, that is governed by agreements that have been satisfactory to all previous Prime Ministers, including the one whom the hon. Gentleman's party supported when it was able to do so.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the liaison between the Law Officers and the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection on the House Buyers Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that I am well served by the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection and by the Law Officers. I had hoped to be asked about that matter last Thursday, but unfortunately the questions that one expects and hopes for do not always come. Perhaps I might make it perfectly clear by saying now what I would have said then—it might have been better had I been asked the question then. but that is how it goes—that the Government have decided to introduce a Bill to enable solicitors employed by institutions such as building societies and banks also to convey houses. That goes for all kinds of conveyancing, not just properties that are on registered land.
    With regard to registered land. the Government are consulting to extend the rights of conveyancing to others, if that can be done safely. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of referring to these matters.
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forsyth: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government's rate-capping policies have proved an enormous success in Scotland in practice? Does she agree that they have brought widespread relief to people, such as my constituents, who are living under the

    271
    yoke of Marxist councils? Does she further agree that it is high time that these benefits were brought to ratepayers in England and Wales as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Many ratepayers have been grateful for the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, which he can take under Scottish law, especially the many businesses for whom rates are the largest tax. We shall be pleased, and many industries and most ratepayers will be delighted, when the rate-capping legislation is passed for England and Wales.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware of the impending industrial catastrophe and human tragedy in the west of Scotland with the possible closure of the Scott Lithgow yard? Will she hold negotiations to establish whether the contract can be renegotiated, otherwise the west of Scotland will suffer a tremendous disaster? Bearing in mind the money spent on nuclear weapons, it would be only a drop in the ocean to save those jobs.
    The Prime Minister: There will be a statement about the contract at Scott Lithgow after Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that competition for both ships and oil rigs is very great indeed. Employment can be provided only by keeping customers, which means building ships or oil rigs to budget and on time. I very much regret to say that the record of that yard is abysmal. The yard has two other orders—a ship for the Ministry of Defence and another oil rig. British Shipbuilders will be considering how best to complete those orders in the light of the difficulties that it may face in any negotiations about the original rig.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Prime Minister not listen to the eccentric and unrepresentative views of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on the Government's Scottish legislation on rates? Does she recognise that, whatever criticisms there may be of spendthrift Labour authorities, there is no support whatever for the Government's interference with local democracy and the removal of all decision-making from local government?
    The Prime Minister: Local democracy has those powers that are conferred upon it by Parliament. Bearing in mind that the Government have the final responsibility for the level of public expenditure, for many years there was a convention that local authorities in general followed the wishes of Government about the total level of
    272
    expenditure locally. That convention has broken down and differences have to be introduced. Many ratepayers, indeed I believe the overwhelming majority, will be very pleased with the rate-capping legislation because they believe that rates are far too high. There would have been no increase in rates this year if the 18 Labour over-spenders had spent to target instead of above it.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for 20 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has not Britain kept to the NATO agreement to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. a year in real terms? Does that not mean that we are spending more than any other NATO country, except the United States? As no other European ally has stuck to the NATO targets, does my right hon. Friend think that we are now bearing too heavy a share of the burden, especially as the defence of the Falklands is not included in the defence budget for that purpose?
    The Prime Minister: We are committed to increasing NATO expenditure by 3 per cent. per annum to the year 1985–86. We are not committed beyond that, and we are considering what level of expenditure we shall have beyond that date. I agree that we are spending a higher percentage of GDP than our allies in NATO, but the distribution of expenditure over the years has been different. Some of those who are not reaching the 3 per cent. increase in expenditure spent a great deal more during the years before that commitment was made, and I refer especially to the Federal Republic of Germany.
    Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I did not attempt to catch your eye during Prime Minister's Question Time, and while I accept that you have a reaponsibility to defend and look after the interests of minority parties, may I ask you to consider whether you were right, when calling six Members from the Opposition Benches, to call five from minority parties and only one from the Labour party?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated that it is my duty and responsibility to protect the rights of minorities, and to do so over the general pattern of Question Time throughout the month—
    Mr. Nellist: What about us?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been called three times. I bear my duties very much in mind.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1984–85.
I have today announced to the Welsh consultative council on local government finance the details of the 1984–85 rate support grant settlement. Copies of the text of my statement to the consultative council have been placed in the Library of the House. The rate support grant report will be laid before the House after the recess and will be debated in the usual way.
The main features of the 1984–85 settlement confirm the intentions I announced in November. They must be seen in the context of the Government's continuing commitment to secure reductions in public expenditure. The total of relevant expenditure provision accepted for grants is £1,440 million. That comprises £1,253 million for current expenditure and £187 million for non-current items. Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £996 million, consisting of £138·8 million for specific grants, £31 million for transport supplementary grant, £1·9 million for national parks supplementary grant and £824·3 million for the rate support grants. Domestic rate relief is unchanged at 18·5p in the pound, which costs £25·3 million, leaving £799 million for distribution as block grant.
The settlement is a fair one. Current expenditure provision, after allowing for the 1·5 per cent. reduction in authorities' national insurance surcharge from next April and the way in which housing benefit administration costs are now counted for rate support grant purposes, is £57 million or 4·8 per cent. more than the provision underlying the 1983–84 settlement.
Aggregate Exchequer grant at £996 million is £21 million or 2–2 per cent. more than the aggregate Exchequer grant provision in the main rate support grant settlement for the current year. Even more important for rating purposes, it is £36 million or 3·8 per cent. higher than the amount authorities have included in their budgets for the present year.
As in the present year and the preceding one I have set individual authority expenditure targets. Experience has shown that these are helpful to authorities in providing a degree of certainty of grant entitlement for spending at target and clearly exert a significant influence on expenditure decisions. In the light of the views expressed by the two Welsh local authority associations I have retained the same method for determining next year's expenditure targets as that used in the current year. This enables me to withhold grant in an equitable way by ensuring that the amount of grant withheld from an authority is directly related to its own overspending and not to the expenditure decisions of other authorities.
The targets I have set are very tough for some authorities—but are reasonable for all. Every authority's target gives a cash increase in its current expenditure: the minimum increase is 1·5 per cent. and the maximum 6 per cent., after making allowance for the reduction in the national insurance surcharge next year and a modest amount of budget drift.
The grant withholding penalty for spending in excess of targets has been strengthened. As in the present year, the amount of grant withheld for excess expenditure up to
274
1 per cent. above target is 40 per cent. of that excess, but above that level the rate of holdback increases progressively with a maximum rate of 90 per cent. for authorities spending 5 per cent. or more above target: this compares with a maximum rate of grant withholding in the current year of 75 per cent. at 6 per cent. spending above target. I am retaining the grant protection arrangements already adopted whereby any authority spending at or below target will be exempted from both grant holdback and close-ending. Similarly, the limitation of grant holdback for low rateable resource authorities set in the present year will be retained for 1984–85.
Block grant will be distributed in accordance with the grant-related expenditure formulae agreed by the Welsh local authority associations. I have decided to retain the existing block grant mechanisms which determine the distribution of block grant before holdback and the same safety net for limiting grant losses associated with changes in GRE—a maximum 4p loss at the county level and 1p loss at the district level.
There is a continuing need for restraint in local government expenditure. Some progress has been made on this front, but there is still some way to go. Since 1978–79 local government current expenditure in Wales has risen by about 2 per cent. more than the increase in costs for the economy as a whole. We must reverse this trend. The realistic increases in expenditure provision and aggregate Exchequer grant for 1984–85 should enable authorities to maintain reasonable service standards provided pay settlements are kept down and authorities continue and reinforce their efforts to secure greater efficiency and economy and better value for money. In this respect I note that the latest joint manpower watch figures, which are being released today, confirm that staff numbers in Wales have risen by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September. This alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year, after making allowance for the effect of grant holdback. Clearly, if authorities are to meet their targets for next year, this growth of manpower must be reversed. I appreciate, of course, that authorities have difficult choices of priority to make but that applies in all areas of public expenditure, including my own programmes.
What happens to rates next year will, of course, depend on the decisions of authorities themselves. Here I will simply make two points. Authorities can on average increase their net revenue expenditure next year by nearly 4 per cent. and still spend in line with targets. If authorities spend at this level and apply only half of the balances they have applied in the present year, rate increases will average only 1 per cent. Indeed, rates could fall if authorities applied balances to the same extent as in the current year.
These figures are a very far cry from some of those which have been bandied about — for example, the average rate increase of 17 per cent. reported in the press. I regard that figure as wildly exaggerated and simply do not believe it. It would imply about a 7 per cent. increase in net revenue expenditure, which I am sure authorities in general will not seek to impose on their ratepayers. Furthermore, rates this year on average rose by less than 1 per cent. despite earlier local authority forecasts—and forecasts by Opposition Members — that average rate levels in Wales would be into double figures.
I conclude by repeating that the settlement is fair and reasonable. I am confident that local authorities, like the

275
Government, want to keep rate increases down to the absolute minimum. Low rate increases benefit all sectors of the community: industry, commerce and domestic ratepayers alike. It is now for each local authority to take its own spending decisions in the light of the settlement provision and of the effect of its decisions on ratepayers as a whole.
Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many leading local authority members question the value of the Consultative Council when, as in this authoritarian statement, he seems to take little account of any of its recommendations, which have been brushed aside in haughty ministerial style? Does he agree that the level of relevant expenditure contains a miserably inadequate allowance for both inflation and the ever-increasing demand for services as it is only 4 per cent. higher than the figure for the current year and a paltry 2–75 per cent. higher than the authorities' budgets for the current year? Having set a grimly unrealistic expenditure level, has he not also increased the problems of local authorities and their ratepayers by reducing the rate of grant, thus in a single act pushing rate bills 4 per cent. higher than they would otherwise be?
On penalties and targets, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a flagrant injustice to impose even more impossible targets and even tougher penalties on authorities which cannot cut priority services and which have genuinely tried to restrain expenditure? How can local elections ever again have real meaning? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the cumulative effects of the settlement will guarantee substantial average rate increases and that unless authorities cut their services significantly and/or take large sums from working balances, average increases may rise well into double figures?
This is a black day for local government in Wales. The settlement and the new Bill show that the freedoms of local government are at risk and that the Government are advancing towards bureaucratic dictatorship, forcing dedicated councillors to be the executioners of their own services. Increasingly there is a flavour of the colonial governor about the Secretary of State. That style is not appreciated in Wales.
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, speaking from the Dispatch Box on the same occasion last year, made exactly the same forecast of double figure rate increases. In fact, rate increases in Wales have averaged less than 1 per cent. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's exaggerated claims this year will prove equally unfounded. Increases of 17 per cent. would mean that local authorities were increasing spending by about 7 per cent. —well above any likely rate of inflation—and making no use of balances. Balances are currently about £100 million. It is therefore absurd to suggest that local authorities will do any such thing.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the value of the consultative council. I realise that local authorities would like a larger share of resources provided by the taxpayer, but the Government and the House are responsible for the totality of public spending, for the very large sums of general tax revenue given to the local authorities and for the interests of ratepayers, many of whom cannot effectively protect themselves at local level from the rate increases imposed on them.
276
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the adequacy of the relevant expenditure provision. As I said in my statement, the amount counting for rate support grant purposes is 4·8 per cent. more than the provision underlying the 1983–84 settlement and is nearly 4 per cent. more than the estimated outturn. It is absurd to pretend that that imposes impossible targets.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned penalties and said that they were impossible. That is exactly what was said last year, yet 32 out of the 45 authorities achieved. without penalty, the targets which I set. It is in the interests of industry, ratepayers and the economy in general that local authority expenditure is kept within reasonable limits. I am confident that Welsh local authorities will be able to provide a high level of services within the expenditure figures that I have announced.
Mr. Tom Hooson: My right hon. Friend's announcement of cash increases for every Welsh local authority will be most welcome. However. among rural authorities there will be some disappointment that we shall have a third year with the same GRE basis for the allocation of grant. Is it not time, as we approach the fourth year, that there was consultation between the Welsh Office and Welsh local authorities on a review of that grant as there are factors such as sparsity which are inadequately reflected in the present formula?
Mr. Edwards: I suspect that it will be suggested later that the interests of areas of heavy population are inadequately represented. I was specifically asked to maintain the same system this year but I have already agreed with local authorities to enter discussions about the formula that we shall use next year. We continue to keep in close touch with local authorities and to discuss these matters and will do so in the coming year.
Mr. Donald Coleman: The right lion. Gentleman said that rates in Wales increased by only 1 per cent. last year. What, therefore, is the reason for the draconian measures that he has announced today? Why do we have this announcement year after year, and why is he continuing to try to continue to destroy local democracy?
Mr. Edwards: Welsh local authorities spent £27 million above the provision which was made last year. We have made it absolutely clear that the Government must set the total level of expenditure by local authorities in the national interest and in consideration of our economic objectives. In setting the targets, we are trying to constrain the totality of local government spending.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable scope for overspending authorities to make the necessary economies without cutting services? Will he continue to highlight authorities that have excessive manning levels so that authorities such as Clywd do not get away with cosmetic reductions in manpower such as those of the past five years during which time it has reduced full-time staff by 235 while increasing part-time staff by 461, twice as many?
Mr. Edwards: I am as worried as my hon. Friend about the increase in local authority manpower in the past 12 months. It is nonsense to suggest that it is impossible to maintain all services if, at the same time, local authorities — especially the Welsh counties — increase manpower as they have done. The Audit Commission recently made some interesting comments about the scope

277
for saving and improving efficiency in local government. I do not believe that anyone who knows local government, which is a substantial employer, believes that it is not possible to achieve more improvements in efficiency.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State admit that beneath the myriad of figures that he has just announced he is really shifting the buck again from the central Exchequer to the local exchequer? Does he agree that rate-borne expenditure will increase from 29·6 per cent. to 31 per cent. of total expenditure, whereas centrally borne expenditure will decrease from 70·4 per cent. to 69 per cent.? Does he agree that that will inevitably entail at least a 5 per cent. increase in rates before anything else starts?
Will he confirm that the GRE for Wales is close to the target for Wales but that there are many authorities for which the target is substantially lower than the GRE? For those areas, will he consider ensuring that clawback is not used unless those authorities overspend their GREs and not simply their targets?
Mr. Edwards: The suggestion is always made that, if we reduce the level of central Government contribution, rates will go up substantially—the hon. Gentleman used the figure of 4 or 5 per cent. The same thing was said last year when we cut the grant level by 2 per cent., but rates went up by under 1 per cent. It does not follow that a reduction of RSG such as we have made will produce the rate increases that he and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) suggested. There is still room for other switches and improvements in efficiency. As I said in my statement, those authorities which do not exceed their targets will not be liable to clawback and penalty.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who presumably had some advance notice of this statement, was unable to do anything but flounder feebly, and for the rest of us, wishing to comment intelligently on something of great importance to Wales, it is extremely difficult to react successfully to a complex statement? None the less, will my right hon. Friend persist in his firm line in obliging local authorities to cut their expenditure to the bone? They will scream, but in the end they will comply, to the benefit of ratepayers.
Mr. Edwards: On the complexity of the RSG system and the announcement, I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but there will be a full opportunity to debate the settlement when we return in the new year. It is right that the Government should set out central economic objectives clearly and should look to local government to carry out those requirements. It is for local government to choose its own priorities and make its own decisions about what is necessary at local level within the totality of what we allow, and taking full account of the rate burdens imposed on local ratepayers.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Secretary of State do the House a service by clarifying the position so that the House is not misled? Will he accept that rates will have to go up, and if they only go up to the extent that he estimates, the result will be a cut in the services provided for the people in Wales? Will he also accept that the statement will be viewed with despair and dismay by the
278
people of Wales, who overwhelmingly did not vote for his party in the last general election? Is there not a logical conclusion to his centralist and Stalinist policies for local government, which is—he may well ponder on this—that he could achieve greater saving by dispensing with elected councillors altogether? Will he announce plans to do this?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman talks about rate forecasts again, but local authorities could maintain services, and, if they use their resources efficiently and their balances on a modest scale, there should be very small rate increases. That was the forecast that I made last year and it is reasonable to make it again this year. The suggestions that have been made about large rate increases are alarmist and unfounded.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his announcement, and I listened carefully to its details. I find it ludicrous that there has been an increase in staff of 1,000 in the past few years, at a cost of £15 million for local authorities. Surely to God, that money could be used for much better purposes—for example for old age pensioners, schools, roads and many other facilities that need that money. What is more, it is tragic to think that out of the 45 local authorities, 32 are on target but 13 are not. Why are they not? Simply because they are bad housekeepers.
Mr. Edwards: In fairness to local authorities, some of them have tough targets, and I do not underestimate the difficult choices that have to be made. However, at a time when they are having to make difficult choices and seek improvements in efficiency, they have increased manpower over the past 12 months. There has been an increase in local government current expenditure since 1978–79 of 2 per cent. above the increase in cost for the economy as a whole. Against that background, no one can suggest that local government is being cut to the bone and that what we are asking is impossible.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State realise that the statement will be perceived and understood in Wales in this way: first, that all authorities will face cuts in real terms; second, that poorer areas will be driven to greater and real poverty; third, that in rural areas the sparsity factor, which the Secretary of State cannot dismiss with a sneer, is being totally ignored; and fourth, that the effect of his statement will be the reduction of already declining standards in Wales to standards that will be unacceptable to many local authorities, let alone their electors?
Mr. Edwards: I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's statements, and I certainly did not dismiss the sparsity factor with a sneer. It is the outcome of detailed discussions with the local authority associations, which agreed through the consultative process on the factors to be taken into account and the weight to be given to them. As I said, I agreed with the local authority associations that we can look at these and other factors again. I note that during the period of this Government, a time when expenditure by local authorities has risen faster than the general increase in costs in the country as a whole, the rate increases have been vastly lower than during the period of the Labour Government, who were supported by the hon. Gentleman's party.
Mr. Brynmor John: Will the Secretary of State list the authorities that are being set the toughest targets under his rate support grant settlement? Secondly, as he thinks that the increase in local authority staffing should be reversed—he said so specifically—is he not thereby taking the initiative out of the hands of local authorities, and by how much should the staff be cut overall in Wales next year, to meet his targets?
Mr. Edwards: I have not set a specific target of manpower reductions for local authorities. I pointed out that the increase that took place during the past year probably meant an addition of £10 million or £15 million in ratepayers' costs. If local authorities say that they face difficult choices about priorities, I hope that they will try to get the manpower savings that I think are possible. The health authorities in Wales are getting an additional £2·75 million in priority services by achieving manpower reductions. If it is possible to achieve manpower reductions in the health service, it should be possible to achieve manpower reductions in local government as well.
Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a serious flaw in his statement and in the answers that he has given this afternoon? He said several times that one could use the balances. Surely, once the balances have been used, or they reach certain levels, one cannot keep using them year after year? So local government in Wales would be faced with only one alternative — either to cut services, or to have major increases in rates. They cannot keep using balances year after year.
Mr. Edwards: As I said, at present the balances in Wales total about £100 million, and there is probably room for some use of balances. In giving the figures, I suggested that local government might consider using balances for about half the rates that they thought appropriate in the current year. I also said that, even if they did not use
280
balances, the rate increases, in our view, could be comparitively low. There is a great deal of scope for local authorities to take their own decisions on these matters, and I hope that in doing so, they will consider the interests of their ratepayers, particularly their industrial ratepayers, on whom future employment prospects so much depend.
Mr. loan Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement is a further attack upon people, their services, Welsh communities and the democratic control of expenditure at local level? That is particularly so when the statement is made on the very day that the Rates Bill is published. That Bill covers Wales as well as England and comes on top of the restrictions already imposed in Wales on local authority capital spending. Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts will hit hardest the sections of the community least able to protect themselves — the elderly, children, young people, the disabled, the unemployed and those waiting for a council house? Is he aware that local authorities have increased their manpower recently to meet the increased need?
Does the Secretary of State realise that his policy will place a greater burden on ratepayers if authorities are to maintain existing services? Does he realise that the demands on local authorities made by high unemployment, increasing poverty and deprivation caused in recent years by this Government are not met by his statement?
Mr. Edwards: I note that the hon. Gentleman has made many vague and wild generalisations. He listed some of the priorities with which local government must contend. I cannot believe shat local government will choose to make its savings on priority services. I presume that it will seek to make a judgment about which services are most important. As the Audit Commission report clearly reveals, there is plenty of scope for substantial improvements in local government efficiency.

British Shipbuilders (Britoil Contract)
Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Norman Lamont.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an insult to the House and a bigger insult to the workers of Scotland that the important statement that we are about to hear should be made by someone of less than Cabinet rank, especially since the closure could have repercussions throughout Scotland where already over 300,000 people are out of work and another 8,000 jobs are at risk?
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order? The question of who speaks from the Front Bench is not a matter for me.
Mr. Canavan: I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to get someone of Cabinet rank to make the statement.
Mr. Speaker: That sounds like a good Christmas demo.
4.12 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, I shall make a statement about the contract between Britoil and British Shipbuilders.
In December 1981 Scott Lithgow contracted with Britoil to produce a semi-submersible drilling rig. The contract value was £88·6 million, and the contractual delivery date was April 1984. Construction began in February 1982. By March 1983, British Shipbuilders had provided for losses of £43·8 million on the rig. The then chairman, Sir Robert Atkinson, warned that performance and losses at Scott Lithgow were unacceptable.
On 31 October 1983, Britoil was sufficiently concerned about progress on the contract to issue through its agents a notice requiring Scott Lithgow to demonstrate within 30 days that the rig could be completed by February 1985. Scott Lithgow responded to Britoil by arguing that despite the undoubted delays on the contract hitherto, completion would be possible within the terms of the contract. However, on 19 December a notice of cancellation was served on behalf of Britoil on the basis that Scott Lithgow had not demonstrated that the rig could be delivered by February 1985. British Shipbuilders has responded to the cancellation notice by disputing its validity and I understand that it has now instituted legal proceedings.
While British Shipbuilders and Britoil are considering the next step in this negotiation, all work on the rig will be stopped. British Shipbuilders is instructing suppliers to suspend work on contracts relating to the rig. Up to 2,000 of the work force are involved in construction of the rig. The remainder of the work force—about 2,250 men—are employed on two other contracts: one for BP and one for the Ministry of Defence. It is British Shipbuilders' intention that these contracts will continue.
Unemployment in this area is already high and a further increase of the scale implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning met the Scottish TUC and told it that he would, of course, seek to do all that he can to alleviate the very real distress that would be caused in the local community. However, the offshore industry is highly competitive and customers insist upon contractors—including management and work force—delivering on
282
quality, price and time. Regrettably, Scott Lithgow so far appears to have been unable to satisfy Britoil that it can fulfil its obligations on this contract.
Mr. Peter Shore: That is a totally unsatisfactory statement. Surely the Minister understands that this is not the time for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be telling the Scottish TUC that he will seek to alleviate the distress caused by closure, but that it is the time for the Minister of State and the Government to call in the parties and insist upon a solution. Why has he not done that already? Surely he has known for months that the losses have been building up. Does the Minister understand that not just 2,000 jobs, but 4,250, are at risk directly if the shipyard closes, and that another 4,000 workers are directly engaged in ancillary work and contracting? We are talking about over 8,000 jobs.
Is the Minister aware that Scott Lithgow is the lead yard designated by British Shipbuilders for offshore construction and that it is building probably the most advanced semi-submersible rig that we have yet embarked upon? It is designed to operate in the deep waters of the Atlantic and is a far more sophisticated rig than has so far been operated even in the deep waters of the North sea.
Is it not absurd that the future of this yard and of this industry should be left to litigation started by one wholly-owned public corporation against another 48 per cent.-owned public corporation, while the chairman of British Shipbuilders has just departed for a three-week holiday in Canada? Will the Minister now recognise and accept his own responsibilities? Will he understand that he cannot—we will not let him— simply sit on his hands while a major new high technology industry in Scotland is allowed to collapse?
Mr. Lamont: The Government have, of course, kept in close contact with what is happening in relation to the contract. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is right to say that we are discussing a very serious matter. We are talking about a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and Britoil. Both sides have taken decisions that they judge to be in their best commercial interests. If the Government were to intervene, either to urge Britoil and its agents to withdraw its notice or to urge British Shipbuilders to renegotiate the contract—which it does not wish to do—the commercial and financial position of one party or the other would be severely prejudiced. The ground would be cut from under both managements' feet. In such a situation Government intervention could only be counter-productive —[Interruption.] The Government must have regard, not just to the yard but to the wider interests of the taxpayer.
The taxpayer has funded huge losses at Scott Lithgow. [Interruption.] If the House will let me finish. On this contract the taxpayer has funded losses of nearly £44 million. A total of £66 million of the losses of £117 million that British Shipbuilders announced last year came from Scott Lithgow.
Since 1977, 8 per cent. of employment in British Shipbuilders has been accounted for by Scott Lithgow and no less than 38 per cent. of the accumulated losses of British Shipbuilders. We must have regard to the taxpayers' interests. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should put more money into Scott Lithgow. We have already put large sums into

283
that yard. It must be right for British Shipbuilders to do what it thinks is in its commercial interests. It thinks that it is right not to renegotiate. It thinks that it could complete the contract. That is British Shipbuilders' position.
Mr. Shore: Is the Minister saying that in his judgment it is entirely a matter for the two parties concerned and that the contract is entirely commercial? Is he saying that now, or even at the end of the present legal procedure, he does not accept that he has a separate role to look after the national interest in so far as it is involved in the future of the industry? Is he saying that he will take no action at all, now or later?
Mr. Lamont: Of course there is a national interest. The national interest is not to pour good money after bad. We must have regard for the taxpayer. British Shipbuilders has stated its position, which is that it would prefer to complete this contract. It does not wish to be forced to renegotiate the contract. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, he is suggesting that we should encourage the company to take risks and to incur costs that it does not want to undertake. That could have a damaging effect, not only on the finances of British Shipbuilders but on other contracts on which it is at present working.
Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does the Minister appreciate the dreadful damage that will be inflicted on Inverclyde by the closure of Scott Lithgow, with the direct loss of 4,200 jobs, the loss of a possible 4,000 other jobs related to the industry, and the jobs that will go through the loss of business within the community? Will he carry out an urgent review of the procedures adopted at Scott Lithgow with a view to salvaging some of the undoubted expertise that exists at the yard? Surely the Government cannot pull the plug on an industry that has served the west of Scotland well for more than 300 years without the most thorough examination of the position. Surely the Government will not walk away from this problem.
Mr. Lamont: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. She came to see me about this matter the other day.
This matter concerns notice about the cancellation of a contract. It is not about the closure of a yard. British Shipbuilders has stated that it intends to continue the work both on the Ministry of Defence contract and on the BP contract. It is not the Government who have pulled out the plug on Scott Lithgow—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] It has been, I regret to say, the inefficiency, the poor performance, the late deliveries and the massive losses that have not just arisen this year but have gone on and on for many years. The men at Scott Lithgow have been warned about that over and over again, not least by the previous chairman of British Shipbuilders.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that he is pushing the laissez-faire philosophy of the Government to preposterous lengths in his statement? The people of the west of Scotland are entitled to look to him for a greater sense of concern about a potential unemployment rate of 40 per cent. in the Inverclyde area and about the damage that this will do to Britain's prospects in offshore technology. Is he aware that when I visited the yard a few months ago, without making excuses for the faults in the past. I was impressed by the way in which management and shop stewards were adapting to the needs of this sophisticated and complicated
284
new technology and the change in working practices that that involves? There seemed to me to be a new determination in the yard to try to work towards a renegotiated contract. Will the Minister try to assist in that process?
Mr. Lamont: I do not see how it could be remotely described as "laissez-faire" to have funded losses by the yard of £140 million in addition to giving production subsidies of 17 million to Scott Lithgow through the intervention fund. This position has been growing for years and it can be no surprise—indeed, Opposition right hon. and hon. Members are not surprised, as they have been expecting this for some time. One would listen more to Opposition Members if they made some acknowledgement of the failures and faults of the yard in the past or even made mention of the intention to have industrial action on 6 January at British Shipbuilclers. What possible good can that do the yard?
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does the Minister appreciate that it is absolutely vital for the United Kingdom to maintain a capacity in rig making and that if Scott Lithgow cannot do it perhaps a consortium of other companies could do the job for it?
Mr. Lamont: If the contract is cancelled, the rig is the property of British Shipbuilders and it would then be for British Shipbuilders to decide what would happen and whether the rig could be completed in any other way.
With regard to the general offshore capability, there are, as my hon. Friend knows, other yards in the United Kingdom, including Cammell Laird and UIE in Scotland. Other yards can construct jack-up rigs and mobile rigs.
Mr. Bruce Milan: Is it not outrageous that with a shipbuilding strike looming and now the threatened closure of Scott Lithgow, the highly paid chairman of British Shipbuilders should have gone off to Canada on an extended Christmas holiday? Should we not conclude from that that he has a mandate from the Government to close the yard? If that is not so, and if the Government deny that — they are expressing their concern—why do they not intervene now? This contract can be saved and the jobs can be saved. Indeed, it will be cheaper for the public purse at the end of the day if the contract is renegotiated. I warn the Minister that if the Government do not intervene, they will not be forgiver, in Scotland.
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman says that it would be cheaper if the contract were renegotiated. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can be so certain and can know what further losses will be incurred with this contract if it is proceeded with. Who is the right hon. Gentleman, even with his distinguished record, to say that his judgment is right and that of British Shipbuilders is wrong?
Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend the skill and ability of the many other platform, ship and boat building yards throughout Scotland which are in the habit of delivering on time, to specification, and which are in danger of being guilty by association in this circumstance? Will he condemn the SNP and the Opposition who voted for the creation of this nationalised industry, British Shipbuilders, which took responsibility for Scotland away from Scotland? Does he agree that British Shipbuilders

285
cannot be right in trying to shrug off responsibility for Scott Lithgow's affairs, in that it failed to provide the skill and management necessary to ensure the success of the contract? Does he not feel that, even now, it should be working hard in the negotiations to ensure that something can be salvaged of the taxpayers' money and its own credibility?
Mr. Lamont: On the last point, one acknowledges that management has an important role to play. I am not placing all the blame in one quarter but it is extremely difficult to get good management to go and work in Scott Lithgow because of the yard's reputation. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the reputation of other companies involved in the offshore industry. They manage to have a much better record and they deliver to price and to time.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is not the Minister aware that, however much he may talk about commercial considerations and competitiveness, this stand-off attitude which he has taken today to the death of an industry and of two towns is something which would not be allowed to happen in any competitive industrialised country in the world? While no doubt there are grave faults on the part of Scott Lithgow, unless he makes an effort to bring together the two parties, he will be contributing to a large further step down the road of Britain ceasing to be an industrialised country. It would be both ironic and dangerous for Britoil, perhaps temporary in its operations, to contribute to this permanent process.
Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. First, it will not be the death of an industry. Other yards are involved in the industry and the right hon. Gentleman should not assume the closure of the yard. We are talking about the cancellation of a contract.
The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "death of an industry". Who has killed this industry? I cannot believe that in many other countries a Government could have gone on funding losses year after year as the present Government have done with Scott Lithgow.
Mr. Michael Hirst: How much of Scott Lithgow's present difficulties arise from design problems and inexperience in the specialised work involved in the Britoil contract? How much is due to the weak management and the crazy restrictive trade practices of the yard and past madness such as the Financial Times crossword strike? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to end restrictive trade practices in all yards of British Shipbuilders and that, in the present context, a strike next month is nothing more than suicidal madness?
Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that the bad publicity for the Clyde is terribly unfortunate at a time when other efficient and productive yards such as UIE on the upper Clyde are in the market trying to get orders?
Mr. Lamont: There have been design problems with the rig, but I cannot comment on that very much, because it is one of the factors that lies behind British Shipbuilders issuing a writ and taking action. There have been many contributory factors, including management and poor industrial relations. The position was summed up by Sir Robert Atkinson when he left BS in August. When talking about Scott Lithgow, he said:
286
"It has a long history of losses, late deliveries, high absenteeism and a very bad industrial record."
As my hon. Friend has said, it would be utter madness to have a strike on 6 January.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister accept that his statement will arouse only distress and anger among my constituents, some of whom, although a declining number, are taxpayers? Will he acknowledge that it is manifest to all concerned that it is in the public interest that the rig be completed at Scott Lithgow and not in a yard in south-east Asia? Will the Government enter into an involvement with both Britoil and British Shipbuilders to intervene directly in the near future with the humane objective of ensuring that the rig is built at Scott Lithgow?
Mr. Lamont: What happens to the rig will be a matter for British Shipbuilders if there is a cancellation. If the rig is its property, it will have to decide where completion takes place. I accept that great problems and great distress will be caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Many of them are workers at the yard and are among those who turned down the productivity deal that was offered by BS. They turned it down and there was no criticism of them from the Opposition, who just wanted to slip in a few more million pounds as a reward.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Cheap.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I was born in Greenock and I spent most of my life there. That being so, I know the yard inside out. It is a tragedy that we have to listen to such comments from my hon. Friend but, unfortunately, I must agree with him that the workers' lack of flexibility and the lack of proper management control and management agreements between the work force and the management has led to the disaster that could face the yard. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give an assurance that the rig will be completed at Scott Lithgow. Unless there is an agreement of that nature, the west of Scotland will be decimated. My hon. Friend must accept, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has said, that if the rig is built outside the United Kingdom, or the west of Scotland, it will be a major tragedy. I hope that he will give an undertaking that he will try to achieve an agreement that the rig will not leave Scott Lithgow's.
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot give the assurance that he seeks for the reasons I have already given. I am, however, grateful to him for the first part of his supplementary question.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister realise that the history of Scott Lithgow was such that it was regarded by many in the 1960s and up to the 1970s as the jewel in the crown of Scottish shipbuilding? By and large, the yard has the same work force. The yard accepted the order but does he recognise that the yard has found it difficult to cope with the building of this advanced rig with inadequate training arrangements, with design problems and with long-distance interference from New Orleans and Newcastle? Rather than passing by on the other side and leaving the yard to die because, if one believes the remarks of the chairman of BS, it has no future, will he urge the Government to take steps to fulfil his social and economic responsibilities for the west of

287
Scotland by ensuring that work continues in the yard and that something is done instead of leaving the yard to rot away?
Mr. Lamont: This is not a case of passing by on the other side of the road. We have all the time been kept fully informed. We have discussed the matter with the chairman of BS and I think that he has taken the right course of action by — [HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone to Canada."]
The hon. Gentleman referred to Scott Lithgow as the jewel in the crown of British Shipbuilders. It may have been a very successful yard in the past but one cannot continue to rely on the reputation of the past. The yard's performance recently has been a bad one. Other rigs have been delivered late and have been over-priced. The BP rig is already 11 months late and a £30 million provision has had to be made for that rig as well.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition, who are castigating the new chairman of British Shipbuilders, that the newly appointed chairman, Mr. Day, is the same man whom the Labour Government appointed when they nationalised the industry? Does the unhappy history of the firm bring home the reality that a firm can destroy itself even under nationalisation? It must not be allowed to bring down with it the viable members of British Shipbuilders, which is what will happen if the Government take the Opposition's advice.
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend has made two extremely good points. Mr. Day was appointed by the previous Labour Government but now that they are in opposition they are extremely critical of him. They took a different view of Mr. Day when they were in government. As my hon. Friend has said, a nationalised industry can destroy itself. Nationalisation does not insulate an industry from the disciplines of the market. It should not be a reason for pouring more and more money into a company in a vain attempt to save jobs, which will then lead to subsidised inefficiency.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister throw away his political spectacles and take a realistic view of the impending crisis? Will he stop apportioning blame between employers and employees and take note of the letter of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, which stated clearly the social consequences in Glasgow and Scotland generally if the yard were to close? If he does not do so, the people of Scotland will never forgive him.
Mr. Lamont: I am well aware of the social consequences that may stem from the cancellation of the contract. I have noted what church leaders, including those of the Roman Catholic church, have said. However, I disagree with them. I am not sure what special qualifications the leaders of the Roman Catholic church have for making such a judgment.
Mr. Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend agree that nothing but damage would be caused if the Government were to intervene in the attempt of management to regain control and financial discipline at the yard? Is he aware that the example of the motor industry shows that if the yard and the industry are to be brought back from the brink of self-destruction, those in the industry must learn to make use of their facilities to
288
deliver products that are competitive in price, quality and delivery dates, and learn also that the way to higher earnings and secure employment, which everybody seeks, is through the productivity deal that is already on offer?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is quite right. By agreeing to the productivity deal, the workers in British Shipbuilders, and Scott Lithgow particularly, will have the opportunity to earn more money. My hon. Friend is right also to say that if the Government intervened in the way that Opposition Members have suggested, we would do nothing except undermine the management of BS. I agree with my hon. Friend when he compares shipbuilding with the motor industry. When one compares the progress that the motor industry has made in recent years with the lack of progress that has been made by the shipbuilding industry, there seems to be no awareness of the changes that are taking place in Britain and those that are necessary if the industry is to survive.
Mr. Hugh Brown: Does the Minister accept that the whole of Scotland will be shocked by the content and tone of his performance? Does he realise that it is appalling to have a public display of disagreement leading to legal proceedings between two bodies which are virtually publicly owned? Will he accept that the suspicion in my mind is that we are seeing another example of ideological bigotry and that the Government are getting some satisfaction from destroying the little reputation that shipbuilding on the Clyde has left?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman calls it a public display of disagreement. The two companies involved had separate commercial interests, and there is a conflict between them.
Mr. Milian: What about the public interest?
Mr. Gerald Malone: Is it not significant that when Scott Lithgow was a jewel in the crown of British Shipbuilding, it was under private management? The Labour party nationalised Scott Lithgow, and the Scottish National party connived at the nationalisation. That was the first step in bringing the yard to its present predicament.
Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend's observation, and not only in relation to Scott Lithgow. I can think of no part of British Shipbuilders that is better off today as a result of nationalisation.
Mr. George Robertson: The Minister should look back to the early 1970s and to the last occasion on which a Conservative Government conspired to butcher shipyards — the yards on the upper Clyde. If that disastrous decision had been implemented, there would be no shipbuilding in Govan and no yard in Clydebank for the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) to prattle on about today.
Mr. Hirst: It would be under private management.
Mr. Robertson: Closing a shipyard is not just closing a business—it is butchering a whole community.
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman talks about butchering a business—
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
Mr. Lamont: Can we be said to be butchering a business into which we have put £140 million by

289
subsidising losses and £17 million as production subsidies to help the business to obtain orders? The hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic outburst might have been unpersuasive if he had made even a passing reference to the responsibility of those who work in the yard for what has happened.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister has asserted that no other country has put so much money into shipyards. Has he no idea what the city of Hamburg and the federal Government have put into Blohm and Voss in terms of deutschmarks? Are we to believe that the shipyards at Bremerhaven, which looked after the boilers of the QE2 most recently, are so wonderfully efficient? Above all, can the hon. Gentleman imagine what would happen to a junior Minister in the Bundestag who talked down his own industry in such an insulting way?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of talking down the industry.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: That is right.
Mr. Lamont: When the Opposition adopt an attitude that is wholly unrealistic and has no reference whatsoever to the shortcomings of that industry, and when in consequence I have to explain why the management of British Shipbuilders has taken a certain view, I am forced publicly to single out some of the unpleasant things that have happened in the industry.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had said that no other country puts so much money into shipyards. What I said was that no other Government would put money into shipyards making losses on such a scale. The Government cannot be accused of having failed to put money into Scott Lithgow.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister reconsider and withdraw his slur on Scottish church leaders and on the Catholic hierarchy in particular? Does not the Minister recognise that they have an interest in the future of thousands of families in west central Scotland? Is it not a scandal that the Government appear to be abdicating responsibility for those families to the outcome of a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and Britoil?
Mr. James Hamilton: Apologise.
Mr. Lamont: I cast no slur whatsoever on the churchmen. I recognise their concern. I merely questioned their competence to give a judgment on a difficult commercial issue.
Mr. Dick Douglas: The Minister asserts that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) had not weighed up the cost benefits of going on rather than stopping or frustrating the contract. Has his Department undertaken a detailed cost benefit analysis of frustrating the contract within weeks, or of going on? If the Minister has the figures, he has a public responsibility to give them to the House, because of the cost to the community on the lower Clyde. There is an order in a yard. The Government have a responsibility, in the public interest, to save that order. It is vital that they should do so. I do not dismiss the difficulties and frustrations suffered by management in the past. I am well
290
acquainted with those problems, both directly and indirectly. However, in the nation's interest, it is better to complete the contract. If the Minister has seen a detailed economic and financial analysis which contradicts that conclusion, he has a responsibility to put it to the House. If he has not, he must lend his weight and his assistance to the completion of the contract.
Mr. Lamont: British Shipbuilders would prefer to complete the contract. The hon. Gentleman has asked me about the alternative costs of cancellation or of the third option, renegotiation. It is difficult to quantify the costs of renegotiation, because so many uncertainties are involved. If the order was cancelled, Scott Lithgow would have to repay all the money that it has so far received—£40 million plus interest. The contract also provides for damages of up to £7 million, but the extent of those damages might be subject to litigation. That is the commercial position of British Shipbuilders.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: The entire Scottish community is demanding Government intervention. The demand is coming from trade union leaders, from politicians of various parties and from church leaders such as Cardinal Gray who — despite what this incompetent Minister has said—seems to have a better sense of priorities in public expenditure than the Government. The cardinal has pointed out, in a message to the Prime Minister today, that the cost of renegotiating the contract would be a mere drop in the ocean compared with the Government's expenditure on nuclear armaments.
Mr. Lamont: How can the hon. Gentleman know that the cost of renegotiating the contract would be so small?
Mr. Canavan: Cancel Trident.
Mr. Lamont: It is not the view of British Shipbuilders that, within its budget, that would be the right course of action.
The hon. Gentleman says that the entire Scottish community was demanding that the contract should be saved. We have heard some different voices from this side of the House from those who have recognised—
Mr. Canavan: What about the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley)?
Mr. Lamont: —who have recognised that the poor record at Scott Lithgow has caused this situation.
Mr. Dewar: The Minister's statement was disgraceful. It lacked humility and humanity, and offered thousands of workers no hope and no future beyond the dole queue. Am I right in assuming that the Minister intends to do nothing but see the jobs lost in a welter of litigation, and that the only action that has been promised is that the Secretary of State for Scotland will continue to stand on the sidelines, threaping ineffectively about his concern?
The Minister has given the impression that he positively supports the cancellation of the order. It is most distressing to hear any Minister address the House in such a fashion. Is it not ironic that the Minister should talk about UIE possibly helping to pick up the pieces, when UIE was saved by the kind of state intervention that the Minister refuses to countenance? It is only in existence today, to be praised by Government Back Benchers, because of a Government initiative in the past.
Given the social consequences and the cost to Scotland, will the Minister realise that the public interest is involved

291
and that he should get the parties together and try to save the jobs by saving the contract? Anything less will be seen by Scotland as a betrayal by the Government and by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Lamont: I have certainly not said that I support the cancellation. I said that this is a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and Britoil, and that both companies should exercise their commercial judgment. Of course the public interest is involved, but so is the interest of the taxpayer. Massive sums of money have been poured into British Shipbuilders and Scott Lithgow.
The hon. Gentleman referred to UIE and the money put into it in the past. The money poured into that was on nothing like the scale of the £140 million that is being poured into Scott Lithgow. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to tell us when they will urge Scott Lithgow's work force to accept the productivity deal on offer to them.
Mr. Canavan: Resign.

Tour Operators (Advertising of Foreign Holidays)
4.40 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the regulation of advertising foreign holidays by tour operators with regard to safety standards of hotels and accommodation in use by families with children.
This week, which leads up to Christmas, is perhaps more important than any other in the year in its dedication to the family. Immediately after the festival, we are usually inundated from every quarter in the press and on television with invitations to think about booking a holiday to look forward to the following summer.
We are shown, or have described, the merits of far-away places with exotic names and a great deal of sunshine, to dispel thoughts of the cold, wet winter clays at home. Many of those holidays are described as being ideal for families, to encourage the patronage of those with children.
Part of the excitement of visiting the places offered is to experience the differences in language, customs and culture, to see how other countries behave, and the advantages and disadvantages of their way of life. All those comparisons add to the excitement and pleasure of visiting foreign lands. However, when a hotel is described as a family hotel, surely it should not just mean that the proprietors are prepared to accept children, but that it is, in general terms, safe for them. That in no way suggests that parents should not take all reasonable steps to care for and protect their children, but, at the same time, they are likely to encounter unexpected hazards that can be lethal and should be drawn to people's attention before they book their holiday.
I should like to give two examples. In June this year, a constituent and his wife took their two young children to Minorca on the first holiday abroad that the family had had for five years. They have a daughter aged four and a son aged two. Their room was on the sixth floor of a family hotel that they had booked from a Cosmos package holiday brochure. On going to their rooms to collect their swimming clothes after breakfast on the third day. their small son was standing in the lift holding his father's hand. As the lift lurched as it started its journey upwards from the ground floor the boy lost his balance on the lift's wet floor and put out his hand to save himself. Unfortunately, the lift had only three sides. Being so small, in an instant the boy's arm was dragged down between the lift's floor and the wall.
Despite the fact that his mother pressed the stop and then all of the buttons, the lift continued to the sixth floor where the father managed to release the child's limb and rush him to hospital. A major operation and 45 stitches sewed back the boy's arm. The holiday was ruined and the family returned home for further specialist advice as soon as it was medically possible. After the operation, the Spanish surgeon told the parents that their child was lucky; two other children had been taken to the hospital earlier in the year but had lost limbs in each case.
The other example that I wish to mention is the report in the Liverpool Daily Post on 26 November about a 20-month old baby. In that case, the baby plunged 80 ft. to his death after crawling through the horizontal balcony

293
bars of a Spanish hotel which was recommended by the tour operators as ideal for family holidays. The rails were 8½ inches apart.
Those are not the only types of hazard, nor is Spain the only country where they can be found. There are other dangers in electric power points without safety shutters, windows without safety catches, poorly protected stairwells and swimming pools with inadequate fencing or supervision. All such matters are, of course, covered by building or other regulations in this country. Should either of the two hotels that I have mentioned, or for that matter many others, be described as family hotels without any warning to parents of the hazards that are likely to be encountered?
I have tried to encourage the trade, through its powerful organisation the Association of British Travel Agents, to take up the issue, because I believe that self-regulation is the best method of control in the majority of businesses and professions. It is sadly reluctant to take on that responsibility, or to insist that hotels take out third party insurance.
Over a period, it would of course be necessary for additional inquiries to be made when the hotels are inspected. It would also place a specific duty upon the tour operators to take special care in that respect. Those involved might also worry about the possibility of changes in the hotels after their inspection. However, none of those arguments in my opinion imposes insuperable difficulties. I believe that tour operators have a duty to warn their clients of dangers that they might encounter in any country in which they offer holidays. I should have thought that those hotels that can provide better service and higher standards of safety would be pleased to advertise the advantages and benefit from the additional trade. Where a trade is unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to protect the public, it is open to Parliament to make good that shortcoming. Therefore, I ask the House for leave to bring in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Thorne, Sir Walter Clegg, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Jeremy Hanley and Dr. Michael Clark.
TOUR OPERATORS (ADVERTISING OF FOREIGN HOLIDAYS)
Mr. Neil Thorne accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of advertising foreign holidays by tour operators with regard to safety standards of hotels and accommodation in use by families with children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Orders of the Day

  Health and Social Security Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has three themes. First, it is about improving the rights of the public. Clause 1 deals with the important area of optical services and opens up the market for the sale of glasses; while a further example of the same theme occurs in clause 13 where the Bill tackles the wholly indefensible position of what is called "franking" which results in manifest loss for the members of some private occupational pension schemes. The second theme deals with the improvement of health provision and in particular the change in the status and construction of family practitioner committees. While the third theme contained in the second part of the Bill concerns changes in the social security law — of which probably the most important change is the new severe disablement allowance, which will replace the non-contributory invalidity pension and in particular the much criticised housewives' duties test. I would like to deal with these three parts in turn.
  On optical services, the Bill follows a report by the Director General of Fair Trading on opticians and competition, which was published at the beginning of this year. The report took 12 months to complete by the Office of Fair Trading and in that time evidence was taken from a wide range of interests, including the opticians themselves. It should be emphasised that the report itself followed earlier studies such as the 1976 report of the Prices Commission.
  The Office of Fair Trading report recalls that the opticians' monopoly is relatively new. It was introduced by the 1958 Opticians Act which in itself was a private Member's Bill for the registration of opticians, introduced by the late Sir Ronald Russell. As first presented the Bill sought to protect the title of optician and did not seek to prevent unregistered opticians from practising. But two new clauses were added during the Committee stage of the Bill which prevented the testing of sight and the sale of optical appliances by unregistered people. That monopoly position has continued to this day. In its report the OFT distinguished between the professional functions carried out by opticians, such as sight testing, and the much more commercial undertaking of selling glasses. On the sale of glasses, the Office of Fair Trading was under no doubt that the present position operates against the interests of the consumer in this country and in particular it criticised the restrictions that there were on advertising.
  Basically the present position is that virtually the only advertising that is allowed is on spectacle frames displayed in the windows of the optician's own premises. The optician cannot advertise in the press; he cannot advertise on television or radio; he cannot advertise on prices or on the speed of service; and he cannot even advertise when he is open. The best information that we have is that the restrictions on advertising in the United Kingdom are greater than any other west European country, with the possible exception of Ireland.

  295
  Not surprisingly, the Office of Fair Trading came to the conclusion that from the point of view of the consumer —and that, after all, is the acid test—these restrictions on advertising were totally unsatisfactory. In a powerful passage on page 141 of its report it says that the rules of publicity effectively deny consumers information on available opticians in their locality; the range and prices of available products; the services that are offered by opticians in terms of opening hours and the speed of dispensing. Consumers, it says, are therefore denied the knowledge on which to make an informed choice of an optician. This lack of knowledge on the part of the consumers has the effect of increasing the ability of opticians to
  "fix prices without regard to the prices of other opticians and thereby to recover their overheads while operating below capacity".
  In other words the OFT found that restrictions on advertising led to a lack of information for the consumer and wide variations in prices for similar glasses. That was shown graphically in one survey that was carried out in London where the same prescription was taken to 58 opticians. The prices offered by those opticians ranged between £44 and £103. It seems to me that that kind of example presents an unanswerable case for more information being made available to the public. It may be justifiable for one optician to charge more for the same work than another, but where that acts against the public interest is when the public are denied most reasonable means of finding out what the relative prices are and choosing for themselves. It was, therefore, not surprising that the principal conclusion of the Office of Fair Trading was
  "that the advertising restrictions result in prices being significantly higher and efficiency significantly lower than they otherwise would be".
  It was this position that the Government were required to face. I know that there are those opticians who believe that it would have been more sensible for the profession itself to make proposals to lift the restrictions on advertising. I must say, however, that it had every chance and every opportunity to do just that. Earlier this year the General Optical Council made proposals on advertising which scarcely took the position forward at all. At a meeting that I and the Minister for Health had with the professions six weeks ago, again it was quite clear that there was no support for change. The choice for the Government then was whether simply to leave the position as it was, with all the drawbacks that that position had for the consumer, or to make proposals for change. As the Bill shows, we have decided to make changes which we believe will serve the consumer best.
  The Government seek in this Bill to distinguish between the important professional role that opticians clearly have and the essentially commercial role of selling glasses. As far as the professional role is concerned, only registered opticians and doctors will be able to test eyes, to dispense to children or to dispense and sell contact lenses. We believe that those restrictions are reasonable, and we also believe that the access to a free sight test is important in detecting serious eye disease.
  However, as for selling spectacles, we believe that many of the restrictions that at present apply to opticians can be lifted. At present, the rules governing advertising are proposed by the General Optical Council, which is composed of members of various optical bodies, who are in the majority, as well as medical and lay members. These
  296
  rules are subject to the approval of the Privy Council. But the only power that the Privy Council has is either to accept or to reject the proposals. It does not have the power to amend and, in effect, make new rules. We therefore intend to take power whereby the Privy Council car. amend the rules on advertising, while at the same time recognising that a distinction should be made between the professional function of sight testing and the commercial function of selling glasses.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: I should like clarification Government thinking on this matter. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about eye testing by practitioners, but am I to take it that spectacles sold over the counter as easily as sunglasses?
  Mr. Fowler: No. That could not happen under the proposals that I shall come to later. The glasses will have to be sold against a recent prescription whereas if the hon. Gentleman goes to buy a pair of sunglasses that is not the situation.
  We then come to the essentially more controversial question whether non-opticians should be allowed to compete subject to certain conditions. This again was considered by the Office of Fair Trading. It found that there were likely to be unregistered sellers who would be prepared to come into the market, and it recognised that there was a case for having no restrictions at all on the dispensing of spectacles to adults. However, it reported that, if Ministers felt that the potential health risks outweighed the competition benefits, they could consider the alternative of derestricting dispensing but providing by legislation that spectacles may only be sold against a prescription issued in, say, the previous two or three years—the point that the hon. Gentleman was raising. Such a system, it said, would be likely to reduce the competition benefits, but would eliminate the health risks. It is basically that middle way that the Government have chosen.
  Under the Bill, non-opticians will be prevented from supplying children or fitting contact lenses. It is also our intention to make regulations under which non-opticians will be able to sell only against a recent prescription that we would define as a prescription issued in the previous two years. In addition, we intend to consult on other conditions that a non-optician seller might be required to meet. I should be entirely clear about this: I do not want to reinstate a new and cumbersome licensing system which simply replicates what we have at the moment. It should be remembered that the vast majority of prescriptions in this country — this is unlike the position in many other countries — are made up not on the optician's own premises, but by special prescription houses where the staff involved do not have to be, and mostly are not, registered opticians.
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Would not the Secretary of State accept that even in that case it is a registered optician who is taking responsibility for the delivery of those lenses, however they are made up?
  Mr. Fowler: Yes, he is certainly taking responsibility for that and, as I have made clear also, we shall want to consider what conditions a non-optician seller may be required to meet so that he will be able to take a similar responsibility.
  Necessarily, those changes take us on to the next stage of considering the the general ophthalmic service. At

  297
  present, the service provides free sight tests and free glasses for exempt groups, such as children and low-income families, and that provision will continue. I should point out that when, as we expect, prices in the new deregulated market come down sufficiently, the Government would see great advantage in also allowing the exempt groups the right to choose more widely and either reimburse them or provide them with some kind of money voucher. This would have advantages both for the customer and the Department of Health. It is not at once obvious that a Government Department is best equipped to carry out the cosmetic role of designing spectacle frames, and perhaps that is one reason why there has been only one updating of NHS glasses since the early 1950s.
  The change will also mean that NHS glasses will not in future be provided for the non-exempt groups. At present, we spend as taxpayers almost £20 million a year in supporting all those who choose to buy NHS glasses, including those who choose to put NHS lenses into private frames. In effect, this means that anyone who chooses NHS spectacles or NHS lenses in private frames gets an average subsidy of £5 from the taxpayer. In the vast majority of cases I cannot believe that that subsidy is justified. On the other hand, it has been argued that those with the very poorest sight need complicated and more expensive lenses, and I am certainly prepared to consider the evidence on that to see whether they can have continued access to NHS glasses.
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: Is not the exemption of children under the Bill an evidence of the serious results that can arise if eyesight is not treated correctly, and is that not just as important for old people as for children?
  Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the Office of Fair Trading and takes account of professional opinion, he will find that he is certainly right in what he says about children. That is why we have made these provisions, not only in terms of dispensing for children but in terms of stating to whom and where children should go. As for adults, the report makes it clear that even when the average person is prescribed and dispensed a wrong pair of glasses, that will not cause damage to the adult's eyesight. and that is an important point to remember.
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: We are now discussing a crucial point. The Minister will be aware that opticians, although perhaps with a vested interest, fundamentally disagree with paragraph 14.13 of the OFT report, which says, in effect, that inaccurate spectacles —not cause permanent damage to the eyes, but only a minor discomforture. Is my hon. Friend relying just on that paragraph in the report or has the Department gone into the matter in greater detail? Is he aware that health care is the crucial matter in this context? Is he further aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House would feel happier if they knew that the Government had made further investigations into the matter?
  Mr. Fowler: We have gone into that. My hon. Friend will have seen from the paragraph in the report to which he referred that in evidence to the OFT only one person from the professional bodies sought to challenge the
  298
  conclusion of the OFT in the matter. However, it is also the view of the medical advice that is available to my Department.
  Let us be clear that the only revolutionary principle involved in these proposals is that basically we are saying that the service generally should be organised with the interests of the consumer first. Certainly there is nothing new in the principle of paying for spectacles, and it would be ironic if the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) were to argue that this marks the end of the NHS as we know it.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is this not saving money?
  Mr. Fowler: I shall come to precisely that point.
  As Opposition Members know full well, the principle of charging for optical services was introduced by a Labour Government in 1951, when the then Minister for Health, Mr. Hilary Marquand, said that the Bill—the one that he was then introducing—had been described in some quarters as an attack on the NHS or as the first step in dismantling the service. We have heard that phrase before.
  Mr. Marquand went on to say that he was tempted to voice the indignation that he felt about that, and pointed out that the then Government were putting forward plans to expand the hospital and general practitioner services. Mr. Marquand hoped that those who were critical would realise that their criticism was ill-founded.
  I do not think that I could improve on that defence, for that is exactly the position today. [Interruption.] The House should be in no doubt about our objectives. Obviously we shall listen to the arguments that are adduced, but our objectives are to give better value for money, to promote competition and to remove from the state a function that it cannot do well and has not done well in the past and, above all, to promote a better service for the consumer.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: How will the changes affect families on supplementary benefit?
  Mr. Fowler: Those on supplementary benefit will be part of the exempt group who will continue to have NHS glasses supplied to them.
  Consumer protection is also the aim of clause 13 of the Bill, which is taken together with schedule 5. That abolishes the practice known as franking in contracted-out occupational pension schemes. Although the working of schedule 5 may appear formidably complicated, it is important and is accurately summed up by its title, "Protection of pensions".
  At present, one of the terms on which an occupational pension scheme can be contracted out from the state arrangements is that it should provide a guaranteed minimum pension at the end of the day. If an employee leaves a scheme that guaranteed minimum pension must be increased by the scheme each year until state pension age. But injustice can arise—this was pointed out by the Occupational Pensions Board — where the individual leaves his scheme when he has an entitlement that is well above the guaranteed minimum pension.
  He may, for example, have been a member of the scheme for several years prior to 1978, when the new system came into operation. Extraordinarily, under the

  299
  law as it stands—under the 1975 legislation—there is nothing to prevent a scheme revaluing the guaranteed minimum pension by using the extra pension rights which the individual had already accrued. In other words, the guaranteed minimum pension is certainly revalued, but only at the cost of reducing the remainder, leaving the same amount of total pension payable to the individual.
  No one knows how widespread that practice is, although some believe that it is very widespread inside the pension industry. Equally, however, virtually no one now seeks to justify the practice, which clearly operates against the interests of the pension scheme member. Accordingly, the Government believe that action must be taken on this, and that is the reason for that clause. It is a further example of our intent to improve the whole area of occupational pensions and in particular the rights of early leavers, which have all too often been ignored in the past.
  The second theme of the Bill is the improvement of health provision and, in particular, better primary care. Clause 2 and schedule 2 will make important changes to the status, accountability and structure of the family practitioner services.
  I do not think there can be any argument about the overall objective. For most people the family practitioner services are the main contact with the Health Service—perhaps the only contact. The vast majority of all health complaints are treated by the family doctor or one of the other health complaints are treated by the family doctor or one of the other members of the primary health care team —for example, the health visitor, the midwife or the district nurse. It is the family doctor who normally refers a patient to specialist hospital treatment and it is the primary health care team which provides the continuing support on returning home.
  Since 1979 it has been one of the Government's priorities to develop and improve primary health care services. Since we came to office the number of general medical practitioners in England and Wales has grown by more than 1.500. The number of community nurses is also up by 4,500. Last year there were over 200 million consultations with family doctors and 7·6 million patients were visited by home nurses and health visitors. We recently underlined that commitment when I announced to the House that we were making available additional funds during the next three years to tackle the problems of providing primary health care in our inner cities.
  But what is equally clear is that we have failed to develop the right machinery to manage, administer and make accountable the family practitioner services. The present structure makes the committees accountable to me for the arrangements they make for the provision of services but dependent on the district health authority for their staff, accommodation and equipment. It was hoped that this shared responsibility would lead to better joint planning.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman aright when he talked about improving primary care in the inner cities? Will he talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has recently announced slashing cuts in the rate support grant to local authorities such as Liverpool? Does that mean that Liverpool will receive some compensation so that its primary health care facilities can come up to the standard in other parts of the country?
  Mr. Fowler: I was reminding the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that in his normal, fair way he will need no reminding—that the Government have made £9 million available during the next three years specifically for the problems of family health care in the inner cities.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Peanuts.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman says "peanuts". We judge the hon. Gentleman on his performance in government, and he has much to be modest about.
  It was hoped that the structure of shared responsibility would lead to better joint planning but it has failed to achieve that in many places and has hindered the strong thrust towards better community health care — the original objective of the whole policy. Very few would argue that nothing should be done. The changes that I now propose are directed towards better management and more positive direction of the family practitioner services, including better planning and better collaboration with other local services.
  At present the system of dual control makes for considerable difficulties. Lines of authority are complicated and this affects the execution of policy. Under the new arrangements we shall have a single line of authority between family practitioner committees and the Secretaries of State. FPCs will become employing authorities in their own right, they will be responsible for all their own services, and they will be answerable for their own management costs. I believe that this will improve not only accountability but administrative efficiency—both by giving FPCs the incentive and challenge of sole responsibility and by enabling Ministers to hold them to account and require them to promote measures to increase cost-effectiveness.
  Because of these changes the new FPCs will be stronger bodies than the old. They will be specialist committees that will be able to concentrate on primary health care. We want them to develop the planning side of their role in a way that a few have pioneered — for example, by producing detailed plans, in consultation with the local medical committee, for the development of family doctor services in their areas.
  Part II of the Bill deals with social security matters—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do I understand that the Government who came to power talking about cleaning out all the quangos will get rid of the representatives on the family practitioner committees and set up quangos throughout the country?
  Mr. Fowler: No. The hon. Gentleman has slightly, but I am sure genuinely, misunderstood the aim of the proposals. It is proposed that the committees should be responsible in their own areas. At the moment they have dual accountability. We have rationalised the position so that we can have—
  Mr. Skinner: Rationalised quangos?
  Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, when arguing about control and accountability, can argue that new quangos have suddenly and mysteriously been created. That betrays a total ignorance about primary health care.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will the new structure have injected into it a greater level of comparability so that general practitioners can assess their own efficiency in treating their own patients?
  Mr. Fowler: That is one matter to be considered. We want the family practitioners to contribute to the planning of local health services, and that can be done in several ways. They can provide information about family practitioner services, which will help them formulate policies, and they can encourage the development of primary health care in ways which will help to secure the creation of properly integrated health care services in the district. I think that the proposal of my hon. Friend is sensible and useful.
  Part II of the Bill deals with social security matters. Clause 4 provides for the introduction of a new cash benefit for disabled people — severe disablement allowance. This benefit will replace the non-contributory invalidity pension, which is currently payable to those who do not have the necessary contribution record to qualify for contributory sickness or invalidity benefits. The present position is that non-contributory invalidity pension, while available to men and single women who have been incapable of work for more than 28 weeks, has been available to married women only if they are also incapable of performing their normal household duties.
  Since it was introduced in 1977, this household duties test has been a source of controversy and discontent both on grounds of discrimination and because of the way in which the test operates. In 1980 the then national insurance advisory committee recommended that the test should be reviewed and that consideration should be given to finding a more acceptable alternative. The results of that review, which were carried out by officials of my Department, was published at the beginning of this month by the Minister who has responsibility for the disabled.
  The review concludes that the household duties test is unsatisfactory both in concept and in operation, and the Government endorse that view. I do not think that there will be any disagreement in the House about that. We have, however, made it clear on a number of occasions that simply abolishing the test and allowing married women to claim NCIP on the same basis as men and single women is not a viable option. It would cost some £275 million a year— [Interruption.] I am not trying to disguise anything. It would cost £275 million a year, and money on that scale is not available. Even if it were, we are not convinced that spending it in that fashion would be the most effective way of improving the lot of the disabled as a whole. We needed to find a solution that was both fair and affordable, and one that would concentrate resources where they were most needed. I believe that the proposals in the Bill achieve that aim.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that 16,000 disabled married women who now receive HNCIP will not qualify for the severe disablement allowance?
  Mr. Fowler: I shall come to those who gain and those who lose in a moment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will concede that we are increasing —[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he actually introduced the household duties system.
  Mr. Morris: I am not shaking my head. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it pikestaff plain to the House and to the country that 16,000 disabled married women who qualify for HNCIP would not qualify for the severe disablement allowance.
  Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman confuses the position. Everyone presently in payment—
  Mr. Morris rose—
  Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to answer his point before he asks another—especially when he was wrong in the first place.
  Those people in receipt of payment will continue to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about future losers under the scheme, and I shall come to that point in a moment.
  Mr. Brynmor John: Did not the thought that they might have to spend £275 million on the allowance for married women cause the Government to break their promise to the House about consultation once the report was published?
  Mr. Fowler: The report was published at the beginning of the month and it is available for the information of the House. It will be used in debates on the Bill.
  Mr. John: On 13 July 1982 the then Minister for Social Security said:
  "We intend to publish the results of the review and then to invite consultation."—[Official Report, 13 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 841.]
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think that introducing the Bill on 1 December, having its First Reading on 2 December and publishing it on 5 December is adequate consultation?
  Mr. FowlerWhen we have the opportunity to introduce such legislation we should take it, and that is precisely what we have done.
  The new severe diasablement allowance will be available equally to men and women regardless of marital status. Poople who become incapable of work on or before their 20th birthday will qualify on that basis. Those who become incapable later in life will qualify if they are also at least 80 per cent. disabled. That will be assessed by the same loss of faculty test that currently applies in the industrial injuries and war pension schemes. That again is a system that is widely accepted as an objective measure of disability.
  We hope to introduce the new SDA in November 1984. We estimate that in the first year of full operation about 20,000 more people will qualify over and above the existing recipients of NCIP and HNCIP who will transfer automatically to SDA. Thus, in the short term the additional costs will be about £20 million a year. It is fair to add that in the longer term, since some people who would have qualified for the present benefits may not qualify for the new one, those figures may be expected to be somewhat lower. I make no secret of that.
  The new benefit represents an important improvement in the level of provision for disabled people on several counts. First, it will result in an increase in the number of people eligible for benefit.
  Mr. Wareing: How many?
  Mr. Fowler: I have just given the figure, which is 20,000. It means that with increased take-up of attendance and mobility allowances, the real value of social security help for the long-term sick and disabled has risen by nearly 30 per cent. since the Government first took office. I am, therfore, disinclined to be lectured by the Opposition on that point.

  303
  Secondly, we are ending the controversial household duties test and introducing a benefit that is sex equal and that will be payable on more objective and well-tested criteria.
  Among the other proposals on social security, there are changes to the dependency provisions of the social security scheme. We have already provided under the EC directive on equal treatment for a woman with invalidity benefit to receive a dependency addition for her husband. The directive does not extend to increases of retirement pension, but we have decided that to withdraw a dependency increase from a woman invalidity pensioner who retires and becomes entitled to retirement pension would cause unacceptable hardship. Clause 5 provides that such a woman would continue to receive a dependency increase. That is a wholly beneficial proposal and will cost an additional £500,000 a year.
  Clause 6, taken with schedule 4, relates to dependency additions in respect of children. The House will know that the lower rate child additions now available with the short-term benefits — notably unemployment and sickness benefit—have been gradually reduced over recent years as child benefit has increased. We have never made any secret of our objective to move child support for those not at work because of a short-term contingency wholly to child benefit. The addition now stands at 15p a week for each child and it is our intention to phase out the additions completely at the next general uprating of benefits.
  Mr. Meacher: If the abolition of the child dependency additions for the unemployed is dependent on improvements in child benefit, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify that when child benefit stands today at only 10p above its real level in 1979, while the child dependency additions have been reduced by £1·70 per child since then?
  Mr. Fowler: We have been seeking to transfer gradually and step by step from child dependency additions to child benefit—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.
  Mr. Fowler: The answer is that child benefit stands at an all-time record real figure.
  We have also been looking at the position of child dependency additions for long-term beneficiaries — notably retirement and invalidity pensioners. We think that it is unreasonable to view the child of a couple, who both normally work, as automatically dependent on whichever of them happens to become a national insurance beneficiary. A person who remains at work and earns a wage becomes the major breadwinner of the family and it seems appropriate that a child dependency increase should not be payable if those earnings are substantial. We propose, therefore, that where the partner's earnings are more than £80 a week, the first child's dependency addition should be withdrawn. Above that level of income, dependency additions for each further child will be withdrawn for each extra £10 of earnings. For example, a family with three children will not lose all of the dependency additions unless the earnings are more than £100 per week. Only the child dependency allowance is affected by this and not the child benefit itself.
  There are several other clauses in the Bill, but I hope that the House feels that I have dealt with the most important provisions. We shall deal with any issues that arise on the outstanding clauses at the end of the debate.
  304
  Perhaps I should add that clause 9 broadens the basis for membership of the new social security appeal tribunals, which were created under the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. That will be familiar territory to hon. Members.
  The Bill encompasses a range of subjects. I make no apology for that, although it clearly makes it difficult to provide a neat summary of all its proposals. Basically, the Bill aims to provide better health care for the public. It improves the position of the disabled. Above all, the Bill is concerned with securing a better deal for the public. Most of the attention will no doubt be focused on the provisions in clause 1 concerning optical services, opticians and the sale of glasses. That reform is important and will be widely welcomed by the public. It epitomises the Government's policy, which is to put the interests of the user of the service first rather than those of the provider. It is on that basis that I ask the House to support the Bill.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: This is a mean, nasty, spiteful and authoritarian Bill from an increasingly mean, nasty, spiteful and authoritarian Government. I shall spell out exactly why I have used those words. It is also a miscellaneous rag-bag of a Bill that artificially combines wholly unconnected issues.
  However, there is one common thread running through all the unrelated elements. It is a theme that the Conservative party has pursued single-mindedly and relentlessly since it came to office. I refer to the piece by piece mutilation of the welfare state. Because of the welfare state's principled protection of the poor and disadvantaged, it has manifestly earned the undying hostility of the Prime Minister and her other Right-wing zealots. In this Bill, they have excelled themselves.
  The Secretary of State may laugh, but he has succeeded in yoking together in one Bill the mangling of the general ophthalmic service, an authoritarian centralisation in the structure of the NHS which is unprecedented, even for this Government, a massive cutback in disability benefits—when what we need is a big expansion—and, perhaps most iniquitous of all, the virtual destruction of the principle of benefit as a right for the sick and unemployed, which has always hitherto been the cornerstone of a society freed from the shackles of a Poor Law mentality. It is that Poor Law ethos and attachment to punitive means testing — to which the Government have already shown themselves so studiously committed—that they are now so nastily reinforcing in this little Bill.
  I shall begin with the Bill's assault on the ophthalmic service.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Government will make savings as a result of the Bill and the miscellaneous measures that have been introduced. Will my hon. Friend tell the House where the money saved is to go and what it will be spent on? Is it not true that the Government can guarantee that in next year· s Budget there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of capital transfer tax paid by the better off in society, because the money being saved today will fund such reductions for a very small percentage of the population?
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is the prime purpose of the Bill. The Bill is not about

  305
  health; it is purportedly about social security. However, it is concerned not with social security but with a redistribution from the poor to the rich. The £275 million that is to be saved by the changes in the introduction of the severe disablement allowance will certainly—and the House can rely on this — find its way into the next Budget and into further tax handouts to the well off. That is the whole purpose of this Government's mangling of social security and the welfare state.
  As the Bill is such a panjandrum of unconnected elements and is four Bills in one, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that they can state the Opposition's case on the disability and social security aspects of this rag-bag compound of measures.
  Clause 1 is a classic example of Right-wing Tory dogma in dismembering part of the NHS into its basic services only, while privatising as much as possible of the profitable elements in order to open up new markets for the Tory party's big business friends. The Secretary of State may laugh. Perhaps he does not mind that 3 million people will be deprived of the opportunity of low-cost spectacles of a quality that is properly controlled to British standards. It is no matter to him, because he only sniggers. However, those on small occupational pensions will be particularly hard hit, as the elderly are most likely to need complicated lenses, the prices of which will almost certainly triple under the new arrangements.
  It is no matter to the Secretary of State, as he sits there smiling, that NHS frames, by being restricted to the poor, will become stigmatising as a badge of poverty for adults. The poor will become easily identifiable as such. That may not affect Ministers, but it will certainly affect millions of people. It is no matter to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposed free market traders in spectacles will be neither qualified nor accountable to the professional bodies, and that the public will therefore have no protection against prescriptions that are not properly made up.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that frames are leaving a factory not many miles from his constituency at £5·75 a time and being sold in opticians' shops at between £50 and £60 each? How can he justify that?
  Mr. Meacher: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make a point against a political interest that I had assumed he would support. There is certainly a huge markup, but the benefit is not going to the consumer.
  The Bill is a classic demonstration of the Tory principle of redistribution from the poor to the rich on both the consumer and retail sides. The Secretary of State did not seem to understand the key point that the better-off will gain from the reduction in the price of private glasses. It is they who will gain as a result of the Bill, while millions of poorer families—and it will be millions of them, as under this Bill the NHS market is being reduced from 50 per cent. to about 10 per cent.—will be forced to pay a very big increase on the present average NHS price of £12.
  Equally, on the retail side, the loss of dispensing work and the introduction of cut-price advertising by large corporations and multiples in main shopping areas will damage the small dispenser. So much for Tory concern
  306
  about the small business man. It will undoubtedly lead to a contraction of the service in rural and semi-rural communities. Again, the poor will be the main sufferers.
  The most serious consequence of the Government's obsessive drive towards increased commercialism is that it will steadily diminish the crucial eye care aspect of the service.
  Mr. Skinner: The blind leading the blind.
  Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State seems to assume that dispensing is not a skill, when it certainly is. Shop assistants not trained as dispensing opticians will have neither the skill nor the facilities to centre spectacles correctly or to check that the lens prescription has been correctly made up. The result for the public will be eye strain and headaches at best. At worst it will be the inability to see clearly so that they are at risk in their work, a hazard on the road or otherwise may injure themselves unnecessarily.
  If the Secretary of State thinks that that does not matter much compared with the benefits of letting American multinationals into the so-called optical market, where will it all end? Will the next step be to allow supermarket assistants to dispense drugs or to fit dentures on the basis of a prescription made up by a dental surgeon? The Government have clearly yet to learn that a high quality primary eye care service is incompatible with market place practices.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman attacks the entire measure as an assault on the poor, ignoring the fact that they will continue to receive free spectacles. Will he explain how a pensioner on a modest income, wishing to discover whether there is a choice of which he or she could take advantage, will be assisted by the Opposition's refusal to contemplate price advertising or any other easing of the present monopoly which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) pointed out, drives prices up excessively for everyone?
  Mr. Meacher: If the Minister is really concerned to ensure that poorer families obtain low cost spectacles, it would be better to extend the exempt groups arrangement than to implement the proposal in the Bill which will certainly double or treble spectacle prices. Millions of families now paying an average of £12 will pay £25 or £30 or more under the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman seems to oppose all our proposals for the optical service. Does that mean that he utterly rejects all the views of the Director General of Fair Trading on opticians and competition? If so, the public should know that.
  Mr. Meacher: The Office of Fair Trading proposals offered alternative arrangements for the provision of spectacles to controlled standards and at modest prices. It certainly did not recommend the abandonment of low cost spectacles. There is an alternative which does not involve forcing millions of poorer families to pay twice or three times as much for their spectacles. The Secretary of State is clearly more interested in privatisation than in providing better spectacles for those millions of families and it is wrong of him to try to imply otherwise.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. He seems not even to have read the OFT report. The fundamental criticism in the report was that

  307
  restrictions on advertising led to unfairness for the consumer. Does the hon. Gentleman, in his defence of the status quo, also defend those restrictions on advertising?
  Mr. Meacher: I am not defending the status quo. I believe that cheaper spectacle frames should be made available to many families who are now forced to pay extremely high prices. In this context, the Secretary of State should remember that it was the Government's failure to pay back the £90 million owed to the opticians which forced them to increase prices in the first three yearsof the Tory Administration to higher levels than would otherwise have been necessary. In the past year, prices fell from about £54 to about £51, although I agree that that is still too high. Nevertheless, prices are coming down.
  There was an alternative to the Government's proposal for complete privatisation of the service. Under the Government's proposal, millions of elderly people who need expensive spectacles will have to pay £35 to £40 or more. Indeed, the Sunday Telegraph suggested that elderly people now paying £35 for complicated lenses will have to pay £81 in future as a result of the Government's proposal. Is that what the Secretary of State recommends and desires?
  Mr. Fowler: The principal conclusion of the OFT report was that advertising restrictions resulted in significantly higher prices and significantly lower efficiency than would otherwise be the case. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that?
  Mr. Meacher: We have expressed no opposition to opticians providing more information about their prices locally, but we object to massive advertising by big companies in supermarkets and multiples which will undoubtedly drive many small opticians out of business. Is that the Secretary of State's intention? Does he believe that that is right? That will undoubtedly be the effect of the completely free basis for advertising that he recommends.
  Equally retrograde and wrong-headed is the proposal in clause 2 to establish family practitioner committees as health authorities in their own right. It flies in the face of all Health Service planning in recent years to integrate hospital and primary health care. It is also the exact opposite of the system recommended by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, and, more recently, by the Acheson report which referred to
  "the advantage in responsibility for a whole range of services in a given area being discharged by a single authority. Only then would it be possible for the barriers between different parts of the Health Service to be removed and for the current restraints and inflexibilities in the use of Health Service resources to bze overcome."
  The Secretary of State turned his back on that recommendation but gave no reasons for doing so.
  Another seriously disturbing aspect is the proposal in schedule 2 that the Secretary of State should appoint not just the chairmen but all 30 members of all the family practitioner committees — a total of more than 3,000 personal appointments by the Secretary of State. If that is not a quango, I do not know what is. At present, family practitioner committees elect their own chairmen, and the membership is appointed locally. One must ask what is the reason for the monstrous increase in Government patronage.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Renta-creep.
  Mr. Meacher: No doubt my hon. Friend's expression will pass into the English language.
  One would have thought that it was enough for the Secretary of State to have sacked all non-compliant chairmen of regional and district health authorities—or failed to renew their appointments, which amounts to the same thing, as there was no question of incompetence. The Secretary of State has stuffed those bodies with his own placements and he is now going for broke.
  Perhaps the reason for that—the Secretary of State did not give one, and it is not stated in the Bill—is that the Government, having shied away from cash limiting family practitioner services following the Binder Hamlyn exercise, on which the Government are still sitting, are now looking for a back door route to the same end. I suspect that that is the motive. Perhaps it is also intended that once family practitioner committees have been given their independence, they will seek and undoubtedly be granted an extension of their powers.
  Indeed, I am told that there are leading elements in the DHSS who favour family practitioner committees becoming primary care authorities with control over all primary health care activities. The Opposition believe that such a development would be disastrous, even on the basis of the present 50 per cent. professional membership of family practitioner committees. Nevertheless, perhaps that line of thought explains why the Secretary of State has arrogated to himself the momentously anti-democratic power to secure a conveniently compliant lapdog role for those bodies. He could then steamroll through more cuts in primary care services.
  Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the Government are parroting on about democracy in the trade unions and votes for this and ballots for that, we now have an operation, which my hon. Friend has exposed, providing 3,000 Government—appointed positions? We already know that company directors pay substantial amounts of money to get a knighthood or a peerage. It is apparent that the positions that are to be created are for the benefit of directors of some of the 35,000 failed companies —for example, the Prime Minister's son, who has not made it to the top.
  Mr. Dickens: Cheap.
  Mr. Meacher: So far from being cheap, my hon. Friend always puts his finger right on the point. There is a disgraceful incompatibility between forcing trade unions into being democratic when they are already democratic structures and the Secretary of State taking the power to appoint people to 3,000 new positions. That is a disgrace.
  There is another pointer in the same direction. Clause 3 seems to pave the way to honoraria being paid to family practitioner committee chairmen on the lines of payments which are now made to chairmen of regional and district health authorities. I am sure that the Secretary of State will not deny that the role of chairman of family practitioner committees, as presently constituted, is in no way comparable in terms of difficulty or time with that of health authority chairmen. Does that move not therefore betoken an enhanced role for family practitioner committees? If so, and if they are to be controlled by the Secretary of State through unalloyed patronage, are we not witnessing, first with Griffiths and secondly with the Bill, a comprehensive centralisation of power being imposed on the NHS? That utterly overturns the objectives of the

  309
  Government's White Paper "Patients First" and inaugurates yet another massive upheaval of the Health Service which is reminiscent of earlier Tory reorganisations in 1974 and 1982. That is a source of less than uninhibited pleasure. If the Government have any such intention, I warn the Secretary of State of our unmitigated opposition to any such anti-democratisation of the NHS.
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he help me to understand one point which I do not find clear? He was a member of a Government who cash limited the hospital sector of the Health Service, but he has given us the impression today that he would like there to be no limits on expenditure on primary health care. Why does he support a cash limit in the acute sector while not being prepared to countenance any restriction of spending in the chronic sector?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has a background which deserves attention from the House. Perhaps he will say how he takes that view when the Binder Hamlyn report is finally brought before the House. At the general election, the Labour party made it clear that, far from cash limiting the hospital or acute sector, it believed in an overall expansion of spending on the NHS of 3 per cent. each year over and above the level of inflation.
  Dr. Mawhinney: That is still a limit.
  Mr. Meacher: It is a limit, but it is vastly different from and better than the 3 per cent. below inflation target that the Secretary of State is imposing for next year. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate that issue.
  This is not really a Health Service Bill at all. It was extensively previewed as one which had a few social security clauses thrown in. It is easy to see why. Examination of the social security clauses reveals that it is an even nastier Bill. The Opposition unreservedly welcome the abolition of the household duties test, but that is about as far as the welcome can go.
  The severe disablement allowance represents yet another pernicious exercise by the Government in the redistribution of poverty. They are giving a little to some people with one hand and taking away a great deal more from other people with the other. The central snag with the new proposal is that, although people who currently receive non-contributary invalidity pension and HNCIP will be transferred to the new allowance, in future, people who have become disabled after the age of 20 and would have been eligible for NCIP or HNCIP will qualify only for severe disablement allowance if they are 80 per cent. disabled. There can therefore be no doubt that a substantial number of men and single women might fail to qualify although they are still incapable of work.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is right to underline that point. Does he agree that the results of the change will be much the same as what now happens with mobility allowance whereby, if there are two people with identical complaints, one will get benefit and the other will not? Does he agree that we should be tending to go towards an integrated and coherent disability benefit rather than a piecemeal approach, which is merely a backward step?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has foreseen clearly what I was about to say. I strongly agree with what he said. The impact of the much more stringent conditions of entitlement for severe disablement allowance than for NCIP will be sharpest for married women. Almost all of the 240,000 women who are currently excluded from claiming NCIP by the household duties test will also fail to qualify for the new payments, such is the extent of the restriction. That much is clear from the DHSS estimate that 20,000 extra people will be able to claim severe disablement allowance from November 1985, and that that figure will eventually level out to an extra 5,000 beneficiaries. The main conclusion, therefore, and the Opposition's main complaint, is that the new conditions of entitlement will exclude just as many disabled people from benefit as did the old household duties test.
  Far from moving towards a comprehensive disability pension scheme, such as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned—and that is undoubtedly what is needed—the Bill replaces discrimination on grounds of sex and marital status with discrimination on grounds of age. If people who are disabled early in life are to have a non-means tested incapacity benefit, they will have to claim severe disablement allowance before reaching the age of 20. In effect, they must write themselves off. If they do not do that, they will have to undergo an 80 per cent. disability test even though they might have been disabled from birth. That cannot be right.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): That is not right.
  Mr. Meacher: When I say, "That cannot be right," I am saying that it is correct, but it is wrong to impose such restrictions.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is not correct because we are not imposing such a restriction. If somebody can show that he was disabled before the age of 20, he will be able to claim the benefit on that basis.
  Mr. Meacher: That is a loophole that needs exploitation, but how many people get through that loophole, given the way that the NHS operates? That is a small concession.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman must already be aware that people can claim the mobility allowance if they can show, up to the age of 66, that they were sufficiently disabled before the age of 65. I do not have the numbers who do this, but it is a well-established provision. If that system works for this benefit, I do not see why it cannot work for the other.
  Mr. Meacher: There is also the other type of problem —that if they seek to get work after the age of 20 they are also disqualified. It cuts both ways.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman does not understand it.
  Mr. Meacher: The other objection is more fundamental. The Government have illogically, but deliberately, mixed up in the severe disablement allowance scheme two entirely different concepts—an incapacity for work test and a loss of faculty test. The Government have done that not in a way that would give them credit, but because they were forced to abolish the household duties test by the EC directive 7/79, requiring equal treatment in social security matters for men and

  311
  women. That comes into force in January 1985. That is the reason why we have this in the Bill. The Government are bowing reluctantly to this legal pressure. As the Secretary of State made clear, they have taken three and a half years to respond to their national insurance advisory committee report in the middle of 1980. However, the Government were still determined that abolition should not involve them in any significant extra expense. That is the principle underlying the Bill. The 80 per cent. loss of faculty test was tacked on, thus cruelly withdrawing from hundreds of thousands of women the prospect of benefits that the EC had opened up.
  That is a major reason why I call this a mean, nasty, spiteful little Bill, but the chief contestant for that title must be clause 6. That provides for the abolition of child dependency additions paid out with short-term benefits. As the Secretary of State said, it is only 15p at the moment, but we are now seeing the culmination of a long-term Tory policy to reduce the real value of financial support for the children of the unemployed or sick.
  The facts are clear. As a result of changing the basis on which the child additions were uprated in 1980, total child support — that is, child addition plus child benefit — received by an unemployed claimant has been steadily reduced until it is now £1·70 less than it would have been under the rules left by the Labour Government in 1979.
  The Government seek to justify this by saying in their press release:
  "It has been the policy of successive Governments to make provision in these short-term cases, through the child benefit scheme."
  What an almighty and breathtaking deceit to say that this was the policy of "successive Governments". Child benefit is worth precisely 10p more in real terms than it was in 1979—the first time in the history of this Government that it has been worth more. The Secretary of State has still not answered the question of how a 10p a week improvement in child benefit can compensate for a £1·70 a week cut in total child support. We want an answer to that question. If the Secretary of State is prepared to give it now, I shall be glad to give way.
  The truth is that the Government's action has been condemned by their own social security advisory committee, which, in its first annual report, stated that the "objective"— that is, to replace the child dependency additions—
  "is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms to families dependent on contributed benefit."
  How do the Government justify this £1·70 a week reduction, except as just another mean cut?
  There seems to be no limit to the Government's viciousness towards the unemployed. There are now nearly 4 million people deprived of work through no fault of their own. What do the Government do? First, they abolish the earnings-related supplement, tax unemployment benefit and reduce the uprating of unemployment benefit below the rate of inflation, and now the child additions are being phased out. What a mean, callous set of priorities, at a time when the Stock Exchange is riding at an all-time high, capital taxes for the high-paid are at their lowest since the war, and misery for the unemployed is accompanied, Budget after Tory Budget, by massive tax handouts to the rich.
  As if all this were not enough, there is one last innovatory nastiness in the Bill, which, in the long-term, will be the most damaging of all. Even for those entitled
  312
  to long-term benefits—not the unemployed or the sick--child additions will no longer be granted to the beneficiary responsible for the care of the child. Instead, under the Bill, entitlement will depend on whether a spouse or a cohabitee is earning below a certain level—£80 in the case of a one-child family and £10 more for each further child. The significance of this seemingly innocuous clause is great. It represents the introduction of a means test to ration the payment of a national insurance benefit. Et represents perhaps the most serious and disturbing breach yet of the fundamental national insurance principle of contributory benefits to which entitlement therefore exists as a right.
  The Bill is a further major step along the road down which the Government are dragging the country, from the welfare state to a means-test state. It is a direction to which we are adamantly and unyieldingly opposed. The nation is also overwhelmingly opposed to this constant sniping at benefits, this constant victimisation of the unemployed, this constant undermining and eroding of the structure of the welfare state. The Opposition and the nation are committed to the civilised protection and decencies of a welfare state and a National Health Service, which they unquestionably cherish. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to others who share our ideals, to reject the Bill for the mean, petty, spiteful authoritarian measure that it is
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this time and giving me my first opportunity to address the House. Naturally, I wish to start by making reference to my predecessors. I use that word in the plural because before the general election parts of my constituency were represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower), for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). I need riot say too much about those hon. Friends, as the evidence of the regard in which they are held by their electorate both present and past is shown by their continued presence in the House.
  However, the greater part of my constituency was represented by the late Michael Roberts, who tragically died immediately after speaking at the Dispatch Box in reply to a Welsh debate. I have learnt early that he was held in high regard in the House, as I already well knew that he was held in high regard outside, throughout Wales and particularly in Cardiff, North-West. His untimely death was a sad loss, when he had contributed so much and was set to contribute so much more.
  My constituency consists of attractive residential suburbs and farming countryside, being the northern third of the capital city of Wales. It includes, among other things, the University Hospital of Wales, the Wales and the Marches headquarters of British Telecom, the South of Wales electricity board and a large complex of Government buildings in which is located Inland Revenue PD1, which handles the affairs of hon. Members. I would also mention the presence of Amersham International—a very successful company, which recently announced the creation of yet another 200 new jobs. Its success for itself and its employees is a testament to the Government's policies.
  My constituency is a forward-looking area. It has good communications, with two rivers, three railway lines, the

  313
  Eastern Avenue and the M4. Despite pessimistic references to the Severn bridge, these communications will facilitate the continued recovery of my constituency and of south Wales.
  Coming to the Bill, I wish to refer to the provisions that deal with the sale of glasses, as I am concerned that we must not move forward too rapidly in our reform, and we must give proper regard to the best features of the present arrangements.
  I start from the premise that monopolies are not usually a good thing—whether they involve opticians, as in our debate today, or solicitors, as in our debate last Friday. The complaints against opticians are usually, first, that there is a monopoly, and second, that their charges are too high. We would do well to remember that the present arrangements were brought about by an Act of Parliament. In answer to the first complaint, it is self-evident that there is a monopoly. The second criticism is not necessarily self-evident.
  The report of the Office of Fair Trading says that opticians' profits have not been excessive. The opticians' professional body tells us that opticians' charges in this country are among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the European Economic Community. Nevertheless, that does not preclude us from wanting even lower charges, if that were possible. In replacing a monopoly, we must consider all the people who are involved—those who purchase glasses and those who sell glasses, and we must try to be fair to all.
  Perhaps we should bear in mind another comment in the report of the Office of Fair Trading, that the private practice of the work of opticians has subsidised the work that they have done for the National Health Service. The report also says that the Department of Health and Social Security recently paid about £80 million by way of refunds or back payments for underpaid fees to opticians.
  Our first concern should be with the competence of the people who may now be able to sell glasses under the new reformed regime. The basic competence is that they are able to read the prescription for the glasses. That implies, at the very least, a certain technical ability, which presumably will have to be demonstrated by an appropriate qualification. However, there needs to be more than a technical competence. I suggest that a professional approach, akin to the present system, would be needed.
  There is a natural and understandable tendency to make the maximum profit out of any transaction. It follows, thererfore, that a commercial retailer of glasses would want to minimise his overheads and the amount of capital invested in stock, and go for maximum sales to achieve maximum profits. It may be possible to devise a limited range of standard lenses, and the salesmanship of commercial glasses retailers might persuade the intending purchaser to accept the nearest standard lenses, instead of the lenses that were actually prescribed. That would not be right. In trying to guard against people ending up with glasses that are not as prescribed, we must be concerned whether it happens by accident or by design. Although such lenses might be cheaper to the customer, and perhaps the retailer would make a bigger profit, they would not be what was paid for, and would not be value for money.
  We all want the public to be better informed generally, and better informed in this respect. However, here we are talking about comparatively simple information, which
  314
  would be transmitted through advertising. It would not involve the public's ability to judge whether they had bought the best pair of glasses available, and it would certainly not involve the public's ability to judge whether they had bought the glasses that had been prescribed.
  It will be necessary to ensure that the glasses are supplied against a recent prescription — in fact, a prescription that is not more than two years old. Presumably, some procedure will be necessary to ensure compliance with the condition that the glasses will be supplied against a prescription that is not more than two years old. Without such a procedure, forms of self-testing could evolve. That would not be evolution. It would be a retrograde step if one could purchase glasses over the counter, whether in Woolworths, Tesco or Sainsbury. Glasses might be purchased by the self-tester because he feels that they are nearest to the best available or, worse, that they have the most attractive frames.
  Then there is the matter of after-sales services. In its simplest form, it could involve a complaint that something needs tightening in the glasses—that a screw is loose and needs to be tightened. At present, minor work of this nature is done at little or no cost—usually at no cost—by opticians. At the other end of the scale, under the heading of an after-sales service, there is the person who complains about his glasses but it transpires that the passage of time has encompassed a deterioration in eyesight that requires medical attention, notification to the person's general practitioner. It could be a treatable condition that a trained optician could detect and refer to the general practitioner. I cannot see that happening in the case of a person returning for after-sales service to a commercial glasses retailer. I stress that the Office of Fair Trading refers to British ophthalmic opticians as being among the most highly trained for the detection of symptoms of abnormality and disease.
  Surely, in contemplating the reform of sale of glasses, it would appear that people who purhase glasses need greater protection than that which is available through the Sale of Goods Act. There must be a monitoring supervisory process for the new regime, and it will involve some cost, which presumably will have to be met by a levy on the retailers of glasses.
  There may be another alternative. As the Secretary of State said, perhaps we should concentrate on the unsatisfactory restrictions on advertising, even though that might mean that we make progress slowly. I appreciate what the Secretary of State said about the unsatisfactory proposals from the General Optical Council and the difficulty of trying to amend the present rules. At least if we tried to move towards taking away the unsatisfactory restrictions on advertising, including the advertising of prices, that would be a major step towards achieving progress. Possibly we ought to move carefully and evaluate what we are doing.
  A recent consumer survey revealed a wide range in the prices of glasses. That means that competition is widespread among opticians and that is to the benefit of purchasers of glasses.
  We must bear in mind the interests of all involved. Wearers of glasses could be tempted to purchase cheap glasses. The elderly and the not so well-off might be tempted to purchase for price reasons alone and not take into account the many other factors. Many if not all sections of the community could be vulnerable to price-based offers.

  315
  Surely opticians are entitled to expect our consideration when we contemplate reforming their monopoly. They could be entitled to expect that whoever will now be able to sell glasses should have an appropriate technical expertise comparable with theirs and a professional competence appropriate to the sale of glasses. If we were able to achieve that, opticians would have no grounds on which to complain about the withdrawal of their monopoly.
  I welcome the principles of greater competition and more informed choice in the Bill and, it is to be hoped, lower charges. However, we must be fair to all involved and, above all, we must seek value for money for the wearers.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) made an interesting and, indeed, stimulating maiden speech. It is often said that first utterances in this House should eschew controversy. I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's speech was not entirely non-controversial. I shall not myself deal with the points that he made, but I congratulate him on having made his maiden speech and hope that we shall hear frequently from him in the future. Moreover, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will never be afraid of controversy, which is, after all, what this House is very often all about. It is a legislative assembly, not a mutual admiration society.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that today we are debating four Bills masquerading as one. As the House will appreciate, my principal interest, as a former Minister and now as Opposition spokesman, is in the proposals that affect the incomes of disabled people and, in particular, the proposal in clause 4 for a severe disablement allowance to replace the non-contributory invalidity pension—NCIP—and the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension — HNCIP.
  Following careful analysis of that proposal, the Disability Alliance, speaking for more than 80 organisations of and for disabled people, has described it as
  "a mean and shabby measure."
  It regards the new all-or-nothing 80 per cent. test of disability as "harsh and inhuman" and condemns the Government for their "shameful" treatment of people with disabilities.
  Leaders of the Spastics Society, the Disablement Income Group, MENCAP and the Multiple Sclerosis Society, among other organisations, were "astounded" when they saw the Government's proposal, while the legal and parliamentary committee of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation was wholly convinced that, if introduced.
  "the new benefit would prove a disaster."
  They are just some of the angry comments made to me about clause 4 of the Bill. The Minister had better understand, from the outset, that opposition to what he is proposing is both fierce and widespread. In fact, I challenge him here and now to name any authentic spokesperson for disabled people who has welcomed his proposal. I shall be happy to resume my seat, and give way to him, if he can quote even one representative of disabled people in support of clause 4 of the Bill.
  316
  The famous review by DHSS officials of the household duties test for HNCIP—which has been well described as Whitehall's equivalent of "The Mousetrap" — took well over three years to complete. The slim and superficial report of the review—the words "slim and superficial" are the Royal Association's, not mine — was finally made public in response to a planted parliamentary question on 1 December.
  In the course of the review, no evidence was requested from either disabled people or their organisations, and the Minister must now explain why his Department so completely ignored them. This shocking absence of consultation is shown very clearly in the conclusions of the review and, as the Royal Association states bitterly in its response to the report,
  "the whole process appears to have been one of number crunching in which the numbers themselves are highly dubious".
  The Royal Association goes on:
  "We also deplore the decision to publish a Bill at the same time as the review. Ministers have consistently given the impression that there would be adequate time for debate both in and outside Parliament on the review. The rush straight into legislation indicates that the Government want as little light as possible to be shed on their sleight of hand."
  This is a most serious charge against a Government who repeatedly promised consultation with disabled people and their organisations on the outcome of the review of the household duties test.
  Let me remind the House of the promise that was given by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), then Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, on 13 July 1982. I quote from the excellent brief prepared for this debate by the Library of the House of Commons:
  "Replying to a parliamentary question on 13 July 1982, Mr. Rossi, the then Minister for Social Security, said that the Government intended to publish the results of th DHSS review of the household duties test 'and then to invite consultation'."
  The hon. Member was repeating equally firm ministerial promises made earlier by, among others, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) who, speaking as a DHSS Minister, stated twice within a single speech in July 1981 that the report would be debated and—"if wished" — voted upon by the House. The hon. Lady must now also profoundly regret having stated, in the same speech, that the DHSS's review of the household duties test was being pursued "most urgently" when in fact its outcome was not to be published until almost two and a half years later.
  The hon. Lady like the hon. Member for Hornsey arid Wood Green, can hardly now be surprised by the angry comments by disabled people and their organisations about the Government's total failure to consult them and the dishonouring of the clear promise that there would be a debate on the outcome of the DHSS's review in advance of legislation. Their embittered reaction is the natural one of people who feel not only cheated and insulted but also betrayed. The hon. Member for Wallasey, more than any Member on the Conservative Benches, knows what painstaking arrangements were made by the last Labour Government to consult disabled people and their organisations about every aspect and detail of our proposal to introduce what became the first-ever cash benefit specifically for disabled housewives.
  We first announced our intention in a House of Commons paper on 13 September 1974, which said:

  317
  "Housewives in this context are essentially married women who do not have paid work and whose normal job is in the home."
  Our proposal was aimed, as we made repeatedly clear, at helping the housewife whose disability was such that she had never been able to take paid work outside the home or to do household work.
  There was an unprecedented degree of consultation about the new benefit we proposed. First and foremost, we worked closely with representatives of the disablement income group, sharing our thoughts with them as we went along and obtaining their views about principle and detail in return. We held linked discussions with representatives of the all-party disablement group in the House, again in an atmosphere of openness and trust. We also met representatives of the blind to look more closely at the particular problems of the blind housewife. Finally, we arranged a pilot exercise in consultation with DIG and, with particular help from the hon. Member for Wallasey, actually to try out with a number of disabled housewives and doctors the sort of questions we would need to incorporate in the final medical report and the claim form.
  As the then Minister for the Disabled, I made my officials available for consultation with the all-party disablement group that was quite different in character and extent from anything that had been attempted by any previous Government. I know this will be readily confirmed by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and for Wallasey.
  They were all most helpful in consulting me about the principle and detail of HNCIP and I thank especially the hon. Member for Wallasey for her help in pre-testing the arrangements we were to make when the new benefit was introduced by the Labour Government.
  The reward for our having consulted so widely was that our estimate that the benefit would go to about 40,000 disabled married women was very nearly correct. By July 1978, within a year of its introduction, we had made 43,000 awards. Of course, we entirely understood the desire of many that the new benefit should go to more people. As we made clear at the time, however, the problem was one of resources. From the moment HNCIP was introduced there was increasing pressure to dispense with the household duties test, whatever the cost. Yet to have done so could have brought in some 300,000 beneficiaries instead of the 40,000 for whom we had been allowed to budget in accord with the intended scope of the benefit when it was announced.
  To have obtained the money needed to introduce any kind of HNCIP at all was in itself no mean achievement. Here I readily acknowledge the help I had from fellow campaigners in the House. They exerted just the right pressure—I speak as a former Minister who welcomed pressure to do more—and did so both at the right time and in the right place.
  As I explained to the House on 7 November 1978, after reversing a decision the previous September by a tribunal of national insurance commissioners that could have more
  318
  than doubled expenditure on HNCIP, the money was just not available to me to go further at that time than our stated intention when the new benefit was first proposed.
  Nevertheless, we agreed that the question of widening entitlement to HNCIP should be referred to the national insurance advisory committee for consideration. This was done on 30 November 1978 and, when NIAC reported, following the change of Government, it became our policy to abolish the household duties test.
  Mr. Newton: I am left almost flabbergasted by the last few minutes in which we have had — I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this—a lecture about the virtues of consultation, the result of which, in the right hon. Gentleman's experience, was to produce a benefit which has been universally condemned ever since. We are now getting a historical survey which omits entirely the fact that on 8 September 1978 the household duties test was greatly widened and virtually eliminated by a tribunal of commissioners but that on 12 September 1978 the Government published urgent regulations which put back the interpretation to where they wanted it to save the money and which came into effect on 13 September 1978. Those regulations were not then referred to NIAC until November after a major public outcry.
  Mr. Morris: I have made it very clear that the money was not available to me or my colleagues who were DHSS Ministers to widen the scope of HNCIP in the way decided by the national insurance commissioners. [Interruption.] The Minister now whispers that the money is not available to him and his colleagues to widen the benefit they now propose. What I did was to make it repeatedly clear that we were always battling with the Treasury for more resources. Anyone who doubts whether our pledge to abolish the test would have been honoured should look at the range of new help made available to disabled people by the last Labour Government.
  We not only honoured every pledge that was given in 1974, but indeed went further than the terms of our manifesto commitments in the advances we made. We introduced four new cash benefits for disabled people and their families between 1974 and 1979. Our expenditure on cash benefits alone more than trebled, from £474 million in 1974 to £1,584 million in 1979. We also more than trebled our expenditure on services for the disabled. Among 150 other advances, we introduced the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme and made industrial disablement benefit payable to the victims of byssinosis. We made occupational deafness an industrial injury and extended the attendance allowance to kidney patients dialysing at home. We extended the terms of reference of the Rowntree Trust family fund to include all severely disabled children without exception and gave substantial help to the thalidomide children. We introduced the vaccine damage payments scheme and financially supported the crossroads care attendance scheme.
  We zero-rated VAT on aids and appliances for disabled people and also on aids and equipment donated to hospitals for the purpose of treatment or research. We made the new behind-the-ear hearing aid available to 1 million hearing-impaired people and set up the Institute of Hearing Research. We increased the blind persons' tax allowance, extended the "orange badge scheme" to include the blind and made capital grants for pilot residential units for young

  319
  people who are both deaf and blind. We backed the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 and substantially increased special housing provision for disabled people. We widened the application of important provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and extended the Act as a whole to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the right hon. Gentleman but he must relate his speech to the Bill and not to what has happened in the past.
  Mr. Morris: The issue is that of resources and whether Labour Governments honour their pledges. We exceeded the commitments we gave. Those are just some—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate but a debate on a specific Bill.
  Mr. Morris: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but our problem today is that the debate is on four Bills which have been pressed into one.
  I gave only a random selection of the advances made by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 and did so as our credentials for criticising in this debate a Government whose policies are condemned not only as "mean and shabby" but even as "harsh and inhuman" by the organisations of disabled people.
  I was told in a parliamentary answer last Friday that as many as 16,000 married or cohabiting women who are currently in receipt of HNCIP would not satisfy the conditions for severe disablement allowance set out in the Bill. This is a staggering figure which no doubt explains why DIG has said it can now be argued that it would be better to retain the household duties test.
  It is totally clear from the replies that I have had to recent parliamentary questions that, in the future, far fewer disabled married women will satisfy the conditions for the severe disablement allowance than would qualify for help if the household duties test were to continue. This is a grave indictment of the Minister and wholly justifies the extent of the criticism levelled against him.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is wrong.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity of reading the reply that I received last Friday. It made it clear that 16,000 disabled married women who receive HNCIP under the present arrangements would not qualify for the severe disablement allowance.
  If and when the Bill becomes law, there will be women with a preserved right—
  Mr. Newton: I accept that there are losers as well as winners in the long term, but I want to make it clear, not least for the benefit of those outside the House, that anyone who is receiving these benefits will receive the new severe disablement allowance so long as he continues to pass the incapacity for work test.
  Mr. Morris: I should not have let the hon. Gentleman intervene. It is already clear to the entire House that married women who are in receipt of HNCIP have a preserved right to the new benefit. My point is that, if and when the Bill becomes law, there will be women with a preserved right to benefit, having qualified for HNCIP, who are far less incapacitated than other women in their localities who will be refused the severe disablement allowance. Yet this is the Government that promised—I quote their manifesto commitment—to provide
  320
  "a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives."
  The proposals in the Bill complicate the social security system and run totally counter to that commitment.
  The Government also promised to "single out" disabled people for special help, whereas many disabled married women who would have qualified for HNCIP but will not satisfy the conditions for the severe disablement allowance, will feel that in truth they have been singled out for special hardship and unmerited injustice.
  I am very concerned, as are many of my hon. Friends, that the Government have been unable to answer many of the parliamentary questions I have put to them about the proposed new benefit. In particular, they have no clear information to offer about the disabled people who will be disadvantaged by the changing rules.
  Two categories of people aged 20-plus will be affected. They will be people who become incapable of work but are unable to satisfy either the first or second contribution conditions. The first category will include anyone pursuing higher education and the vast army of the never-employed. The second will comprise people, mainly married women, who have worked and satisfied the first condition but have fallen out of the system while caring for children.
  In the parliamentary questions I tabled for answer last Friday, I sought information from the Minister specifically about the people of each age band from 16 to 30 who satisfied the first condition. I asked also for information about people of all ages who failed to satisfy one or both conditions. For until we know the number of non-contributors, we cannot fully assess the effect of clause 4. To both questions, the Minister replied that the figures I was seeking could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  I asked a related question, about how many current NCIP recipients—men and single women—would not satisfy the 80 per cent. test. There was no information available to the Minister. From somewhere or other the Under-Secretary of State has produced an estimate that 5,000 men, 3,000 single women and 4,000 married women over the age of 20 will claim the benefit successfully, once the severe disablement allowance has been phased in. Yet in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), the Minister said, on the same day, that only a small proportion of men and women become incapable of work after the age of 20. How does he reconcile his reply to me with the one he gave to my hon. Friend?
  There are two more questions that I must put to the Minister. First, will claims from people of any age be accepted under subsection (2) if they can prove incapacity before the age of 20, and what evidence will be acceptable? Secondly, will the Minister ask his officials to produce figures on the number of men, single women and married women who will have to endure the 80 per cent. test, which were the figures I sought by parliamentary question last Friday?
  I must also draw attention to another parliamentary reply which shows that, in the course of a year, only 160 people received awards of 80 per cent. or more as a result of industrial accidents and a mere 50 as a result of industrial diseases. Most incapacity is, of course, caused

  321
  by disease. Yet this is the experience on which medical boards are now to be asked to decide the benefits of many thousands of people.
  The assessment procedure, with its all-or-nothing disablement cut-off, will cause deep and widespread resentment. More people will be subjected to the 80 per cent. disablement test than were affected by the household duties test and we ought now to be told by how much assessment costs will be increased.
  We should be told also why the Government are ignoring the social security advisory committee's findings in favour of the introduction of a new partial incapacity benefit for disabled people who do some work but whose capacity to earn is affected by their disabilities. The present sick-or-fit and all-or-nothing system is now manifestly unjust and the Minister ought to let us know today if he is prepared to consider amendments to the Bill that will give effect to one or other of the alternative schemes proposed by the SSAC for a partial incapacity benefit.
  The Government are saving £60 million this year at the expense of long-term sick and disabled people who have to live on invalidity benefit. That is the cost of their 5 per cent. cut in the real value of invalidity benefit. In the Bill, the Government are proposing further hardship for invalidity pensioners by the back-door means testing of national insurance benefits. For a sick or disabled claimant with three children, there could be a loss of £22·80 per week because of what is proposed about child dependency additions. That is a scandalous new assault on some of the most vulnerable people in this country by a Government who, in a single day, gave £1,500 million in tax cuts to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers. By their priorities ye shall know them.
  The Secretary of State must know that the Bill has had the worst reception among informed critics since Peter O'Toole's "Macbeth". In that case, so it was said, the production was so bad that the only people who went to see it did so to see just how bad it was. That would be no witticism in the case of this Bill, yet the Minister speaks of it as a masterpiece and of his audience as a failure.
  I say emphatically that the Bill does not deserve a Second Reading and venture to hope that even some hon. Members opposite will weigh very carefully the criticisms of disabled people and their organisations before voting in the Lobbies tonight.
  6.49 pm
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: It gives me great pleasure to be the first Conservative colleague to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his maiden speech. Conservative Members and, I believe, Opposition Members, will warmly welcome the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Mr. Michael Roberts, who was held in high esteem in all parts of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will note that heads are nodding in agreement in all quarters.
  The House was impressed by the thought and care that my hon. Friend put into his articulate speech. It is frequently said as a matter of course that the House will look forward to the future contributions of a Member who has just made his maiden speech, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do so with genuine pleasure.
  322
  I shall comment briefly on the two speeches that we have heard from the Opposition Benches. I believe that I have heard every speech made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) since he assumed his new responsibilities. I have an advantage over the rest of the House in that the hon. Gentleman gave an exclusive story to my local paper in Peterborough on his views on health matters. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that the impression generated by his means of communication reminds me of the speaker's notes which advise: "At this point argument weak — shout louder." The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate political viewpoint and a legitimate contribution to make, and I do not doubt his sincerity. However, it is difficult to get at what he is trying to say through all his rhetoric, and the rhetoric diminishes the strength of his arguments. That was especially true this afternoon.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made an interesting speech. I suspect that my colleagues would agree that by protesting so much about his record, the right hon. Gentleman simply demonstrated to the House the inadequacy of what he was advancing. That became increasingly clear in the course of his speech. It is strange and unacceptable to be told that the Labour Government were limited by the Treasury, but that a Conservative Government, when the Labour party is safely in opposition and likely to remain so for some considerable time, are to be denigrated because—
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I made it pikestaff plain that between 1974 and 1979 the Labour Government more than trebled their spending on cash benefits for the disabled. I also made it clear that we trebled our spending on services for the disabled. It is also fair to point out that our increase in spending far outstripped the increase in inflation. Our record deserves to be much more widely acknowledged.
  Dr. Mawhinney: We can infer from that intervention that the right hon. Gentleman feels under-appreciated. He has certainly given the House a chance this afternoon to appreciate both the Labour Government's record and the discontinuities in his argument.
  I support the measured proposals on the optical service. Those involved in the service, and a few of my hon. Friends, have reservations. I respect their views. In particular, I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), as does the whole House. She has considerable knowledge of these matters. If she catches your eye later in the debate, Mr. Speaker, I expect that she may express her reservations.
  Having listened to the debate this afternoon, and bearing in mind that clause 1 is only one clause in a long Bill, I hope that those with reservations will reconsider any intentions that they may have to vote against the Government this evening. I also applaud the work that is manifest in the provisions for aid to the severely disabled, which has been the subject of much discussion.
  I should like to congratulate the Government on recognising the need in the primary care sector. I welcome the statutory structure which is to be provided for the family practitioner committees. Primary care by the family practitioner is among the most important aspects of medical care. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, it is frequently the first and the only contact that our constituents have with the medical profession and

  323
  the National Health Service. I know that he would join me in welcoming the improved professionalism of general medical practitioners. Courses have been laid on in medical schools such as the one in which I teach, and there is provision for training general practitioners after graduation. Such provisions, combined with the vocational dedication of doctors, have improved the services available to patients. No one listening to this debate should conclude that the work of general practitioners is not recognised and appreciated in all parts of the House.
  The Bill is an important step in giving primary health care a statutory framework similar to that in the hospital sector. I did not intervene lightly in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The issue deserves to be considered coolly and dispassionately. We have an arrangement at the moment which is supported by both parties. It is agreed that there is a limit—we are not this evening debating where it should be set—on the amount of resources available for the hospital sector. At present there is no such limit for primary health care. Perhaps the House should not involve itself in logic, but in logic—never mind politics—there is no reason for assuming that it is permissible to have a cash limit in the acute sector while the primary health care sector is totally open-ended. There is no structure applying constraints or restraints or, at the very least, seeking better value for money in that sector, although hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that the amount of money available is limited and that the savings will be applied to patient care.
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I prefer not to give way.
  I understood from the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that he would not wish to see any restriction at all. I am sorry if I have misrepresented him. No doubt, in summing up, his hon. Friend will clarify what was meant.
  There is a case for applying some structure of constraint in order to maximise value for money and to improve patient care, which is what, ultimately, the family practitioner committees are supposed to be about. Some Opposition Members may tell me that I am seeking to withhold necessary treatment from those who need it. That is not what I am saying. Personal experience, and conversations with medically qualified colleagues, have persuaded me that there is room for improvement in the service that is delivered.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the limitations on budget, does not the present system, under which overspending on drugs by the FPCs is to be clawed back from the hospitals' drug bills, contradict the case that the hon. Gentleman has put forward?
  Dr. Mawhinney: Until we have a statutory structure for family practitioner committees, as envisaged in the Bill, there will always be tension between primary care and the hospital sector. It is in the interests of the National Health Service as a whole to have some form of structure for primary care.
  I have two general questions for the Minister, First, the Secretary of State referred to the family practitioner committees as employing authorities. We should be told
  324
  how far their authority will extend. He said that they would become involved in work practices. How far will that extend? I may wish to go further than many other hon. Members in order to ensure that the structure has a high degree of accountability.
  I do not fear the direct link between FPCs and the Secretary of State. One of the problems of the Health Service is that management and authority has been too diffuse over the past few years. There has not been sufficient accountability. Secondly, we have suffered, not just in the use of scarce resources, but in the application of treatments to patients.
  I should like to raise with the Minister the subject of the amount of money that goes to general practitioners. He will remember that he gave me a written answer on 31 October which said:
  "the average gross income of general medical practitioners was about £34,700 (this excludes payments for the supply of drugs). Nearly 10 per cent. of that gross income was derived from the fees".—[Official Report, 31 October 1983; Vol. 46, c. 296]
  It might be thought that when one goes to see one's general practitioner at night or calls him out at night that is part of the service under the National Health Service. In fact, the cost to the Exchequer in 1982–83 was just over £8 million in extra fees. One might think that obtaining vaccination or immunisation from a GP was part of his NHS service, but it is not, to the tune of over £11 million a year. One might have thought that going to a GP for contraceptive services was what he should be all about, but it is not, to the tune of an extra £18 million a year. One might have thought that going to the GP for the provision of maternity medical services was part of the service, but it is not, to the tune of almost an extra £30 million a year. For the year 1982–83 those extra fees totalled nearly £80 million. In the fullness of time, would it be possible for family practitioner committees to study that extra expenditure for what are often thought to be NHS facilities to see whether that money might be spent in other ways?
  How pleased Conservative Members were to hear the Minister's statement last week that he will be encouraging GPs to become more involved in generic prescribing. That is plainly something that he and my right hon. Friend agree is important. It is accepted by Conservative Members and, I believe, the whole House, as an important contribution to the better use of resources. Simple encouragement might not be enough. I hope that the new FPCs will at least have the right to consider whether they should eventually start auditing GP prescribing habits.
  I had an interesting conversation a few weeks ago with a medical consultant at the hospital in which I work. He said, "Brian, of course, you do not understand GPs. Many of them prescribe a drug in order to end a consultation. They cannot get a patient out of their office unless they can have a piece of paper." I replied that I thought that those days were coming to a close because the nation could not afford it.
  I do not blame GPs. We are all responsible because we have all created a climate in which patients have been led to believe that they only have to go to their doctor to obtain a drug and all will be well. Those who know anything about health know that that is not true in many cases. In many cases people will get better even if they do not go to their GP.
  My second question is about the relationship of these new FPCs with the DHAs in the areas in which they operate. I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that

  325
  there are benefits to be derived, as my right hon. Friend said, from close co-ordination and co-operation between the two bodies. I welcome the fact the DHAs will be able to nominate up to four people to serve on a FPC. However, in some areas, the four DHA nominees will not be sufficient to allow one nominee from each DHA that is covered. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider that point when he is appointing the seven other members, as he is entitled, under schedule 2.
  There is no doubt that it is in the best interests of the NHS that we should make the best use of resources by integrating, as far as possible, general practitioner surgeries, community health clinics and outpatient departments. People tend to use them interchangeablAy more than in the past. They will be under different authorities. I hope that the chairmen of DHAs and FPCs can be led to understand that maximum benefits in patient care will be achieved by close co-operation between them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that point. He has been an advocate of greater flexibility to maximise resources within the NHS. It is something that he needs to bear in mind as the FPCs develop.
  I welcome clauses 2 and 3. They are a step in the right direction. It may be that they will eventually lead to the full integration of the services as proposed by Acheson. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman has the benefit of being a Welsh countryman combined with long experience on local government which probably assisted the fluency that he displayed. I have no doubt that the House will welcome his future contributions.
  As has been said, the Bill is essentially a composite of a number of items that do not hang together. A number of points that could be made about individual items might be better made in Committee. I am conscious that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I shall not deal with all the points.
  The first half of the Bill contains a number of separate items, two of which are controversial. The first is the removal of the closed shop in the dispensing of optical prescriptions. I do not have any objection to that in principle, provided that there are adequate safeguards to protect those who will go to dispensers for prescriptions which could considerably affect them in their daily lives. I shall deal with the safeguards later.
  The second point relates to the family practitioner committees. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said. It does not follow that separating part of the Health Service will achieve the control over its expenditure that the hon. Gentleman fondly wishes. It is possible to argue the opposite—that containing it under the umbrella of the services which are constrained will provide the best example of the case that he wishes to put to the House. The experience of many hon. Members of the family practitioner committees is not, I believe, such as to encourage one to think that as separate entities they will suddenly start behaving themselves and be less self-defending organisations. I accept that general practice is a success story in virtually
  326
  every aspect. However, if that is the case, surely it would be wrong to hinder the application of that success story by moving the service further towards isolation.
  The second part of the Bill, in so far as there is any consistent pattern with regard to social security, has a pattern that I and my colleagues reject, although certain clauses, such as the abolition of franking, we support. The trend of the proposals appears to be detrimental to the concept of a family — a concept that the Government profess to support. We shall vote against Second Reading tonight for certain specific reasons to which I shall come.
  The safeguards in the Bill against unqualified optical dispensing are inadequate. It has been suggested that opticians have been cross-subsidising the low income they receive for their diagnostic work by charging higher markups on their dispensing work. If so, an examination should be undertaken to see whether they need an increase in the fees that they receive for that part of the work that will remain their monopoly. It is no part of my argument to suggest that that kind of cross-subsidy should continue.
  The Secretary of State expressed some doubt as to whether the two-year period that he was suggesting for the validity of a prescription was adequate. He suggested it might even be three years.
  Mr. Fowler: With respect, I said two years.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comment. When he made his statement he indicated that he might even be prepared to consider an even narrower gap than two years.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there have been instances in the past when qualified opticians have been able to identify medical conditions in patients during eye-testing, and that for too long a period to be remitted in prescribing could endanger the health of patients?
  Mr. Meadowcroft: Indeed, yes. Evidence has been presented to me and no doubt to other hon. Members, suggesting that that is so. The Secretary of State seemed to get himself into difficulty by failing to suggest some way to guarantee the qualifications of those who are dispensing—presumably with the aim of covering the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. Indeed, I hope that at some point the Secretary of State will detail what he means by "adequate safeguards". I do not see how one can protect people against witting or unwitting negligence that might lead to detrimental effect without some method of registration. Without registration in some form there is no way of preventing a person from practising as a dispensing optician. Indeed, if one wants to protect people financially against the results of bad dispensing, I suspect that registration is essential. It is not merely that the wrong spectacles may or may not cause harm to people's sight — I accept the evidence that they may not — but the effect of incorrect prescribing resulting in disastrous consequences for an individual in his work place or behind the wheel of a vehicle.
  The second argument against supporting the Bill is the crucial one that it removes National Health Service optical provision from all but the young and the poor. It is reprehensible to create two classes of people and two types of provision entitlement. It is a substantial division because about one third of the population would have the right to National Health Service provision and two thirds

  327
  would be deprived of that right. A division on that scale would create a very unhealthy precedent. It harks back almost to the days when one could identify poor children by those appalling National Health Service glasses so clearly identifiable in our schools.
  If the Government are right that the Bill will so help in bringing down prices that the National Health Service provision is not needed, then why not keep it, because the provision will wither on the bough? If that argument is not correct, then it must be kept so that adequate provision exists for people in future. The problems of mentally handicapped people and the necessity to make provision for them must also be considered as they will not be covered by the exemptions in the Bill.
  I come now to the acknowledged problems of pharmacists in specific areas and the necessity to subsidise them. If we go too far in excluding National Health Service prescribing, it will be necessary also to subsidise the optical service in some of the sparser areas of the country.
  The Bill removes the subsidy available through the National Health Service for the supply of unusual or complex lenses, with the exception of the one subsidy that will remain within the National Health Service provision generally. It is interesting that the Secretary of State in opening the debate introduced the new point that he was prepared to consider the prospect of some assistance where the lenses subsidised under the National Health Service were substantially more expensive than they would otherwise be. The National Health Service charges for all but what are described as the average NHS reading lenses are in excess of the price charged to the patient. The difference varies from some £4 up to £19. If it is right in principle, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to subsidise those at the higher end of the scale, it should surely he accepted in principle that where the cost would be higher than the National Health Service provision the right to subsidy should remain. If this is not so, it is simply penalising those with more serious eyesight problems than those who are able to pay. That would surely be unacceptable.
  I do not accept that it will be beneficial to separate the family practitioner committees from the general Health Service administration and accountability. The points raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough dealt with the problem of clinical freedom as opposed to accountability within the National Health Service administration. If he wishes to pursue that argument, it will have to be considered by the House when examining the available resources and the expectation of people for health services. I should have thought that was the wrong direction in which to go. It seems somehow to separate one part of the Health Service for direct administration through appointees of the Minister. Considerable dangers exist in having the power of appointment conferred upon one individual in that way.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Does the hon. Member think the Labour party would repeal it?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He seems to fear that the family practitioner committees will be made directly accountable by my right hon. Friend because my right hon. Friend will appoint the members. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that they should be made subordinate to the health
  328
  authorities. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that my right hon. Friend appoints all the members of the regional health authorities and all the district health authority chairmen?
  Mr. Meadowcroft: I was shocked by being regarded as a member of the Labour party. It is the direct control by the Minister that causes the difficulty. In the DHAs there is at least some indirect representation from local authorities, but even that is taken away. There is also the bizarre situation regarding schedule 2 and the place of a dispensing optician to be appointed by the Minister.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed, however, that in schedule 2, 23 of the 30 members to be appointed, while they are technically appointed by the Secretary of State, are in fact nominated by the various professional and vested interests — [Interruption.] I should not say "vested interests". I was thinking of professional and local authority members who are nominated locally by those groups. While it may be technically right to claim that they are all appointed, will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that 23 of the 30 will have been generated by the people most involved at local level?
  Mr. Meadowcroft: My experience of indirect appointment, or indirect election, of people to bodies is that one can still select people who are in sympathy with one's viewpoint. If that viewpoint is as dogmatic as is often the case with Conservative Members, clearly it is not a satisfactory safeguard. Apart from that, I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about people having a vested interest.
  I come now to the social. security implications. We welcome the abolition of the household duties test, as that removes the sexist element from social security provision. In that sense we welcome the merging of the noncontributory invalidity pension and the housewives noncontributory invalidity pension into one benefit. Again, however—this is another reason for opposing the Bill—this move has its attendant acts of meanness.
  Although we welcome the simple test of "incapability for work" for those under 20, the 80 per cent. disablement test is worrying. It could lead to the most ludicrous anomalies. People who had previously claimed severe disablement allowance and tried to hold down a job and failed—probably for more than the eight-week linkage that is normally taken—might be refused the allowance because they were then over 20. Further, people who failed to claim until they were over 20, but who otherwise would have been eligible, would suffer from the same drawback. It is not sufficient to say that those who can demonstrate that they were disabled before the age of 20 had that opportunity open to them. That is a hard test to apply, despite what the Minister said about mobility allowances in other circumstances. The Government admit that some who would have been eligible under the old rules will be ineligible under the new proposals. It would appear from the financial memorandum that this will save only about £15 million a year. In the whole context of spending, it is a petty meanness that will hit the poorest and most disadvantaged.
  As regards the child dependency additions, in principle, again, we support subsuming the short-term benefit under the child benefit, thereby simplifying and unifying one part of the rather Byzantine social security system. However, we object strongly to the fact that this apparent

  329
  simplification is being used as an excuse for cuts. Child benefit has increased by only 5p or 10p in real terms since the Tories took office, and that through only the most recent uprating. Before that the record was very different. In the corresponding period, the short-term benefit dropped from £1·07 to 15p. If the Bill is passed, simple arithmetic makes it clear that this will represent a severe cut in child support. To have maintained its real 1979 value, total support should have been about £9·20.
  It is no use the Secretary of State saying that child benefit is at an all-time record when, taking it as a whole, the actual sum will be much less than it should have been under the principle that the Minister was trying to enunciate. The changes in long-term benefit are even worse because they are wrong in both concept and execution.
  We oppose the idea behind these changes because they introduce an earnings rule in respect of what amounts to a national insurance benefit. Universality—the original Beveridge principle—is one that we still surport. These changes will give a vicious new depth to the poverty trap. One-child families, with one wage-earner parent in receipt of a long-term benefit, will find their income docked by £7·60 per week should that parent's wage increase from £79·99 to £80·01. That fact comes out clearly from the proposals in the Bill.
  Although this change removes certain sexist elements from the regulations, in that women will have the same rights as men to claim the benefit—a move that is to be welcomed—it will still place women at a disadvantage, de facto if not de jure, because women claimants are most likely to be penalised by a means test applied to a spouse's earnings. These changes, according to the financial memorandum, will save £4 million a year for the short-term benefits and £18 million for the long-term benefits. I should have thought that sum was hardly worth while given the anguish that will be caused to the poorest in the community.
  We thoroughly oppose the retrograde provisions for occupational pensions. It is remarkable that a party which in its 1979 manifesto said that it would abolish the earnings rule for pensioners, which it reiterated in its 1983 manifesto, should now make the earnings rule worse, which is precisely what the provisions relating to occupational pensions will do. Apart from being misguided, they are illogical, for the rule will apply to national insurance benefits but not, thankfully, to unemployment or housing benefit.
  The composite Bill before us must be carefully weighed. I have made it clear that some of its provisions are to be supported. However, on balance its defects greatly outweigh its benefits and therefore it does not warrant our support at this stage.
  7.36 pm
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I begin by declaring my interest in that part of the Bill that deals with optical appliances. I have for more than 35 years been married to an ophthalmic optician, but I must make it clear that he has no possible pecuniary interest in the Bill as his job is mainly connected with fitting patients for contact lenses, and that is exempted under the Bill.
  The last 35 years have taught me much about opticians and I strongly resent the accusations that have been flung
  330
  about in recent months to the effect that opticians are money-grubbing opportunists who consistently make fortunes by overpricing frames. There are many things to be said in favour of opticians, and tonight I intend to say them.
  It should be understood that for years successive Governments have deliberately underpaid opticians for their professional job of testing eyes and have told them that they must make their money from selling frames. Opthalmic opticians have a long training—at least four years and sometimes more; my husband had five years — and they know so much about eyes that they frequently spot the first signs of diabetes, heart disease, cancer and glaucoma.
  Successive Governments have said, "We will not pay you adequately. You must get your recompense by supplying frames." That has always been a scandal, one that I have raised twice in the House. Now we are presented with a Bill that says that it is wrong even to do that. What, then are opticians to do? Practices must pay overheads, telephones, post, light, heating, cleaners, rent and rates, receptionists and so on.
  I was distressed that in a statement made by the Minister on 28 November it was said that the "customer" should have the right to lower prices. I found it sad and significant as I listened to him today that he constantly referred to people who needed glasses as "customers." I refer to them as patients, because they need some correction in their eyes, and that is a health matter.
  In any event, if "customers should have the right to lower prices", I hope that the Minister will agree that opthalmic opticians, dispensing opticians and others have a right at least to cover the overheads of running their practices. If the Bill is passed, the Government will have to pay far more to those doing eye tests, or else there will not be anybody left to do them. Both ophthalmic and dispensing opticians lose money on every NHS frame that they supply. On average, 36 per cent. of all frames supplied by a practice would be NHS frames. Since the introduction a few months ago of the short-lived women's new fashion frame, the figure has increased to about 40 to 50 per cent. in some practices. Every NHS frame dispensed is one on which opticians lose money.
  Opticians also lose money heavily on domiciliary visits. My husband has said that he regards such visits as a social service. He tests the eyes of persons who are bedridden and unable to visit his practice and it costs him money. Many opticians provide such a service. The House should realise the type of service that many opticians provide without a word.
  In December 1982, after five years of negotiations through the Whitley council — a body that does not make snap conclusions—the Government were told that they should have paid the opticians more. The Whitley council examined all expenses connected with running a practice. To the expenses that I have mentioned, we must add the time that is taken to test patients' eyes. The council concluded, after five years of careful study, that the opticians were owed £90 million in back pay from January 1978 to December 1982. A similar exercise by the Whitley council for earlier years came to the same conclusion, that opticians were underpaid. It also recommended substantial payments.
  Something rather shocking has occurred as a result of the recent Whitley council report. A total of £6 million has been withheld from the opticians by the Government

  331
  because they claim that the opticians have made unintended profits during that period. In spite of the questions from every professional grouping of those connected with supplying glasses — such as on what grounds do the Government consider that the £6 million should be withheld, what proof is there that money was made by unintended profits, how was the £6 million calculated, which opticians benefited and received the money?—every attempt to elucidate answers has been met with absolute silence. The truth is that there is not one jot, tittle or shred of evidence that that £6 million is owed or was ever owed by the opticians to the Government. However, the Government still hang on to the money. If anyone other than the Government did that, it would be illegal.
  Far from being the villains of the piece, opticians have not been treated fairly since 1951 when the then Socialist Government changed the rules and imposed charges. It is interesting to examine the sums of money paid to opticians then. In 1948 the dispensing fee for a pair of spectacles was 25s. If that sum was rounded up and inflation taken into account, the fee today would be £25. Instead, the dispensing fee is, on average, £7. In 1948 the examination fee was 15s. If that was rounded up and inflation taken into account, the fee today would be £15 — but it is £8. Before 1982, it was £4.50.
  One might ask, how did the opticians manage? They managed because they did what the Government told them to do and sold frames. Some may have charged too much and profiteered. There are bad apples in every barrel. A view widely held outside the House is that not every hon. Member is always as honourable as he should be on every occasion. It would be wrong to paint the whole profession of opticians as villians. The overwhelming majority perform an excellent job and can hold their heads high in an ungrateful world.
  The current charge of £8 for an eye test means that opticians must derive the lion's share of their income from selling frames. The dispensing fee will disappear except for the young, those receiving supplementary benefit and pensioners. About 40 per cent. of NHS dispensing will disappear. There will be no NHS glasses. I am worried about that because it will be a serious drawback to many people who, until now, have had their eye needs catered for by having NHS frames at a good price.
  There are three categories of opticians — the ophthalmic medical practitioner, the ophthalmic optician and the dispensing optician, and the Bill affects each group differently. The ophthalmic medical practitioners and the ophthalmic opticians will still be used—or will they? The Secretary of State said on 28 November, and again this evening, that the Government will allow sales of ready-made spectacles, but sales by unregistered sellers will be against a recent prescription not more than two years old. I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says, but that provision is not in the Bill, which allows this or any future Government to exempt ready-made spectacles from the definition of "optical appliances". it allows the exemption of spectacle lenses of certain strengths. Virtually anything can be done regarding spectacles except allowing unregistered sellers to fix contact lenses or to dispense for children.
  We are dealing with an enabling Bill, and statutory instruments will be required. That will be dealt with in Committee, and we shall all long to be away in 10 minutes
  332
  when we should be dealing with these crucial points. That it is just not good enough. Such an important matter should be written firmly into the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend must understand that leaving good eye care to the mercy of ignorance is wrong. What will happen to the Bill if the noble Lord Rugby was able to move the statutory instrument? God save and help the opticians then.
  Mr. Fowler: If my hon. Friend examines clause 1(3A) at the top of page 2 of the Bill, she will realise that an order must be made which would be debated by the House. There is no question of my seeking to set down conditions that cannot be debated. Clearly they can be debated and approved or disapproved.
  Mrs. Knight: Perhaps the preceeding paragraphs of my speech may be regarded as a probing amendment. I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says. These issues are important and I and others outside the House believe that they should have been written into the Bill. Providing my right hon. Friend alters the 13ill, the ophthalmic optician may survive, even if his income is severely reduced.
  But the dispensing optician sees his entire future at risk. The provisions of the Bill imply that he is an unnecessary adjunct—dispensers can be dispensed with. Members of the public will be able to get their glasses anywhere—the greengrocers, the butchers, the supermarket, at a street market or even from a man with a battered suitcase on the pavement in Oxford street. One may have to vie for his attention with a passing police constable, but he will be able to provide spectacles. The garage where I buy my petrol sells a wide variety of garden furniture, ice cream, cheap watches and Christmas wrapping paper. If the Bill is enacted, there can be no reason why the man who sells me petrol should not also sell me spectacles.
  The Government do not appear to understand that expertise is required to dispense glasses. Anyone can read a prescription after a few hours coaching. I beg my right hon. Friend to understand the problems. Reading a prescription is only half the story. Because someone can read a prescription does not mean that he can automatically dispense glasses. Some ophthalmic medical practitioners are already declaring that they will virtually refuse to prescribe. They will not bother to test eyes unless they can tell patients where to go to have their prescriptions filled. All their training, expertise and care in the testing of eyes will amount to nothing if the glasses are not properly fitted.
  My right hon. Friend wears spectacles. I ask him to lift them up and move them about a bit to discover whether he is capable of seeing if they are not properly fitted. Many different points must be taken into consideration if a frame is to be fitted properly. Even if someone has the best prescription in the world, if it is not properly fitted he will not be able to see properly.
  What will happen if the glasses are badly fitted? What will happen if the patient cannot see properly? To whom will he go? Will he return to the man with a suitcase in Oxford street, or to the man in the garage—or will he return to the optician who gave him the prescription? It is likely that he will return to the optician and say, "You have given me the wrong prescription. I cannot see properly." That is what worries the ophthalmic medical practitioners.
  How will my right hon. Friend judge whether a prescription is recent? After all, spectacles themselves

  333
  have been used to indicate a prescription. I shall take off my glasses. I am now holding a prescription in my hand. It is a recent prescription. Do I take these glasses to just anyone and say, "This is my prescription; please can I have another pair?"?
  How can we know that my right hon. Friend's intentions will be carried out—
  Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that lenses, whether National Health or private, are made by highly specialised companies, and that their tolerances are beyond the dreams of years ago? If a prescription is correct the lenses, wherever they are sold in a frame, and by whomsoever they are sold, will be accurate.
  Mrs. Knight: But that is exactly my point. The prescription is handed over to the seller, who will produce the lenses and the frames and sell them to what my right hon. Friend is pleased to call a customer. Britain has the highest quality lenses in the world by Government decree. That will not be the position if the Bill becomes law.
  My right hon. Friend must understand that the trained man who tests eyes will not produce the lenses. The Government are opening up the business of providing spectacles to every bucket shop in town. How can we be sure that the prescription is recent? Who will monitor that, who will pay for it and who will ensure that the prescription is new?
  How did my right hon. Friend decide on a limit of two years for a prescription? The present Act limits the validity of prescription to one year, and it will be dangerous to change that. Some patients with certain conditions need a change of prescription every six months. My right hon. Friend does not need to take only my word for that; he can ask doctors. Two years is a nonsense.
  Why dispense with a prescribing system that has worked well for 35 years? I find it appalling that the Government have allowed themselves to be railroaded by ignorant persons—some in another place—who take the view that expert eye care should be sacrificed on the altar of cheapness. We all know that some articles can be obtained more cheaply than others, but the price for good products holds firm. Someone might buy a cheap pair of spectacles, but he must not kid himself that they will be as good as a more expensive pair. That is why the present regulations came into being.
  The Government say that it is a person's responsibility to ensure that he has the right glasses. I suggest that they try to say that to the person who has failed to ensure that he has obtained the best glasses for his needs. If his vision is distorted, he could run over a child in the street. Let the Government try telling the accident victim that it was the person's responsibility to ensure he had the right glasses.
  My right hon. Friend wisely made reference to the Opticians Bill, the second reading of which took place on 6 December 1957. He said a great deal about that Bill, but he did not say why it was introduced. The sponsor of the Bill, Mr., later Sir, Ronald Russell, said:
  "The objects of the Bill are … to promote a high standard of professional education and conduct among opticians and … to protect the public".
  Another hon. Member said, "The quacks flourish." This part of the Bill is a quacks' charter. An ex-Minister of Health said that the Bill would be
  "safeguarding the rights of the citizen."— [Official Report, 6 December 1957; Vol. 579, c. 827, 855.]
  334
  Today, we are throwing all that away, and I am not happy about it.
  I want to deal briefly with the critics who have said that glasses are cheaper abroad. There is no way that that can be said about NHS frames, which must be the best bargains in the world. They are supplied at cost. No one is making any profits from them. We could go from here to Timbuktu and back, but nowhere in the world will we find a better bargain than a NHS pair of spectacles. Anyone can have NHS spectacles and NHS frames.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Lady has made her best speech in 18 years. How does she intend to vote tonight?
  Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman will possess his soul in patience, he will find out.
  All NHS spectacles will stop, except for children and supplementary benefit recipients. The critics must take testing into account. Eyes are tested free in Britain, and we should be jolly grateful for that. Free eye tests are not available elsewhere. As the former Price Commission said, it is impossible to compare a $12 pair of ready-made glasses with the price of British private spectacles dispensed through a prescription, with the quality guaranteed of both the prescription and the lenses. The Price Commission said:
  "You are not comparing like with like."
  We should not forget that the Office of Fair Trading report says that opticians in Britain are not making inflated profits. The former Price Commission said the same thing. Yet ill-informed people—some with a vested interest in the business of marketing frames purely for profit —have fostered the view, and persuaded my right hon. Friend, that our professional system is somehow unacceptable. Yet every independent body set up to examine the question dispassionately has concluded that opticians are not guilty of profiteering.
  The average cost of spectacles in the United Kingdom is among the lowest in Europe, as the Common Market has recently discovered. The only other country in Europe where glasses are as cheap as they are in Britain is Holland —everywhere else they are more expensive. None of the glasses from Hong Kong or the United States have any quality guaranteed. Some of them have bubbles in the glass and some have frames with screws that fall out. That is very worrying.
  On 28 November 1983, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
  "people who currently buy NHS glasses will in the future be able to obtain a wider selection of non-NHS glasses at reasonable prices."— [Official Report, 28 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 438.]
  Really? That certainly will not be true for those who need particularly strong lenses. At present such lenses call for a greater Goverment subsidy, so they are not very expensive for those who need them. However, that subsidy is to go. That worries me, because it is often the elderly and the poor who need stronger lenses.
  No one will be able to obtain cheaper glasses than those currently available on the NHS. Why should my right hon. Friend say that they will be able to obtain them? Is advertising the magic touchstone? Broadly, I support advertising and am all for it, but we are not selling soap powder or furniture polish. We are talking about a service that will harm health unless it is carried out properly. I am

  335
  against advertising spectacles, because it will destroy public awareness of the importance of professional care for the eyes.
  I pray in aid the British Medical Association. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have received a paper that I got this morning. The BMA's considered opinion is:
  "Since spectacles are a product with a significant health element, we do not feel that it is appropriate for the public to be unduly influenced in their purchase by advertising."
  That is the BMA's view, and it is also my view.
  Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend fairly warned me that she would oppose me, and she is not doing a bad job of it. However, the principal conclusion of the Office of Fair Trading was that the advertising restrictions at present resulted in prices being significantly higher, and in efficiency being significantly lower than would otherwise be the case. Does my hon. Friend support that?
  Mrs. Knight: I do not support what the Office of Fair Trading said about advertising. I am supporting the BMA, because it is more knowledgeable on this point.
  I frequently go to the United States of America, and am appalled by the way in which glasses are advertised there. I remember that the neon lights on the other side of the street flashed on and off all night, destroying my sleep. I shall never forget that they said:
  "Go visit Abie Brown for the cheapest spex in town."
  That appalls me. If the Government want to advertise spectacles, perhaps they should also return to advertising false teeth. When I was a child, huge pairs of false teeth were advertised. Will there be advertisements on the hoardings saying, "Dr. Giles, the best man for piles," or, "Green Lawn private hospital gives you the prettiest appendix scar"?
  It would, indeed, be a retrograde step to revert to such advertising. It is also highly debatable whether advertising would increase business for those who do not advertise. Certain professional people, such as ophthalmic medical practitioners or ophthalmic opticians, will not advertise. The most professional people involved will not advertise, and nobody will make them do so. Advertising will be left to the cheap and less expert end of the market.
  There is not an endless market. Sales of spectacles will not be increased by advertising, and that is particularly true for ophthalmic opticians. The bucket shop end of the market will advertise, while the responsible end will not. I warn the Government that if all the ophthalmic optician has to live on is the fee currently paid for testing a person's eyes—without also providing glasses—he will go out of business. He will not advertise. I can well imagine that those who have had their eyes tested will be attracted by the advertising to go to some cheaper firm.
  No ophthalmic optician will be able to keep open his doors if he is not allowed to cover his overheads. Many small firms as well as those in rural areas will go under because they cannot afford to advertise. We shall have the problem of the pharmacists all over again.
  It is very strange that one of the arguments used for the Bill is that it will introduce competition into the supply of glasses. This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Office of Fair Trading had found that a pair of glasses could be obtained for, if I recall correctly, £40 from one optician and £102 from another optician. Which? magazine and others have pointed out that glasses can be bought more cheaply if the person shops around.
  336
  But surely that means that there is competition already. I am not sure that the report of the Office of Fair Trading compared like with like, and it is impossible to put the price of glasses in an advertisement, as it will vary so much. The case that my right hon. Friend made impeccably this afternoon for competition illustrated how much competition already exists. George Orwell, thou shouldest be living at this hour! What can my right hon. Friend's observations mean other than that competition already flourishes? One is quite free to shop around.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is only her eloquence that is carrying my hon. Friend away. In fairness to the report of the Office of Fair Trading, a comparison was made between exactly the same glasses and exactly the same prescription for, in effect, the same patient. I am waiting to hear my hon. Friend explain why the optician who is competing and who can provide glasses at £40 should not be allowed to advertise in the local newspapers and elsewhere, so that people can exercise their choice and go to the cheap shop while still expecting the same service.
  Mrs. Knight: There should not be advertising for health matters. It is obvious to everyone that the same sort of house is a jolly sight cheaper in the north than in London. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will not get off the hook quite so easily. They, and the report of the Office of Fair Trading, have admitted that there is already ample competition. Thus, competition already flourishes, and one is free to shop around. If the Government have drafted clause 1 and schedule 1 in order to introduce competition, we can all go home, because there is competition in abundance. However, it is competition with a built-in safeguard. The Government propose to bring in something that we already have and to jettison something that we shall always need. That worries me. At present, there are guaranteed safeguards for good eye care, but they would be a casualty of the Bill.
  A great deal of nonsense is spoken about a monopoly. If I fly in an aeroplane, I want the pilot to have passed some flying exams. What a shocking thing to want! A monopoly! Just think, only people who have passed exams are allowed to fly aeroplanes! Shocking! If I needed my appendix taken out, I should want the operation to be done by a doctor who had passed a few exams. Pilots and doctors have monopolies over the services that they provide. Long may that continue! If, after having my appendix out, I want medicine, I shall want to go to a pharmacist who knows how to dispense a prescription. Similarly, I want an expert to test my eyes and I need an expert to fit my glasses.
  The Secretary of State says that no one but a qualified optician will be able to sell glasses to children and families on low incomes. If that is put another way, my right lion. Friend is saying that only those two groups need expert eye care, and that the rest do not need it. It is only children and the elderly or very poor who need first-class glasses. The rest can go wherever they like. Of course it is vital that children should have excellent glasses, but is it not also crucial that those who drive cars, cranes and trains or who deal with dangerous factory machinery should also have expert eye care? Why single out the young and poor as the only ones to receive top eye care? Unless lenses prescribed by the profession are made up by experts they will not meet the required standard and accidents will be caused.

  337
  If one loses a leg, a hand or an arm, medical technicians can now produce workable replacements. We can obtain dentures if we lose our teeth, and wigs if we lose our hair. One can even get a new heart or a new kidney. But one can never get new eyes. Sight is one of the most precious of all God's gifts. We should prize it and guard it. Nothing in the Bill will actually rob us of sight, but it will certainly downgrade eye care in Britain—an area in which until now we have led the world. Bad glasses may not cause harm to eyes, but badly dispensed and fitted glasses will certainly prevent people from seeing as well as they should. There will be eye strain, discomfort, headaches and accidents.
  This part of the Bill is a thoroughly bad and retrograde step. I shall vote against it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. In more than three hours of debate there have been only seven speeches. A number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless we improve the productivity rate, I fear that some will be disappointed.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Brynmor John: As the first stakhanovite, I wish to concentrate on two of the social security aspects of the Bill—the new severe disablement allowance and the child dependency allowance. I shall deal with them under two headings—what is proposed and how it came to be proposed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) gave a comprehensive review of the disablement allowance. I shall not repeat what he said, but I take issue with the Government's press statement introducing the new 80 per cent. loss of faculty test. Three and a half years after the Government began their review they proposed the 80 per cent. loss of faculty test, which they had not floated to anyone, on the basis that it substituted a test of which the Department already had long experience and on which there was no history of public disquiet or concern.
  We are dealing here with industrial injuries and I can well imagine that the civil servant who wrote that press statement had never been near a coal mining or slate quarrying area in his life. Anyone who thinks that the assessment of pneumoconiosis has always been without public disquiet is utterly ignorant of the facts of that disease. There has been profound disquiet. Lest the relevance of this escape anyone, I remind the Under-Secretary of State that he provided me with the statistic that pneumoconiosis was the second largest industrial disease/accident requiring to be assessed. The largest single group, 80 per cent., comprised traumas—that is, accidents causing amputation or injury.
  The same pattern is not repeated, however, for the illnesses compensated by the non-contributory invalidity pension. The Minister's answer to me on 16 December, as yet unpublished in the Official Report, stated that diseases of the genus arthritis and rheumatism accounted for 35·5 per cent. of such pensioners, diseases of the nervous system and sense organs, which clearly include multiple sclerosis, accounted for 26·6 per cent. and diseases of the circulatory system for 15·6 per cent. The pattern is entirely different. In industrial injuries, doctors
  338
  generally have to assess the effects of trauma. The 80 per cent. loss of faculty test is completely untried in relation to illness. We cannot predict how the tribunals will consider nervous illness. The whole basis on which the Minister commends the 80 per cent. test — its well-known characteristics and blameless past — is thus entirely false on both grounds.
  Secondly, the present system is not universally popular. In addition to the pneumoconiosis experience, I refer to a book entitled "The Meaning of Disability" in which Mildred Blaxten produced a survey of disabled people of working age. On loss of faculty tests, she concluded:
  "The survey subjects were unanimous in finding this system ludicrous."
  So much for the provenance of the scheme now being put in place of the household duties test. I should make it clear that I am delighted that the household duties test is being done away with, but I greatly fear that the new system will prove no easier, and possibly a great deal more difficult, to administer in practice than that which it replaces.
  The non-discrimination requirements of the 1978 European directive are clearly the real reason for this measure, but the Government have looked for the cheapest, most grudging way to scrape by. The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. He is good at doing that, but we have crossed swords before. As almost all men and single women are covered by the contributory system, very few of them will lose under the new scheme and the 80 per cent. test, but between 235,000 and 240,000 married women will be denied benefit under the new scheme. As it is a breach of article 4 of the convention to discriminate on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly, I believe that the fact that a huge number of married women and a minuscule number of men and single women will be adversely affected will mean that the Government will be in breach of that article. Indeed, I strongly suspect that that may be the only way to force the Government to face reality and to introduce a scheme of which the whole House can be proud.
  Thirdly, the age of 20 has been chosen arbitrarily. The age of majority may be set at the arbitrary right figure of 18 or the arbitrary wrong figure of 21, but no evidence is produced to support the choice of the age of 20 in the context of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will deal with this when he winds up. The Government and everyone else are trying to encourage disabled people to experiment with work, but the Bill will penalise people aged 20 and over because if they try work for more than eight weeks after their 20th birthday they will lose their automatic right to benefit based on the fact that the disability was contracted before the age of 20 and they will then become subject to the 80 per cent. test. I hope that the Government will be flexible on that.
  I also hope that they will be willing to make concessions with regard to full-time students. We are trying to encourage more disabled people to become students but they are hardly likely to experiment in work or in full-time education if the result of such action is to be taken outside the under-20-year-old rule, if I may so call it. Just as it is possible to pay NICP to students under 19 years of age in full-time education, I hope that the Government will be able to find a way in which to pay people over the age of 20 in full-time education the new disablement allowance.
  What the Bill does pales into insignificance compared to the way in which the Government have presented it. It

  339
  has been a long time coming. The Government have given many replies to questions that have been asked during the long and anxious inquiries. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) mentioned bringing the matter before the House as soon as the review was completed. In a letter to the Spastics Society the Secretary of State said:
  "We are pressing on with the review in the full awareness that those who have made representations about the household duties test are impatient for results but I cannot at present give a date for its completion. When it is we will, as promised report to Parliament."
  That was in March 1982. In July 1982, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said:
  "We intend to publish the results of the review and then to invite consultation."—[Official Report, 13 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 841.]
  The review was published on 1 December 1983. The Bill received its formal First Reading on 2 December 1983 and was published the following Monday, 5 December 1983. Some consultation that was. The Government have hurried it through to avoid consultation.
  Why, after three and a half years, is there such a rush? Why do the Government no longer feel that they need to consult anyone or that they can benefit from consultations? The only conclusion that we can reach is that the Bill represents the weakest and cheapest scheme that will formally comply with the appropriate European directive. I hope that even in its present lame and limp form the Bill will be found to be in breach of article 4 so that we shall have to re-examine it and arrive at measures of which we can be proud rather than those of which we should be wildly ashamed.
  It is a bitter irony that in the week leading up to a holiday which is supposed to be all about children we are debating the formal end of the Government's legal responsibility to pay additional child support to people whose only income is either short-term insurance or social security benefits or long-term benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, people receiving short-term benefits have suffered a cut from £1·70 to 15p. That represents a cut in money terms as well as in real terms. Child support has fallen by 19 per cent. since 1979. The Government say that everyone agrees that the solution lies with child benefit. There are two approaches, however. We favour raising child benefit to the extent that people's standards of living would not be damaged if the child dependency allowance were removed. However, the Government insist on reducing the child dependency allowance until it is at the same level as child benefit. That is a quite different concept. The Government should be clear about their doing the very reverse of what most people, especially the child poverty lobby, want.
  It is no accident that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), after an early taste of the debate, has been absent for a long time. I suspect that he is being chased by his past and is having to run hard to keep ahead of it.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): Cheap.
  Mr. John: That is not a cheap comment. We have suffered lecture after lecture from the hon. Member for Eltham about how he will rebel next time if the Government do not behave themselves. Of course, he
  340
  never has rebelled. The Under-Secretary of State has been conspicuously absent from debates on this subject until his most recent elevation—
  Mr. Patten: I was in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John: —so he does not understand what has happened.
  Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's remark is unfortunate because my hon. Friend the Minister has been stationed on behalf of the nation in Northern Ireland and therefore could not be present in the House. The hon. Gentleman was unfair to my hon. Friend and I beseech you, Mr. Deputy Speaker to ask him to withdraw his remarks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of information which the hon. Gentleman has got on the record, rather than a point of order for me.
  Mr. John: I do not dispute that the Minister has done another job. I said that because he has not attended enough debates on the subject he is not yet qualified to criticise my criticism of the hon. Member for Eltham. Some of us who have sat through many social security debates know the hon. Gentleman's performance and record.
  The motivation with regard to long-term benefit seems to be confined to the European directive. No doubt the Minister will confirm that. The Government have acted in a grudging and parsimonious way. On Second Reading of the Social Security Bill in 1979 the Secretary of State said:
  "The second stage under which married women will be able to claim for children, irrespective of the husband's earnings".
  —[0fficial Report, 20 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 914.]
  In Committee on the same Bill on 2 December, the Minister of State, Department of Transport—who was then in the Department of Social Security—said much the same thing. Now that we have the Bill we discover that what the Secretary of State said is not correct. A woman can claim for her children irrespective of her husband's earnings just as long as he is earning £80 a week. This is one of the few examples of the insurance principle being breached. The Government are introducing a means test on benefits into the national insurance principle. The Government cannot expect us to be enthusiastic about that, nor can they expect us to acquit them of misleading the House when those pledges were given. I believe that the Ministers who gave those assurances did so in good faith but whoever decided on the content of this Bill broke faith with the House and with those pledges. The result of the change is that people in receipt of long-term benefit will suffer a loss of 11·7 per cent. in real terms in the child dependency allowance.
  The Government's record is frightening. Belief in the great advances in social security about which they have trumpeted today rely on our not reading the financial memorandum, which shows that the Government are saving £20·5 million a year. The Bill will result in not very well-off people losing even more. That has been the Government's consistent record. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security looks puzzled but if he examines page iv of the memorandum and does the necessary addition and substraction he will discover that what I have said is correct.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was right. The Government have not yet risked a frontal attack on the welfare state. Rather. like a pack of curs, they have

  341
  tried to weaken it by yelping at its heels until it is too weak to fight back. The Government's claim that the welfare state and the Health Service are safe in their hands carries about as much conviction as a protestation about the digestion of diners at a Borgia table.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I have no links with the optical industry. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health asked my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) whether we should prevent opticians who made glasses £40 cheaper than somebody else from advertising that fact. None of us would want to stop them from doing so, and I should be happy for us to allow that, but that is not the same as a Bill that seeks to let untrained, unskilled people dispense glasses.
  Sooner or later every hon. Member faces the problem of a Bill, or part of a Bill, that he does not like being introduced by his party. For me, that has come sooner rather than later and, sadly, it comes at a time when I should much rather be congratulating my hon. and learned Friend on the reforms that he announced yesterday in the system of deputising services for doctors. Those reforms are bold, far-reaching and necessary. I welcome them, but I am not happy about the proposals for opticians in clause 1
  To call the dispensing industry a monopoly is laughable. A monopoly means an industry dominated by one firm, from the word "mono", rather as British Rail has a monopoly of rail. There are hundreds and thousands of opticians. By any standard definition, that is not a monopoly, but almost the complete opposite. We should not say that nurses have a monopoly because they are the only ones who nurse, or that garages are a monopoly because they are the only ones that sell petrol. Are we really to say that any trade, profession or job that requires standards and training is a monopoly even if there are thousands of people in the industry competing with each other, just because there is some restriction on entry based on qualifications or skill? It is ludicrous to describe that as a monopoly.
  My reservations about the Bill are threefold. First, as a result of it, giant supermarkets will get huge discounts on a limited range of glasses and will wipe out small retailers, as has happened in so many other retail trades. This will give us less choice, not more, and less opportunity to have repairs done.
  Secondly, clause 1 assumes that, as other hon. Members have mentioned, dispensers need no skill, but I reject that assumption. Under the clause, anyone will be able to dispense glasses. People should be able to dispense glasses only if they use properly trained staff in this specialised medical subject. Proper opticians use British standard lenses. After the Bill, inferior lenses, some of which are already available, will be used.
  What worries me as much as anything is that there will be no one to check that the lenses are made to prescription. There is a belief that because someone has prescribed a particular lens, and the prescription has gone to the lens manufacturer, it will necessarily come back as the lens in the prescription. I have twice, by going to opticians with the proper testing equipment, discovered that the lenses that I was wearing were not the lenses on my prescription.
  342
  There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that those who dispense will have both the proper checking equipment that is available and the trained staff to operate it. All retailers who are dispensing should have checking equipment and the correct staff to operate it.
  Thirdly, I am sad to say that I greatly dislike the labelling of the exempt group by the glasses that they wear. With my party loyalty intact, like my admiration for the reforms announced yesterday, I shall none the less oppose the Bill.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: The Secretary of State becomes fouler and fouler in his privatisation schemes for the Health Service. The Tory Government, not satisfied with the murderous attacks that they have made on hospital services, are now determined to make the public pay through their eyes by making them pay more for eye care. About 3 million people will be deprived through the operation of the Bill. Those who suffer most will be people, such as those whom I represent, who are already beaten down into poverty by the Government.
  Let me give the House the opinion of an optician who, writing on behalf of ophthalmic opticians in Hackney, reminds me:
  "I wrote to you once before when the threat to the NHS General Ophthalmic Service was the breaching of the 'servicefree-at-time-of-need' principle, ie when the government was trying to bring in a charge for Examinations. The threat now is more like the total destruction of the Ophthalmic section of the NHS and this is not an exaggeration … The figures for 1982 for the whole of the UK show 5 million pairs of NHS lenses dispensed, of which 9 per cent. were children, 27 per cent. DHSS remits and the remaining 64 per cent. ordinary NHS supply. It is, of course, the last that would lose."
  In areas such as Hackney, that 64 per cent. is more like 72 per cent. People in areas such as Hackney will be the hardest-hit group.
  "All in all, it turns the clock back to the 1930s and what starts with optics will doubtless become the pattern for dentistry, pharmacy and possibly even medicine."
  The lady's view on advertising is that
  "it is unlikely to bring prices down in the long run as someone has to pay for it. Those of us that work for ourselves (and in spite of continual talk of monopoly most of us do) could not stand up to big money either indigenous or from the Americans and could easily be driven out of business by the permitting of advertising...
  Why should the Minister talk about giving people supplying spectacles training in reading a prescription when we already have some thousands of Dispensing Opticians properly trained and registered and the public has the protection of the NHS and the General Optical Council?"
  On the other hand, the Financial Times made the point that those who buy NHS spectacles will be paying more while those who buy privately will pay less. Again, the better-off will benefit. The Sunday Telegraph says that pensioners with small occupational pensions will be the hardest hit, for they will have to pay up to £50 more for their high-powered bifocal lenses.
  The changes in the Bill are opposed, as has already been said, by the ophthalmic group of the British Medical Association. They are also opposed by the Association of Optical Practitioners, which says that in its opinion the effect will be
  "to withdraw, from April 1985, NHS optical dispensing services from at least 3·2 million people (64 per cent.) who are currently using those services annually; to withdraw from these people, many of whom will be pensioners or others on low or fixed incomes who do not qualify for financial help — the State

  343
  subsidy; the State control over the price and quality of NHS spectacle frames and lenses; the 12 months limitation on the presentation of a prescription for dispensing; the inbuilt complaints procedure".
  Those are the views of the members of the Association of Optical Practitioners.
  The Prime Minister, who received the best and most urgent treatment for her eye trouble—she is a wealthy women — is denying to the poor of Hackney and elsewhere the same right to receive the best possible eye care. The right hon. Lady is driving them back to the 1930s, which I remember, when people went to Woolworth or to a secondhand shop to buy a pair of glasses. The people of Britain have a right to the best possible eye care that can be provided and in this country it is excellent. That is what we must defend.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall confine my remarks to clause 1 and schedule 1, ending the opticians' monopoly on the supply of glasses, ending the supply of National Health Service glasses to people other than schoolchildren and the poor, and increasing the freedom of suppliers of glasses to advertise.
  Before I come to the main thrust of my speech, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) who made his maiden speech earlier. It was a very good maiden speech, and I am sure that Cardiff, North has produced a good parliamentarian who will be very useful on the Tory Benches.
  I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is not in the Chamber. Therefore, I shall fight fair and resist the almost irresistible temptation of launching into the attack. His speech was spiced with words like "vicious" and "mean", and on occasion he introduced a couple of "mangles". He failed, in my opinion, to win the intellectual argument. In fact, the best speech from the Opposition came from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I did not agree with what she said, but she made a good contribution. Long may we have hon. Members on the Conservative Benches—I like to think that I am one of them—who are prepared to speak plainly, whether they agree or disagree with the Government. On this occasion, the Front Bench will be delighted to know that I am on its side. I know that it likes to have me on its side.
  The Prime Minister has said many times from the Dispatch Box that if we are to be successful in business we must produce the products that people want. We have to produce quality goods, at competitive prices and delivered on time. The last two elements are involved in clause 1—competitive prices and delivery times. The consumers' interest is paramount. It is imperative that we make provision for high street competition, and end the monopoly on the dispensing and selling of glasses.
  How can consumers possibly get value for money? They must be allowed to shop around. We have to introduce a high street war so that people sharpen their prices. We have wonderful food shops in this country because of the fierce competition.
  The General Optical Council at present allows no advertising of the prices of glasses. Nor does it allow advertising of the speed of service. In other words, if people want spectacles, as many do, just before their holidays, it is nice to find an advertisement saying, "We will give you a 24-hour service".
  344
  There are two quite separate functions. On the one hand, we have sight testing, which should be completely separated—as it is in the Bill—from the other function of selling glasses. Sight tesing is done by qualified opticians or doctors who will produce the sight prescription—that is safeguard number one—and it has to be a recent prescription. If I am selected as a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill, I might be persuaded to try to push the Government into a one-year, instead of a two-year prescription. I give the Government that warning, in case they would rather not have me on the Committee.
  There is a danger in many cases—in this monopoly it is a fact — that many opticians are simply setting themselves up as glorified doctors. In fact, they are highly skilled commerical business men, marketing expensive glasses. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, whose husband was an optician.. as she declared, although he dispensed contact lenses. Not all opticians are the same, but some of the large chains are beginning to act in that way. We have to protect the consumers and our constituents.
  I ask hon. Members to follow me into a large optician's shop. Their eyes are tested with sophisticated and fascinating equipment. They are told that they either need glasses or replacement glasses. They step outside into the plush shop and are confronted with hundreds of frames. Vanity being what it is, they want to get a frame that makes them look good. There are no prices on the frames. They sit in front of a mirror, and glasses are slipped over their noses. Finally, out of all the hundreds of frames, they find something to suit them. Then they start to talk about the price. They are a captive market. That is why we must be very careful
  I know a factory — I mentioned it in an earlier intervention when you were not in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so you will be interested in this -- which produces glasses at a cost of £5·75. The factory manager told me that he had seen the same frames in a shop selling at between £50 and £60. I am talking about the frames, not about the lenses. That is a scandalous mark-up, and that is what the Bill seeks to prevent.
  Glasses for children, and contact lenses, can be sold only by qualified opticians and doctors under the Bill. That is safeguard number two. However, it gives the opticians a real market advantage. If all the children come to a particular shop where they are well suited on price and in other ways, it can be habit-forming, and the shop has a captive customer. I believe that that includes children up to 16, but if they are in full-time education it can be up to 19. That is a good safeguard, and it gives quite an advantage to the qualified opticians. They get the children when they are young, and if they give them the right price and the right service they will have them for ever after.
  Concern has been expressed about the suitability of shops, general stores, and so on, for selling glasses. People are not stupid. I watch the Secretary of State peering through his glasses at the shadow Secretary of State, who is peering back through his glasses. They can see each other, and they can see their notes, as we know from the colourful introduction to the debate. When people are given a prescription and go to a shop, they are not idiots. They are not going to walk out of the shop under a car. They will look at a board, and all the rest. We are not going back to the old days when the old soul used to go up to the counter at Woolworths, where there was a

  345
  mass of glasses and she tried on pairs until she thought that she could see reasonably well. We are not going back to those days. We are talking about a recent prescription that people take with them to get their glasses. Nowadays we have sophisticated specialised companies which produce lenses to very high tolerances. It is a different world. If one has a prescription and a general store has a stock of lenses one can rely on the accuracy of that prescription. The optician will continue to do his job, although perhaps the Government will have to find more money for testing to compensate for money saved in other directions.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: If one could rely on manufactured lenses always being supplied precisely as prescribed, opticians would not have checking equipment or trained staff for checking the lenses and my optician would not have twice discovered that my lenses were not made to his prescription. My hon. Friend is not making a fair point.
  British standard lenses are used by almost all opticians, but once the greengrocer or anyone else can set up as a dispensing optician some inferior lenses will come from abroad which no one will check because they will not have the equipment or the staff.
  Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friend does a disservice to our Front Bench and Ministry officials by talking about greengrocers or garages being able to dispense glasses. That is ridiculous. It has been made clear that people involved in the dispensing of glasses will be trained before being given the responsibility. We are not going back to the dark ages. My hon. Friend simply frightens people by making such statements.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I withdraw my reference to greengrocers. It is a phrase that has become standard and means untrained people. Of course, I do not really mean greengrocers. However, the Bill contains no provision for using trained staff to check lenses, to check whether the optical centre is opposite the eye, that a person's face is symmetrical or whether the eyes are exactly the same distance from the nose. Dispensing opticians check those factors.
  Mr. Dickens: I am sure that the people involved will quickly become experienced with the minimum of training. It is one thing to be an optician capable of conducting eye tests and fitting contact lenses, for which the curvature of the eye is critical, and another to fit a pair of glasses on a person's nose. The stores will have separate departments and use the same measuring devices, and the operation will be conducted in a responsible way. The resultant competition will be to the advantage of the consumer. The Bill provides an opportunity for everyone, including constituents, to purchase glasses at a more sensible price.
  8.45 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I regret that I cannot share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in supporting the Bill. I recognise the case for competition and for advertising wares. In Northern Ireland and elsewhere it seems that there is a shortage of opticians. Perhaps people looking for work could find a place in that profession. I criticise not the suggestion that opticians
  346
  should be able to advertise, but what flows from that. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said that the Bill was not an attempt to return to the old days and that we can trust those involved.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) who made his maiden speech today. I also represent a capital city in one of the regions. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North displayed gifts and talents which will be useful to the House. He said that people would be tempted to purchase cheap glasses. He was nearer the mark than the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth and more aware of human frailty. By opening the doors as suggested, people might be tempted to take the easy way if they can buy glasses cheaper at the corner shop or on the high street.
  I am not convinced by the argument about the mark-up on the manufacturer's price, because the same can apply to dispensing opticians. Any type of glasses can be dispensed because people are not aware of what goes on.
  As I listened to the arguments, I drafted notes about how the Bill would affect Northern Ireland. Whether the Government intend it or not, the Bill represents a further serious erosion of the National Health Service. It means that at least 60 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population will be denied the right to NHS spectacles. That seems to be on a par with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Some people say that the poor and children are provided for. I submit that a large number of the people who will be excluded from NHS optical dispensing will be pensioners or others on low or fixed incomes who do not qualify for state financial help. A growing number in that category are being caught by the poverty trap.
  We are talking about patients, not customers. A significant number will require high power or multifocal lenses. It is not a simple question of providing contact lenses. A wide range of lenses exist for normal frames. The people who are subsidised by the state and need glasses because of their condition will be deprived of that aid. They will have to pay the full cost. In other words, despite the claims that the Bill will reduce charges, many people will pay more, not less, for their spectacles after April 1985.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) proved to be a valiant champion of the opticians, especially when she castigated those who seek to prune their activities. The hon. Lady certainly left the Minister with questions to answer.
  A substantial proportion of an optician's university training is devoted to accuracy in dispensing. It is not possible to envisage that the present high standard will be maintained by unqualified personnel. Badly dispensed lenses can cause double vision, distortion and visual discomfort with a subsequent reaction not only to the individual but perhaps to the community at large. It seems to be impossible, from the evidence presented in today's debate, for the Government to ensure that spectacles are made only to a recent prescription. The power of a person's existing lenses is not measured, so new spectacles will not be made up to this prescription.
  I am concerned, as I am sure many other hon. Members are, that the use of cheap, sub-standard lenses and frames could become widespread due to insufficient monitoring. How would the public who use unregistered persons be protected against the supply of incorrect spectacles by unscrupulous traders? If anyone suggests that there are no

  347
  such people, he is not living in the real world. For 35 years there have been price and quality controls by the DHSS and strict control over 80 per cent. of all ophthalmic lenses supplied by opticians. That protection, as I understand it, is to be removed from April 1985 from 60 per cent. of those supplied.
  I regret to see that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), has left the Front Bench. I was happy to see him there, because I realised there was no Minister from Northern Ireland on the Front Bench, and the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of the position there. He would know that the change in Government plans will provide direct competition to optical firms in the Province and optical firms elsewhere. It is important that we do not confront our own work people and suppliers with unfair competition through imported goods which could be subsidised by other bodies. That aspect may not have been fully covered during the debate.
  I was puzzled about why the Bill was presented in this form because, like other hon. Members, I have been waiting for the period of discussion and consultation. It may have something to do with the coming together of the Government and trade unions. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) perhaps gave the game away because he talked about a composite Bill. I thought that this might be the Government's attempt to lean over to meet the composite motion of which the unions are fond. It has not helped in the presentation of the case.
  I do not believe that the Bill has gone down the road that I and many other hon. Members would have liked the Government to take in the care of the handicapped and disabled in our society. While I welcome the removal of the household duties test, ultimately many will be caught in the trap again. Reference was made to those under 20. The Minister said that the way it worked for mobility allowance would be a guarantee that it would work all right in this new form. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have already discovered that the mobility allowance is full of traps. Those who do not deal with medical problems, even on tribunals, or those who handle them in a different way quite often come to decisions which have jeopardised people with severe handicaps who want to live lives as normal as possible. They do not get financial support because of the rulings that have to be made. I submit that the Bill is in that pattern.
  I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) who spoke about the family practitioner committees. He paid a gracious tribute to general practitioners. Many hon. Members would pay tribute to the high standards throughout our medical profession. Having said that, the Minister spoke yesterday on deputising and the new consultancy procedures. Apparently, a person who phones for an appointment cannot be sure whether anyone will be available to write out the death certificate a week later. This is where the "contactor bureau" comes into play. We must be fair and say that there is room for improvement in the method of general practitioner work. In that context, I would welcome a tightening up of family practitioner committees.
  The biggest room in the world is room for improvement. I hope that, as the Bill goes into Committee, the Government will move towards improving it.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: I should like to inform the House first of my own background and interest in health matters and hence in this Bill. My father is a general practitioner in Bury and is chairman of the local family practitioner committee. I have grown up in an atmosphere in which health care has been important and where consideration of the position at the sharp end—the scalpel end, certainly at the patient end—has been most important. The local health authority has an enviable record of care, concern and efficiency. It is an authority that proves that those three need not always be at odds.
  I wish to speak not on the family practitioner committee part of the Bill but, like many other hon. Members, on the clauses on opticians. I had the pleasure yesterday at his invitation of visiting the premises and workshop of a local optician and discussing the Bill with him and a colleague on behalf of his colleagues in the town.
  Before I go on to that I should like to say a few words about the general principle of liberalisation in economics. On that general principle and in the area of health care, I would tentatively offer the Government a basic principle which I am sure the country would welcome if it were put forward strongly by the Government as a reason for their actions. I do not believe that the country at large is composed of devout followers and understanders of economists, whether Adam Smith, Keynes, Friedman or whoever. Economics tends to matter to people rather less as words on a printed page than as an end result in terms of service or effect on the pocket.
  I doubt whether the country would be enamoured of an approach which looks at monopoly of any type in a doctrinaire way as though it is in itself bad and must therefore be done away with. Much more acceptable, I believe, is an approach which looks at the service provided first and foremost and then at the way in which it is provided. If it is provided by a monopoly, the Government should approach it in this way: "Are we going to improve the standard of care or, at the very least, leave it as it is by liberalisation? At the same time, will it also produce the side effects of lower costs to the consumer?" If a measure passes that test, all well and good. Much though theorists may like to judge measures from other standpoints, the test that I have described is the one that the people will apply ultimately. They will test the service and not the economic dogma that lies behind it.
  There is not a simple distinction between the professional job of prescribing and the commercial job of supplying spectacles. The dispensing and fitting stage is most important and the one that causes my constituents the most worry.
  At present the responsibility for the eventual fitting of spectacles falls to the qualified optician. It is the optician who makes the prescription, which may be simple in specifying low-power lenses or complex in involving bifocals or heavier high-power lenses. Once the prescription passes from the optician's hands, he wants to know that it is in the hands of a qualified, responsible and thoroughly professional person. Technicians have a full and proper training, which may vary from three to five years. They work exclusively in the important area of making up opticians' prescriptions. Therefore, the dispensing optician has behind him a person with professional training when glasses are fitted.

  349
  It is vital, for example, that glasses are centred accurately and that the pupillary centre corresponds with the centre of the lens. If it does not, the glasses, at best, may fit poorly and lead to headaches and discomfort. In that event, the patient will not be able to see properly. At worst, the patient may suffer continually from bad headaches and the eyes may be damaged.
  The Secretary of State has voiced his understanding of the problems and suggested a willingness to accept representations and to receive amendments. However, he expressed hostility to any licensing or registering system. I ask my right hon. Friend urgently to consider some safeguards to prevent the dispensing of optical prescriptions in an unacceptable manner in unacceptable conditions solely because there may be a reduction in the price of spectacles. If spectacles do not fit properly, money will be wasted in any event. I ask my right hon. Friend ultimately to reconsider his opposition to a licensing system.
  It has been amply demonstrated throughout the debate that the possible lack of safeguards is causing the most concern. We cannot suddenly take away from the public a system of health care that has been built up over a number of years and quickly opt for something of which we know little. There must be a system of safeguards to work in with the present system of health care.
  If things go wrong, where will the patient go for redress? At present, if anything is wrong with his spectacles or the lenses, he can go to the family practitioner committee but in future, will he have to rely for protection solely upon cumbersome consumer legislation? I am assured by my optician constituents that although certain states in the United States of America have liberal systems of spectacle provision and dispensing, Europe generaly does not. Europe generally has a system with safeguards of a sort that are not proposed in the Bill. We must proceed carefully and listen intently when my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health replies to learn whether any safeguards are to be introduced infuture.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State most seriously to reconsider his earlier decision to reject a licensing and registration system. Something of that sort must be introduced. Concern about dispensing is clouding, despite what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, the general approval for the removal of advertising restrictions. The proposed reforms might on their own produce the effect that the Government must want, which is the maintenance of the standard of health care at a reduced price for the patient. The removal of advertising restrictions could produce what the Government want, and it is possible, despite what my hon. Friend said, to have competition with safeguards. It is not necessarily true to say that advertising within health service provision is unacceptable. I think that there can be advertising between opticians—
  Mr. Meadowcroft: And solicitors.
  Mr. Burt: Yes, and solicitors. The advertising must give the assurance that behind the comparison of cost and supply there is a professional background to ensure that the product that is being supplied is safe and that those who
  350
  provide the service are also safe. I believe that it is possible to have the competition that the Bill envisages with safeguards which, at present, are not in the Bill.
  I do not think that generally the British people swallow the arguments of Opposition Members about the Health Service. More cant, hypocrisy and rubbish are still uttered by them on that topic than anything else. The Opposition have a disgraceful record on nurses' pay, strikes in the Health Service, cuts in capital spending on hospitals and health spending generally, and more rubbish comes from them on the Health Service than on anything else. I am afraid that the usual over-the-top Front Bench speech did not contribute anything constructive to the debate.
  We must guard our own ground well. We must ensure that the charge that health care is less important to us then economic dogma does not stick. It must not stick, for it is not true.
  The opticians give this country a good service, and their concerns about optical care in the future should be listened to very keenly. I hope that the Minister will take note of the anxiety expressed by opticians, and that it will be possible for safeguards to be introduced into the Bill. The concerns about dispensing, in particular, require an answer tonight.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Much has been said about the rundown of optical services. In Liverpool, and in my constituency, there is so much poverty and unemployment that more and more people will be encouraged to run to Woolworth, John Lewis, Tesco and Fine Fare in order to buy cheap glasses. The Government will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that there is anything to prevent any retailer from producing some adaptation of sunglasses which will be brought by poor people who cannot afford the high price which glasses will reach—particularly bifocals, which are necessary for many people—if the Bill becomes law.
  A few weeks ago, the Government organised opposition to a Bill that I introduced on the severe disability allowance. One of their arguments was that there was not enough time to study the Bill. In a parliamentary answer, the Minister made the point that half the objections that he had received to the Bill had reached him before it had been published.
  However, in the case of the severe disablement allowance, the report on the household duties test was delivered on 1 December and on the self-same day the Government decided their policy. They decided to deny 16,000 people the right to benefit. They did not consult the organisations of the disabled, which have nevertheless stated their views. The Disablement Income Group, for example, has stated:
  "Fewer disabled married women will qualify for the allowance in future than would have qualified had the household duties test continued."
  The Government have introduced an irrelevant test. Some people who are 20 per cent. disabled are less able to work than some who are over 80 per cent. disabled. The test is irrelevant, and fewer disabled married women will qualify under the legislation. The new proposal will discriminate against everyone whose national insurance contributions do not entitle them to a contributory invalidity pension. The Government ought to remember

  351
  that. I hope that if the Bill reaches Committee stage, there will be enough opposition in Committee to ensure that something is done about some of the proposals.
  There is no correlation between the degree of disability and incapacity for work. In its comments on the Bill, the National Consumer Council has stated:
  "SDA combines two criteria of incapacity for work and loss of faculties in a way which seems illogical. If the DHSS wish to compensate for costs of disability there is no need to place a restriction on the benefit in terms of capability of work. The joining up of the two concepts is simply a device to ration the benefit."
  That is the crux of the argument. This is a device by the Government to respond to the wishes of the Chancellor. Every piece of legislation that comes before us shows more clearly that the Treasury has become a super-Department. The Secretaries of State for Social Services, for the Environment and for Education are all minions at the disposal of the Chancellor.
  As a result of the decision which no doubt will be taken tonight, because of the three-line Whip, disabled people — [Interruption.] At least they admit that there is a Whip. There was also a Whip a few weeks ago. The disabled will respond in the same way as they responded to the decision taken then. They will be implacably opposed to the legislation, and will fight it. We shall lead the fight until the household duties test is done away with, without the need for such inimical legislation.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his first speech. I always feel embarrassed doing that, because it is not so long ago that I made my first speech. He made an admirable speech, if only because it caused two signs of pain on his Front Bench. When he mentioned Amersham International, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ghost turned in its grave. The hon. Member defended optical services in a way that was clearly offensive to the Secretary of State and the Minister. I hope that the hon. Member continues in that fine tradition.
  When we consider this hotch-potch of a Bill we must remember that it is not an isolated measure; it is part of the Government's overall strategy. Their long-term strategy is to strengthen the rich and powerful sections of our society at the expense of the poor and the weak. As they made clear in their 1979 election manifesto, the Tories are tilting the balance of advantage further towards the employers. The main method used by the Government is the deliberate increase in unemployment. This policy directly deprives the unemployed of any power and impoverishes them and their families. Just as important, it makes many others in work frightened to press for better pay because it creates a buyer's market for jobs.
  As Beveridge recognised, the buyer's market for jobs was the major source of impoverishment and the principal obstacle to the creation of a fairer society. No survey of the effects of the Government's policy on health, social services and social security should ignore the crucial fact that unemployment, poverty, inequality and health are inextricably linked. In the short term, the Government's policy is to ensure that the burden of coping with the world recession and the Government's economic incompetence should fall upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it—the old, the poor, the disabled and the sick—the
  352
  people whom the DHSS was established to protect. That protective role has been abandoned under this Government.
  Time was when even Tory Ministers took a pride in defending their departmental functions and fightirg for a budget to meet their needs. That is no longer so. Now, promotion for Tory Ministers depends upon a craven willingness to sacrifice departmental services to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's crude butchery and the Prime Minister's spiteful whims. I will give one example of that change. Harold Macmillan made his reputation by building a record number of houses. The Secretary of State for Defence was promoted to his present task for building the fewest houses in modern times. It is necessary in those circumstances to study the record and character of the Ministers introducing this measure.
  Long hours on successive Transport Bills gave me the opportunity to observe the deadly duo of the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). Whenever people have met them, there comes the eternal question, "Why is the one with glasses Secretary of State and the fresh-faced lawyer his junior? Why not vice-versa? Should not the monkey swap places with the organ grinder?" I have no answer to that question; it, ies in the deeper recesses of the Prime Minister's mind.
  Every time a Cabinet reshuffle is mooted the name of the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is on every tongue, save that of the Prime Minister. Indeed, there are times when I suspect that the sole object of ministerial changes is to show that Cabinet status is beyond our Ken. Instead, he is stuck with being one of a pair, like the ugly sisters, Jekyll and Hyde, the pit and pendulum, tonsils and adenoids or, more appropriately, Burke and Hare, the notorious body snatchers.
  I have to admit that as a pair they are effective. The hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe puts a bad case well and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield issues a slick press statement—no trendy gimmick is beneath him. When he was Secretary of State for Transport he said he wanted to do a Freddie Laker on the buses, and, to give credit where it is due, he did, because over 40 million fewer rural passenger miles were covered in the year that followed his Transport Act. Villagers up and down the country waved goodbye to their last bus.
  Now these master minds have set about the nation's health, but their task has over-taxed even their skills. At Question Time last week they even argued that the gross domestic product had gone up since they got in. But no phoney figures, no creative accountancy, no satistical sleight of hand can cover up their attack on the National Health Service. All over the county hospitals are closing, wards are empty and promised projects have been shelved.
  The people of London are told that their hospital provision must be cut so that other areas can catch up. The Trent region is supposed to be the major beneficiary, but anyone who goes there, as [did a fortnight ago, will find that it is the same story there. Hospitals are threatened with closure, wards are empty and projects are held hack. In Nottingham, which serves the Minister's own Rushcliffe constituency, the university hospital is built, but wards have never been brought into use, not because nobody needs them—there are nearly 11,000 people on hospital waiting lists in Nottingham—but because the Minister

  353
  will not find the money, and even a plastic surgery unit for children has had to be postponed. All over the country the story is the same.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The Trent area happens to be in my constituency and, for the record, it has been given extra staff in the hon. Member's so-called "cuts" and has a £25 million new hospital opening in Chesterfield next year, for which extra staff are being provided so that it will be opened.
  Mr. Dobson: There are certainly bits of the country where new hospitals are opening, but there are other parts of the country where others are closing and there are even more where they are being kept empty. All over the country the story is the same, yet Ministers seem not to have noticed because, safe in their comfortable offices, they proclaim paper triumphs and ignore the facts in the field. In short, they behave like first world war generals. In one way they are even worse than those generals because at least the generals used to pay tribute to their troops. Not so the modern Tory. Scarcely a day goes by but one or other of them says that the National Health Service is inefficient or, wasteful or could do with fewer staff.
  When a former bankrupt who apparently advises the Prime Minister got space in Rupert Murdock's Times to vilify those who work in the health Service, we looked in vain to health Ministers to defend their staff from such attacks. But loyalty to people who do the work has never been a Tory trait. They never tell the truth about our National Health Service. For all its faults, it is the cheapest and most efficient in the developed world. Instead, they set out to hamper and maim it. If anybody from the National Health Service criticises them, Ministers dismiss their critics as representing a "vested interest". By this definition life-long dedication to Health Service patients counts as a vested interest. Instead, Ministers promote the interests of cheapjack outfits that claim they can do the laundry or cleaning better and cheaper than the present staff. The only way those private firms could do that is by lowering standards and paying wages even lower than the present poverty level wages paid to National Health Service and ancillary staff.
  Dr. Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the debate your predecessor in the Chair encouraged hon. Members on both sides to speak shortly and to the point, because a number of hon. Members would not otherwise have an opportunity to speak. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has spoken for nine of his 25 minutes without tangentially approaching the Bill. Do you have the power, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to sit down so that hon. Members who wish to talk about the Bill may have an opportunity to do so?
  Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately I do not have power to ask any hon. Member to sit down. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was about to deal with the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Dobson: We needed a little context in which to consider the Bill. Ministers are promoting private companies, not least because the Benches behind them are thick—thick with hon. Members with a direct financial interest.
  354
  When we consider the proposals in the Bill about glasses, it is as well to remember what happens now. If one wants new or replacement glasses, one goes to a qualified optician for a sight test, for which the optician gets an £8 fee, and one then buys the glasses from that optician or another one. The Government propose to change that by letting any Tom, Dick or Harry sell glasses. Even more important, they propose to abolish the sale of NHS glasses, both frames and lenses.
  When introducing the Bill, the Secretary of State justified his proposals largely on the strength of the report from the Office of Fair Trading. However, the House should know that the OFT did not contemplate for one moment getting rid of NHS glasses for sale, and the National Consumer Council's support for the measure has been withdrawn as a result of that change.
  At present, 80 per cent. of people who use glasses get NHS glasses and nearly 40 per cent. get NHS frames. In other words, given a free choice most people opt for the NHS goods because they are cheap and the quality is guaranteed. Indeed, during the past four years even the number and proportion of adults getting NHS frames has increased. The problem, said the Secretary of State, was the overpricing of some private frames. His solution is to get rid of the cheapest glasses on the market, those provided by the NHS. With logic like that, no wonder he loses arguments in Cabinet.
  Children and the poor will still be able to get glasses on the NHS, at least for the time being. However, they will be the only people who can get them. As other hon. Members have pointed out, NHS glasses will soon become an obvious badge of poverty. In any case, many poor people, including two thirds of pensioners, are not entitled to free glasses. This move is a direct and deliberate attack on the NHS, a move away from a health care service to a commercial rip-off. Before long, the provision of NHS glasses, even to children and the poor, will also be abolished. Instead, vouchers will be issued which they will take to Woolworths to be handed over in front of the prying eyes of other shoppers as yet another humiliating public indication of their poverty.
  What of the people who do not get free glasses but who get a sight test and a prescription and then want to buy their glasses? At present they get the prescription read, interpreted and made up by experts, people who know about eyes and lenses, who can fit a frame and who have had training. That offers massive consumer protection. That is especially important with glasses, not just because they affect the eyesight and eyes but because lay people cannot judge what they are getting except in terms of the appearance of the frames. Often it is only afterwards that discomfort or blurred vision shows up.
  It should be remembered, therefore, that cost is not the only thing by which to judge. Yet the only consumer protection that the Secretary of State proposes is under the Sale of Goods Act. When he made his original statement to the House he promised that any further protection for the consumer would be included in the Bill. As none is included, presumably he believes that none is required.
  Let us take a practical approach and consider what will happen. After a sight test, people will be able to go to any shop selling glasses. I do not wish to insult everybody who works in shops. Most are helpful. However, many are not and some are scarcely fit to sell cans of paint or Christmas

  355
  cards. In goes the patient complete with prescription—hands it over to the shop assistant. Then what? Here is a genuine prescription which I will read out:
  "Right eye—9·0 dioptre sphere— 1·25 dioptre cyclinder with an axis of 110 degrees with a prism of 1 prism dioptre base down.
  Left eye + 6·25 dioptre sphere, + 1·5 dioptre cyclinder with an axis of 60 degrees—interpupilary distance 66 millimetres."
  Will a shop without trained staff be able to cope with that? Could an untrained person make sure that such a prescription is properly made up and fitted? The 66 mm. mentioned is the distance between the pupils of each eye. How will they measure that—with the measure that they use for inside leg measurements or will they just guess?
  Let us charitably assume that the Minister of State, who is a university-educated barrister, is intelligent and helpful. Could he cope? I have here a prescription given to me following a sight test that I had yesterday. It is a simple prescription, and it says:
  "Right eye +0·5 dioptre cylinder with an axis of 180 degrees.
  Left eye +0·5 dioptre sphere, +0·5 dioptre cylinder with an axis of 10 degrees."
  Does the Minister know what that means? I shall pass the prescription to him so that he can examine it. Could he make up some glasses for me? Perhaps his right hon. and hon. Friends who know so much about this could help him. Perhaps he will ask his officials to advise.
  After all, if we extend the principle that anyone who can read can dispense glasses, some people may even conclude that anyone who can read a Civil Service brief could be a Minister. There is no knowing where the process of deskilling will end. It is no use the Minister saying that this is unfair. After all, he is the one who claims to know more about dispensing glasses than the whole of the optical profession and also, for that matter, practically everyone who has spoken from the Government Benches today.
  More seriously, does the Minister not accept that a skill in dispensing helps protect the public? What is more, does he not accept that if prescriptions are required, few, if any, pairs of ready-made glasses will ever be sold and such glasses are the only ones cheaper than NHS glasses? At present, NHS frames cost between £2·05 and £13·05. NHS single vision lenses range from £4 to £8·85 and bifocal lenses from £9·20 to £15·50. In 1982, on the other hand, the average price of a pair of old-fashioned style, private, single-vision glasses was £43 and £57 for private bifocals. So someone whose eyesight is deteriorating and who needs more high-powered lenses or bifocals can expect under the new system that new lenses will cost at least £25 more than they must pay for them at present. So much for the cuts in price for most people.
  Perhaps in winding up the ever-talented Minister will come up with a case that he has found in economic history where prices fell as a result of the cheapest top-quality goods being taken off the market. But I must warn him that if he does he will confound the theoretical basis of the market economy preached by every right-wing economist from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, so he had better not do so, or the Prime Minister will demote him this time.
  What about the proposal to permit advertising? Whatever other effects that will have, it will give an advantage to the few large opticians and the multiple stores that do not currently sell glasses, to the disadvantage of the small firms. That means that, yet again, the Tory Government will have put small firms out of business—
  356
  especially those that serve the country areas that the Government claim to cherish. They will suffer like the rural buses, post offices and pharmacies.
  Sight testing and eye examination are still vital parts of our National Health Service. If a small optician's shop loses its dispensing trade, it will need to charge higher fees for sight testing or be driven out of business. That sight testing service will be less accessible, and many people's eyesight will suffer.
  In short, the Government's proposals on glasses will reduce choice, abandon consumer protection, put up the price of glasses for most people and threaten the small optician's business, especially in rural areas -- and all because the Minister, as he reveals when he speaks privately to journalists, thinks of glasses as jewellery or fashion accessories. It may be that the dream world in which he lives is inhabited solely by Dame Edna Everage and Elton John, but in the real world his flippant ideas will damage a vital part of our health care system.
  The next part of the Bill deals with family practitioner committees. Under the Joseph reforms of 1973, those were linked with area health authorities for administrative purposes as part of the effort to integrate the three parts of the National Health Service — hospitals, community health services and family practitioner services.
  Having been a member of a family practitioner committee, I shall avoid making exaggerated claims about the degree of integration that has been achieved--in my experience it was small, and still less in the planning of primary care. But that does not mean that we should stop trying to achieve more, as was recommended by the Royal Commission on the National. Health Service.
  Planning the nature and distribution of health provision in a geographical area does not make much sense if the service on which most people rely is not included. We believe, therefore, that the family practitioner services should become the responsibility of district health authorities. We must, however, recognise the concern of family practitioners about that idea. They fear that full integration would result in the hospitals—especially the teaching hospitals — gobbling up part of the funds presently allocated to family practitioners. They have seen what has happened to some community health services, and they do not want it to happen to them.
  As a result, many family practitioners support the Government's proposal to move in quite the opposite direction by separating family practitioner committees from the district health authorities altogether. I believe that they are wrong. Changes within districts to give proper priority to care in the community will be required anyway, and Labour will give that a high priority. Some doctors appear to think that if they report directly to the DHSS they will somehow obtain more resources. Their idea is that getting closer to the source of funds will get them more funds—like standing nearer to the person who is doling out the treacle. I suspect that events will show that getting closer to the present incumbents at the DHSS may prove to be more like pressing closer and yet closer to a circular saw — a nerve-racking process leading to serious and possibly disastrous cuts.
  That aside, we should ask what are the Government's priorities for primary care. Is it really their view that the most pressing need is the administrative separation of FPCs? I suggest that a massive investment in the Acheson proposals to strengthen primary care in the inner cities is a higher priority. The £9 million over four years promised

  357
  by the Secretary of State is a flea bite and an insult to those working to improve primary care. Ministers might also have paid more attention to legitimate criticisms of the effectiveness of FPCs in protecting patients. Perhaps the Government could even turn their attention to the cost of drugs dispensed by general practitioners.
  Of course, there is another reason for the Government giving high priority to separating FPCs from the district health authorities. In future they propose that Ministers should appoint all the members of the FPCs. Local authority and district health authority nominees will now have to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That is yet another example of the Government taking more and more powers to interfere in local functions.
  We must still ask why the Government are becoming so blatant in abandoning the old relationship between central and local government and undermining the independence and integrity of every public body. The answer is that a diffusing of power in a plural society makes it difficult for them to carry out their overall strategy of promoting the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and weak. Most public services were established to provide for the worst-off the services that the free market would never provide. As such, those services are an affront to this Government and that is why they are being cut.
  Labour's NHS was based on two lines in Labour's election manifesto for 1945. Those two lines were:
  "the best health services should be available for all. Money must no longer be the passport to the best treatment".
  For all its faults, our NHS is, after the monarchy, the most popular institution in this country. Over the past 35 years it has proved itself superior in practice, principle and morality to anything that the Tories have to offer. As our people recognise more and more the threat to the NHS, so they cherish it more and more. They are resisting the Tory efforts to smash the NHS. Our people recognise the inherent soundness of the Socialist principles on which it was founded, and in good time they will call for them to be extended to the rest of our society.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I was tempted by the opening words of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to follow him into the byways along which he travelled before turning to the subject of the Bill. He reminded me of the prolonged and entertaining debates on bus de-licensing held at an earlier stage in the Government's career. To some extent, his remarks were relevant to our deregulating proposals for opticians. I well remember the hon. Gentleman passionately defending the licensing system in its every form, and deriding our suggestion that de-regulating express bus services might produce an improvement in services to the public. I invite him to go to any bus station and to look at the prices that the National Bus express service offers to those—mostly the less well off in our society—who wish to use it. He should look back and consider just how wrong he was then to defend a vested interest against our deregulating changes.
  I am even more tempted to engage the hon. Gentleman in a debate about hospitals in my constituency. I understand that he recently took part in a march past my constituency surgery. At least, he addressed those who
  358
  took part. A mass rally was organised by the Rushcliffe and Nottingham Labour parties which comprised about 75 people. They marched past and went to listen to the hon. Gentleman. If he had attracted more people, he might have found out more about the health services in the Nottingham region. The unopened beds in the university hospital were a legacy of the Labour Government, who planned the building of a giant hospital, but failed to allow for the revenue with which to open it. The beds are now filling up rapidly and there is an agreement with the health authority to open almost all of the remaining beds in the next two years. The position is a vast improvement on that left by the Labour Government.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spent so long on other subjects—and the same must be true of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—because he had not read or studied parts of the Bill. However, he eventually gave his reasons for opposing the part of the Bill that refers to the opticians' monopoly. The hon. Gentleman put his reservations—as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West — far less cogently than did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). My hon. Friend chose this debate in which to make his maiden speech. Of course, most Ministers would wish that newly elected Conservative Members did not make their maiden speeches on Bills about which they had the greatest reservations. However, it was obviously a sign of my hon. Friend's independence and characteristic of his approach that he should speak on a subject to which he has devoted considerable thought. He asked some very cogent questions, to which I shall attempt to give some answers, and we look forward to hearing from him again.
  With sincere respect, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard her make in the Chamber on one of the poorest cases. She frankly and fairly admitted that she was married to an optician. However, I think that it was loyalty to that profession, in which she has many friends, that led her to put its case so strongly. Of course we have not entered the debate lightly, and we are not—contrary to the claims—casting aside the public interest. However, we have reached the considered view that the present rules are badly in need of amendment, because they do not serve the public interest. Too many of them are a legacy of the past and serve only professional interests.
  My introduction to the subject was rather curious. When I took up my present job I inherited discussions that had been going on for a long time about the possible introduction of a new NHS ladies' frame. The result was the introduction of a frame which, as I recently told a group of opticians, might be called the Kenneth Clarke memorial ladies' frame. I am told that it is selling fairly well, although it reminds one of the kind of spectacles that typists wore about 10 years ago if they were getting into the prime of life behind their typewriters.
  The fault in the process was that I and my officials were presented with a rack of different frames which might be added to the NHS range and had to make a choice surrounded by people talking about the impact that it might have on their profession, their trade or their income from other parts of the service. I concluded that it was farcical for a Minister to be involved in gazing at racks of frames and trying to choose a Government approved type to be made available to ladies. I was not at all surprised to learn

  359
  that it had taken from the early 1950s until 1983 for the NHS to introduce a new frame. That experience led to the serious question of what on earth was the purpose in modern circumstances of having a state approved frame at a regulated price introduced in that way.
  My other introduction was reading the report of the Office of Fair Trading, which was devoted to the consumer interest, and considering its arguments about advertising and competition. When we put the report to the General Optical Council and the optical professions, there was no response at all —despite the cogent evidence given for the findings—except to defend the status quo. That in turn led us to question the present professional rules.
  Everyone seems to have declared an interest today. I belong to a profession which could in the past have been described as one of the most restrictive — the legal profession. Nevertheless, I am proud to belong to an independent profession and I defend the role of professions independent of Government in disciplining themselves and maintaining their own standards for the good of the public. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) pointed out, however, the public interest is the right test. The only purpose of professional rules governing groups of people admitted to a profession by qualification, as opticians are, is to protect the public against quacks. The sole purpose of the rules is to ensure that the standards delivered are those that the public expect in a serious area in which people may suffer real harm if the standards are not observed.
  The purpose of professional rules should never be the benefit of the profession itself — that is, to restrict competition, to keep up its income or to protect a monopoly that is not itself justified. The Bar used to have some extremely curious rules. If one took a case off one's circuit one had to have a junior with one. There had to be two counsel whenever there was a silk on the case. In the quarter sessions at which I first practised, prosecution briefs for pleas of guilty cases were shared out two at a time to every member of the mess through what was known as the soup system. One had to pay a fee to another circuit if one took a case off circuit, and so on. All those rules existed in my time and all were abolished, although in every case abolition was resisted by some members of the profession who produced convoluted arguments claiming that the practices were in the public interest when clearly they were not.
  Every profession should have its rules questioned occasionally, retaining only those which protect the public and sweeping away restrictive practices, of which professions may be just as guilty as trade unions or any other group with a common purpose.
  Mrs. Knight: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend has noted that not only the opticians' associations but the British Medical Association has now come out against this part of the Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: I heard what my hon. Friend said about the BMA's reservations about the advertising of professional services. I accept that certain aspects of professional services are not susceptible to advertising. The hypothetical example of a doctor advertising that he is the best for a particular complaint is not a practice that anyone is contemplating. Similarly, we are not contemplating allowing advertising for sight testing—the professional part of the service which ophthalmic
  360
  opticians provide. We shall not allow people to vie with each other about skills which the public have no means of judging. Advertising would not help that.
  The restrictions on advertising which we propose to give the Privy Council power to modify go far beyond that. At the moment, there is no advertising which allows any comparison of prices to be made. There is no advertising which allows an optician to say what hours he will be open. There is no way in which a new optician who is opening a practice can let the public know, through the local press or on the radio, that he is opening. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and others who expressed reservations to address themselves to the totally restrictive rules which the General Optical Council proposes and which we want to give powers to the Privy Council to amend in view of the wealth of evidence in the Office of Fair Trading report. How it can be sustained that flat restrictions on any form of price advertising for services do not drive up prices and restrict competition I do not understand.
  The more substantial reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and others extended to the dispensing of glasses in some cases by non-opticians to adult patients. That is a more difficult consideration as we are effectively saying that the professional qualifications which at the moment apply to the sale of lenses, frames and any other type of optical appliance ought not to be restricted and that the monopoly should be weakened.
  I return to the test which I apply and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said that we should apply to protect the health of patients and the public. A sight test is a health service. We are saying that in every case there should be a sight test which is carried out only by an ophthalmic optician or a doctor and that nobody should dispense glasses unless there has been a recent sight test on the basis of which a qualified professional person has given a prescription.
  We have also said that the dispensing of glasses to children from a prescription should always be done by a qualified optician and that the dispensing of contact lenses should always be carried out by an optician. That is a list of circumstances in which we have identified the possibility of a health risk when the public could be harmed by provision of the wrong service. In those cases the retention of professional standards is essential to the public. However, the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests that, outside those circumstances, no damage can be done to the eyesight of an adult if there is an error in the dispensing of glasses.
  If any adult buys a pair of glasses, puts them on, finds that he cannot see properly and does not realise that an error has been made and point out that error to the dispenser, I should be extremely surprised. There can be no damage to an adult if that happens. We are saying that adults should be free to choose whether to go to a dispensing optician—they are the only people who will be able to advertise themselves as opticians, as their title is protected--or to go to someone else who seems able to offer a decent service on the basis of being able to read a recent prescription and dispense glasses to the customer's satisfaction. The customer might want to compare prices before doing that.
  If we wish, we can insist that the lenses are up to British standards. We can also consider standards for frames and examine the conditions that are imposed on those who sell. however, I do not believe that we should set up a new registration or licensing system and create a new

  361
  monopoly. I simply do not believe that it is necessary, once someone has had a recent sight test and therefore a prescription, to insist that dispensing to adults can be carried out only by a registered optician.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on about every Tom, Dick and Harry selling spectacles and people buying them out of suitcases in the street. The fact remains that if somebody wants to, he can try to buy a suit in a television repair shop. There are all sorts of silly things that people can do. Adults who have a recent prescription are sensible enough to make their own choice about where to go to have their glsses made up. Most members of the public will not think that a large reputable store offering a good service should be excluded from such activity.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: If one takes a prescription to a chemist, one does not know whether the drugs have been made up in the right fashion until one has taken them and seen the consequences. Is not the parallel that one can take a prescription to a registered practitioner, in which case, why does not the Minister accept that opticians should be registered in the same way as chemists?
  Mr. Clarke: If a chemist, or a non-chemist, supplied a badly prescribed drug one could die, have serious side effects or suffer from ill health. If an adult goes into a non-optician and the prescription is not properly made up, he will not suffer any ill health. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Bland assertions in the face of all the medical evidence by those who interrupt are wrong. The overwhelming evidence is that no harm can result and one can tell, when one puts on the glasses, whether they are the same quality as before.
  Those who defend this monopoly, and they do it with vigour, are trying to preserve for opticians a stronger monopoly than that which is available for doctors. We do not give doctors an absolute monopoly for all kinds of treatment. We do not purge the osteopaths and the chiropractors and the people to whom we allow adults to go with their symptoms. Certain things are reserved to a registered medical practitioner where there is a health risk. But the opticians have a more absolute monopoly on selling their goods than doctors have in giving advice on ill health and treatment.
  The absolute right that opticians are protecting is not a professional service. They are the only people who can sell frames of any kind. Even the most expensive fashion frames, as worn by Dame Edna Everage and Elton John, can legally be sold only by registered dispensing opticians. There is no open competition. My hon Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) described the sort of healthy competition that he would wish to see. He hit the nail on the head, and will have the support of many members of the public.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went back to his familiar theme that somehow we were damaging the NHS, and I refute that. We are getting the Government and the NHS out of the business of providing types of frames and glasses. We are protecting children and those on low incomes by providing them with free glasses and lenses for the foreseeable future, until such time as the market moves in the direction in which we think that it will, when there will be no need to exclude
  362
  them from the same choice as the rest of the public, and they will be reimbursed up to a set limit and able to choose as well.
  The only change is that the better-off will pay more towards their glasses in the short term, but will gain the advantages of lower prices that competition will bring. Every subsidy to the general public for each pair of NHS glasses bought is at the moment about £5 a pair. In 81 per cent. of the cases, the subsidy is under £2 a pair and in 90 per cent. it is under £10 a pair. On average, glasses are bought about once every two years and those who pay more than that cover the small proportion of people who face any significant risk of increased payments. That will not be a significant feature.
  We are keeping in the NHS what should be kept there —free sight tests for everyone, regardless of need. That is the major health element that the NHS provides. We are keeping a free service for those who may need it, such as children, although many children already wear non-NHS frames, and a free service for the exempt groups. There have always been exempt groups because there have always been charges for everyone else — charges introduced by a past Labour Government.
  Those who are expressing worries are mainly concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston conceded, with the effect on opticians. The effect on opticians of this move will be the same as the effect on bus operators of what we did before. Some will become more prosperous, some less. Some practices will grow and some will fail. I do not accept what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) said—that only the big opticians will prosper. Those who prosper will be those who provide a good service for their customers both in price and quality. That is how it should be, and that is what we propose.
  I want to say a brief word about the later parts of the Bill. First, I want to mention the family practitioner committees. We debated the subject in the last Parliament. This provision was excluded at the time of the general election, because the Labour party was then opposed to it.
  Everyone agrees that the present arrangements for family practitioner committees are a nonsense. Everyone wanted to change the present arrangements, some in the direction of making the FPCs sub-committees of the district health authorities, others giving them the independent status that we have always preferred. We prefer the independent status, because we believe that the importance of primary health care within the NHS justifies putting it in the hands of specialist committees who will concentrate on that aspect of care alone. In that way, it will not run the risk of being subordinated to the interests of the much larger hospital service and all the lobbies within that service.
  The Opposition chose to turn the whole debate into an argument about our power of appointment. At one stage, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) agreed with a proposition from his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that we would appoint people to the family practitioner committees as a compensation for failing to get knighthoods. They would not be such attractive appointments. Moreover, the appointments will be made from the names that are put forward by the professions, local authorities, health authorities and other bodies which my right hon. Friend will be obliged to consult. The Opposition want to prevent us making from appointments in that way, and want the committees to be

  363
  subordinate to the health authorities—the regional health authorities, in particular—all of whose members we already appoint. So that is not a significant point.
  The more substantial points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), in his thoughtful speech. He knows far more about primary care than most hon. Members know. May I give him the assurance that in making them employing authorities we are talking about their administrative staff and those whom they directly employ. We are not intending to alter the independent contractor status of the professions. I accept everything that my hon. Friend says about the need to encourage closer collaboration with the district health authorities. It is a danger that we have to face and avoid. If more than four district health authorities coincide in an FPC, we take powers either to enlarge the FPC or to use the seven members who can be nominated by the Secretary of State. In particular, we have set up a joint working group between the health authorities and the FPCs to advise us on how we can improve collaboration between the different parts of the service. That group will report early next year. We shall issue guidelines following that. We shall put the new FPCs on the joint consultative committees, get them involved in joint planning with health authorities and local authorities, and try to make them effective and responsive bodies that will play their part in a properly co-ordinated service.
  Incidentally, we also intend to open up the proceedings of the FPCs to the same access by community health councils that those councils now have on behalf of consumers into the activities of district health authorities.
  Finally, I want to mention the severe disablement allowance, which was the subject of a number of speeches. An extraordinary debate has been conducted against it, with an attack mounted on it by many people who are interested in the disabled, making it sound as though it were a retrograde step. In fact, it makes two worthwhile improvements to the present system. Everyone has had to acknowledge that they are improvements and a step in the right direction. The first improvement is that we are ending the discrimination against married women that was implicit in the household duties test, and we are doing that in a way that brings 20,000 more people into benefit, at an additional cost of £20 million, compared with the present situation. Disappointment we understand, and we must always expect worthwhile claims to be made for those who see other directions in which we might eventually go, but to say that those improvements are so disappointing that they must be opposed is quite extraordinary. It is particularly extraordinary when it comes from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who made the third Opposition Front Bench speech. After all, he was the one who introduced the household duties test, accurately described by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) as sexist.
  Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, so I shall not give way to him.
  Mr. Morris rose—
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister is giving way.
  Mr. Morris rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister and he knows—
  Mr. Morris rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Clarke: It is the household duties test—
  Mr. Morris rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to sit down.
  Mr. Clarke: The household duties test—
  Mr. Morris: Give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Morris rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to sit down.
  Mr. Clarke: The household duties test—the right hon. Member does not wish to be reminded -- was introduced by him. It has—
  Mr. Morris rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Clarke: The household duties test, which could perhaps be described as the Morris test, is now to be abolished amidst general satisfaction. There will be more gainers than losers as a result of the change.
  Mr. Morris rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
  Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman was responsible, and it is humbug for him to oppose: a desirable, limited new benefit as if it were some kind of setback for the disabled and not a desirable feature of a very desirable Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 188.

  Division No. 112]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Body, Richard

  Alexander, Richard

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Amess, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Ancram, Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Arnold, Tom

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brinton, Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

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

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Browne, John

  Baldry, Anthony

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Beggs, Roy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Budgen, Nick

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Best, Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Butcher, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  365

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Knowles, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knox, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Lang, Ian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lester, Jim

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lightbown, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Conway, Derek

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Coombs, Simon

  Lord, Michael

  Cope, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Corrie, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Couchman, James

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Critchley, Julian

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Crouch, David

  MacGregor, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Dicks, T.

  Maclean, David John.

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Dover, Denshore

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Dunn, Robert

  Madel, David

  Durant, Tony

  Major, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Malins, Humfrey

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Malone, Gerald

  Eggar, Tim

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Mather, Carol

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Favell, Anthony

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Merchant, Piers

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Forth, Eric

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Moate, Roger

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fry, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moore, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mudd, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Murphy, Christopher

  Greenway, Harry

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Newton, Tony

  Grylls, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Nicholson, J.

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Normanton, Tom

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Norris, Steven

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Hayes, J.

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hayward, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Henderson, Barry

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Parris, Matthew

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hooson, Tom

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hordern, Peter

  Pollock, Alexander

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, Barry

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powley, John

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, Sir David

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  366

  Raffan, Keith

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Renton, Tim

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Trippier, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Waddington, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Silvester, Fred

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Watson, John

  Speed, Keith

  Watts, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Spence, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Spencer, D.

  Wheeler, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Whitfield, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Squire, Robin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stokes, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Mr. David Hunt and

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clay, Robert

  Anderson, Donald

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Coleman, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Barnett, Guy

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cowans, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blair, Anthony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Deakins, Eric

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dixon, Donald

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dormand, Jack

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Douglas, Dick

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Campbell, Ian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Eadie, Alex

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Eastham, Ken

  Cartwright, John

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

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  367

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mikardo, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flannery, Martin

  Nellist, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Brien, William

  Forrester, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foster, Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foulkes, George

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Park, George

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Parry, Robert

  Freud, Clement

  Patchett, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Pendry, Tom

  Golding, John

  Pike, Peter

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Prescott, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Randall, Stuart

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Redmond, M.

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Haynes, Frank

  Robertson, George

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Ryman, John

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  John, Brynmor

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

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles

  Smith, C.(1sl'ton S & F'bury)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Snape, Peter

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Soley, Clive

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W isles)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Loyden, Edward

  Tinn, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Torney, Tom

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McKelvey, William

  Wareing, Robert

  McNamara, Kevin

  Weetch, Ken

  McTaggart, Robert

  White, James

  McWilliam, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Madden, Max

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Marek, Dr John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Martin, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Woodall, Alec

  Maxton, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Michie, William

  Mr. John Home Robertson.

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Goodlad.]

  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health and Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the provisions of the said Act, including any increase attributable to those provisions in sums so payable under any other Act. — [Mr. Goodlad.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY
  Resolved.
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health and Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, under the Social Security Act 1975, are to be taken as paid towards the cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

  Social Security
  10.15 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following motions:
  That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
  Dr. Boyson: The draft orders to which the motions refer, together with the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 5) Regulations 1983 which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 14 November, are the result of what is known as the contributions re-rating exercise for 1984–85. The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) and the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 1983, the latter of which my right hon. Friend made on 15 November, also deal with the amount of contributions to be paid next year. With the leave of the House, therefore, I shall discuss these five instruments together.
  We have had a social security day today. Last night we discussed housing benefits for three hours. A statutory instrument was discussed in Committee this morning. This evening we have debated the Health and Social Security Bill. Now we are to discuss the re-rating of national insurance contributions.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker rose—
  Dr. Boyson: I shall not allow myself to be tempted to tangle with the hon. Gentleman.
  As hon. Members will know, the Social Security Act 1975 requires my right hon. Friend to carry out a review each year of the general level of earnings. At the same time, he reviews the state of the national insurance fund, as he is empowered to do by the same Act. The purpose of this exercise in good housekeeping is to make sure that the money coining into the fund is sufficient to pay for benefits whilst maintaining an appropriate level of balance to guard against unexpected adverse contingencies. The report of the Government Actuary on the effect of the proposed changes was laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November, as required by the Act.
  The first changes that I will discuss are those to the lower and upper earnings limits for employees' and employers' contributions. The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 requires the lower earnings limit to be equal to, or no more than 49p below, the basic pension rate, and the upper limit to be between 6·5 and 7·5 times that rate. A pension rate of £34·05 next year therefore points unavoidably to a lower earnings limit of £34 per week, if we are to follow the usual practice of dealing in multiples of 50p. The upper earnings limit permits a little more discretion: a figure of up to £255 per week is possible. However, an increase to £250 would be more in line with the movement of earnings. This would be 7·3 times the basic pension rate, towards the top of the permitted range of 6·5 and 7·5 times. This is, therefore, what is proposed.
  370
  Of course, most people have earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits and so will be virtually unaffected by these changes; their contributions will rise only in so far as their wages rise. The contributions of employees with weekly earnings of over £235 per week will increase by up to £1·35 per week—up to £1·07 per week in the case of contracted-out employees. For married women and widows paying at the reduced rate on earnings of more than £235 a week, the maximum weekly increase will be 57p.
  Similarly, employers will have to pay increased contributions for employees on high earnings; the maximum increase will be £1·71 in respect of not contracted-out employees and £1·17 for others.
  It will be most convenient for hon. Members if I now deal with the No. 6 and No. 7 Amendment Regulations, the only other instruments which directly affect class 1 contributions. As hon. Members will know, lower contribution rates are payable for certain mariners and for serving members of Her Majesty's Forces because of the particular features of their employment which affect their national insurance position. For various reasons, including the falling numbers of claims to sickness benefit generally and the introduction of statutory sick pay from 1 April this year, it is proposed, through these instruments, to adjust the levels of abatement in the light of advice from the Government Actuary. I should add, in case any hon. Member should raise the question, that the social security advisory council is content with these changes.
  Mr. Rooker: Social security advisory committee.
  Dr. Boyson: I am always glad to be helped by the hon. Gentleman, whom we have now lost from social security. His advice was always helpful to me on these occasions, but he does not seem to recognise gratitude when it is offered to him. We are living in sorry times.
  I come now to the self-employed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman comes into that category. Members will be aware that self-employed people pay their contributions in two parts, the flat-rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. As it is not proposed to increase the class 1 rate, it follows that no increase is needed in the class 4 rate, which is derived from it. The profits limits for class 4 contributions rise automatically each year like the earnings limits for class 1 contributions. The figures proposed for next year are £3,950 and £13,000, the latter figure being 52 times the upper earning limit.
  The formula for determining the class 2 rate gives a figure of £4·80 a week. However, for the last two years we have set the rate at a figure 20p below that given by the formula and we propose to continue this practice this year with a weekly rate of £4·60. The small earnings exception from class 2 liability also rises automatically —in this case from £1,775 to £1,850 a year.
  The proposed voluntary class 3 rate is, as usual, 10p below the class 2 rate, giving a figure of £4·50 a week from next April.
  The last change which is being proposed is the reduction in the Treasury supplement from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent. The Government Actuary's report shows the estimated effect of this and the other changes under discussion on the national insurance fund. The Government Actuary estimates that the balance in the fund at the end of 1983–84 will be £4,280 million and that this

  371
  figure will increase to £4,480 million by the end of 1984–85 if we make the proposed changes. In other words, the balance at the end of 1983–84 will represent 21·7 per cent. of benefit expenditure during the year and a year later the equivalent figure will be 21·6 per cent. Both those figures are comfortably above the minimum level, of one sixth of the benefit expenditure, recommended by the Government Actuary.
  The reduction in the Treasury supplement will also mean that national insurance contributors will bear a slightly increased proportion of the cost of contributory benefits. This I stress, because it was a point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in the debate last year. I believe that he will speak for the Opposition this year, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) having moved to become Treasury spokesman to keep an eye on him.
  Mr. Rooker: His minder.
  Dr. Boyson: Yes, his minder, as the Opposition recognise. However, when we look at all social security benefit expenditure, the balance in recent years has been moving from the contributor towards the taxpayer. Over recent years we have moved to more non-contributory benefits. The hon. Member for Birkenhead raised the point last year. He is always consistent, which is why I am stressing this point, otherwise, he will ask me questions towards the end. He may still, but I make that point now.
  It means that 50 per cent. of total social security expenditure comes from the state as against only 45·1 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government in 1978–79. In 1984–85 we are reducing this to 49 per cent., a reduction of 1 per cent. It will still mean that the proportion of total social security expenditure that will come directly from the state and not the contributors will be 3-9 percentage points higher than in 1978–79. I mention this because I am sure the hon. Member will take the matter up at some later date, if not tonight. I wish the hon. Member would listen because I always find his arguments interesting and stimulating, and it helps if we are talking about the same thing from time to time. I would be delighted to debate on some platform the question where we are as compared with where Beveridge intended us to be because, with all this contributory and non-contributory argument, I can think of no one better to debate it with than the hon. Gentleman.
  We may need a debate as to how the percentage provided by the state compared with the percentage intended by Beveridge. The share covered by the state has greatly increased since the 1960s from 34·9 per cent. in 1965–66 at the time of the Labour Government to 50 per cent. in 1983–84. All we shall do by this 2 per cent. reduction in the Treasury supplement is to reduce to 49 per cent. the amount coming from the state as its share of the global expenditure on social security. One major difference is that we now have an openly pay-as-you-go scheme as against the actuarially based scheme intended at times by Beveridge, and there has been a massive growth in Exchequer-finance expenditure.
  Those are the changes that we are proposing. For the first time in several years, it is not proposed to increase the class 1 or class 4 contribution rate, and I believe this will be as welcome to the majority of hon. Members present as it is to employers and employees.
  The two orders and three sets of regulations are the result of a necessary exercise in care and maintenance to
  372
  keep the national insurance contributory system up to date and to make sure that money is available to pay for benefits. It is on this basis that I commend them to the House.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: Although the House is debating three orders, I wish to concentrate on the one that changes the Treasury supplement. While concentrating on one order, I wish to show that it forms part of a consistent pattern under the Government of bringing forward changes in national insurance regulations that have shifted the burden of taxation to poorer people and those on average earnings from those who are richer. Whereas in this Parliament and the last Parliament it does not have the sort of appeal it used to have on the Government Benches, I also wish to show, by looking at the orders tonight and those that have preceded it from 1979, that they all helped to undermine three key election pledges made by Conservative Governments not only in 1983 but in 1974.
  In those two manifestos the Government gave three clear commitments. One was to increase the incentive to work. I wish to argue that these orders, along with other orders the House has considered since 1979, have decreased the incentive to work. I wish to argue that, far from fulfilling the election manifesto pledge of decreasing taxation, the orders the House is now considering and other orders that it has considered since 1979 have increased the burden of taxation. Far from meeting the Conservative manifesto pledge of giving value for money, these measures and previous ones give the lie to that pledge.
  I said at the outset that I would concentrate on the Treasury supplement. Changes in that supplement have shifted the burden of taxation from different groups in the population and have resulted in a decrease in the incentive to work. The Minister said that he would like to debate at some time the position that we have reached today compared with the position which Beveridge thought we should have reached today. As we cannot debate these matters tonight for more than an hour and a half, I will limit my comments to where Beveridge thought we should be today in respect of the Treasury supplement.
  Surprisingly, given the detail of the Beveridge report, it contained no specific figure for the Treasury supplement in the years following the establishment of the welfare state. There was a figure, however, in the White Paper that followed the Beveridge report. It was suggested in that that by 1975 — there were no figures beyond 1975 — the Treasury supplement should be about 67 per cent. of total national insurance expenditure.
  In the last year of Labour Government, the Treasury supplement made up 18 per cent. of the national insurance fund. If this instrument is approve tonight, the Government will have reduced that share from the Treasury to 11 per cent. Thus, more money is to be raised by way of national insurance contributions, and of all the forms of taxation that we have, that is the most regressive in the British fiscal system, because the threshold is so low. For a worker with children, the national insurance threshold is below the supplementary benefit poverty line and way below the eligibility point for family income supplement.
  It is regressive also in the sense that national insurance contributions are collected in the way in which income tax used to be collected under the old exemption system; as

  373
  soon as one passes the threshold, not just additional income but all one's income becomes taxable. As one passes the £34 threshold, not just the additional £ 1 becomes liable to the national insurance surcharge, but every £1, including the first that one earned. If that were not enough to make this form of taxation regressive, we have not only a low threshold, but a ceiling on contributions as a result of which, as contributions are increased, those on the highest earnings pay relatively less than those on lower earnings.
  The Government are therefore seeking permission tonight for a decrease in the Treasury supplement, and as that process has continued since 1979, the Government have had to seek increases in the rates of contribution. They made much of the fact that the rates would not be increased, but it is instructive to consider the way in which they have changed the balance, not just between the Treasury contribution and those who are making contributions as employers and employees, but also between the employer and employee.
  When the Conservatives assumed office, the employer's contribution was 10 per cent. It now stands at 10·45 per cent., and if one adds in the surcharge, the cost to employers of the national insurance fund has fallen. I hope that hon. Members, including my hon. Friends, will say that that is a welcome development, as would anybody who is concerned with increasing the number of jobs in society. But is it fair to shift the burden not only from the Treasury to contributors but within the contributors' sector, from employers to employees, in the way that the Government have? When the Conservatives came to office, the national insurance contribution for those of us in work was 6·5 per cent. Today it stands at 9 per cent.
  That is not the end of the sorry tale. The Government have set out to raise a greater percentage of all revenue from this most regressive of all forms of taxation. When the Conservatives came to office in 1979, for each £100 of taxation raised by other forms of taxation, the national insurance fund raised an additional £64. If these instruments are approved, for each £100 of revenue raised by all other forms of taxation, the national insurance fund will contribute an additional £70. That is the magnitude of the shift in the burden of taxation to the national insurance fund. The result is that the level of taxation has increased for most income groups. but especially for the poor. The national insurance contribution rates have increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. The Government have helped to deepen the poverty trap, and have thus gone back on their election pledges of 1983 and 1979 to increase incentives to work.
  I hope, therefore, that I have established my first point. By looking at the shift in the burden of taxation I have tried to explain who is contributing a greater proportion to the national insurance fund today than in 1979. That is not the entire tale behind the three instruments. Along with higher contributions have gone lower benefits, and sometimes no benefits at all. That policy hardly squares with the promises made at the 1979 and 1983 elections that there would be value for money. That was to be one of the key principles of Tory policy.
  I shall briefly remind the House why, on the one hand, we have been paying more into the national insurance fund, and how on the other hand we are getting fewer benefits as a result of the increase in taxation. Some
  374
  benefits have been scrapped altogether. The industrial injury benefit and the earnings-related supplement to short-term national insurance benefits have disappeared. The invalidity pension and the maternity and sickness benefits have been cut in value, although the Government prefer the word "abatement". Labour's pledge to increase long-term benefits in line with earnings of prices has gone. If that pledge had been held by the Government, the national insurance pension for a single person would stand not at £34 but at £37.
  The second point that I have sought to establish is that those of us who are paying higher contributions throughout the country have received lower benefits. That hardly squares with the Government's election promises to give value for money.
  Perhaps we should be making an even more serious charge against the Government. The national insurance contribution increases have resulted in practically the whole of the increase in the tax burden since 1979. We well recall the pledges in both elections that the Government's aim was to decrease taxation.
  An interesting reply was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) recently, when he asked what the burden of taxation was on different income groups since 1979. I do not think that I am misrepresenting the reply when I say that it showed that practically all groups had seen an increase in the burden of taxation since 1979, except the very rich. After seeing the answer, I asked the Library to re-work my hon. Friend's answer and to establish what the burden of taxation would be if the national insurance contribution of those in work had been not increased but held at the level when the Labour Government left office. Once those calculations are to hand, one sees that the Tory Government would have fulfilled their election pledge of reducing taxation not just for the very rich but for all groups, especially those with families, had there been no increase in the national insurance contributions since 1979. We are debating three instruments in a series dating from 1979, which have undermined one of the key planks of Government policy—to reduce the burden of taxation not just for the very rich but for every worker in the land.
  I end my speech by referring to another parliamentary reply. that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who wanted to know what had been the extent of tax cuts since 1979 on those earning more than £30,000 per year. The Government's reply was staggering. Each of the very rich in our society has had a reduction in his tax burden since 1979 of £9,260, compared with an increase in the burden of taxation—largely through the national insurance contribution increases—that has hit virtually every other worker.
  The Opposition will vote against the instruments because they increase the tax burden on those least able to bear it—those people whose benefits have also been cut. If our appeal to shift the burden of taxation from the weakest in our society does not appeal to Conservative Members, I hope that they will recognise that these instruments, which are part of a pattern introduced since 1979, undermine three crucial Conservative election pledges.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It is absurd for the Opposition to argue that simply because a Labour Government levied a wholly unrealistic and unreasonable

  375
  rate of tax we should do realistic sums based on how much it has been reduced. There is no doubt that the higher rates of tax levied in Britain have been levied by Labour Governments — they were absurdly high, and much higher than those levied by our more successful competitors abroad.
  I am one of many Conservative Members who wait for the second part of Conservative policy to come home to roost. We promised to do our utmost to release the inventiveness of our people. We can do that by ensuring that the large numbers who are now bravely venturing into working for themselves can look forward to a tax and insurance package that makes it profitable for them to be self-employed—especially in the early years when it is difficult for them to make ends meet and to keep their heads above water. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that he will look closely at the position of the self-employed, especially those at the lower end of the income scale.
  We have waited rather a long time for the fulfilment of the pledge of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would release Britain from its dependence on Truck. Many people receive benefits in kind. When all our social services are under the pressure of the need to reduce expenditure, we should look closely at the practice whereby people receive benefits in kind to an extent which distorts the economy and makes it difficult for people to make the choices about how they spend their money that are essential to a healthy society. If we did that, we could release the spare resources to redeem the pledge of the Chancellor—which gave me great pleasure—that his first priority would be to take those on the lowest incomes out of tax altogether. That is overdue. Far too many people are trapped in tax and national insurance contributions that only deepen the poverty trap. On that point, I accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Our biggest problem is the extraordinary disincentive to work. It is not that people willingly give up working in exchange for a life on the state. Many of us know from our daily constituency correspondence that people are forced to make an entirely rational decision to stop work.
  There was a watershed in the history of British society when it became apparent that a penny on income tax would yield more than increasing the rates of higher taxation. Similarly, there will be another watershed if tax is removed from the poorest in our society, so that many of them can return to the labour market in a Conservative way that is good for human dignity. I very much hope that this necessary move tonight is only one step towards redeeming the pledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his autumn statement, when he said that before long a substantial number of people would be removed from tax altogether.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I shall not take up his remarks, save to say that he has a point about the burden being endured by the self-employed. There are not many obvious increases in the orders, but the burden, particularly of national insurance contributions, has become unacceptably high.
  I should like to ask the Government some questions about the Government Actuary's report. I am not experienced in perusing such documents, but in table 2,
  376
  on page 4, there seems to he a quite significant increase in the cost of administering the national insurance fund. The administration costs for 1983–84 are there shown as £707 million, while the administration costs for 1984–85 are shown as £761 million. That is a significant increase of more than £1 million per week, if my understanding of table two is correct, perhaps it is not an increase of £54 million, and my ignorance and inexperience have led me to make a mistake. However, if I am right, it is an astonishing sum of money, I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
  I confess, again, that I am relatively inexperienced in interpreting the figures. It seems that the surpluses shown in table 2—£257 million in 1983–84 and £200 million in 1984–85 — represent considerable sums. There is a substantial balance in fund of £4,280 million for 1983–84, and a substantial projected balance of £4,480 million for 1984–85. I am aware that the Government Actuary has recommended that something like 16·6 per cent. of the total benefit expenditure must be held in reserve, and that is only sensible. However, it has been said that we are on target for 21·6 or 21·7 per cent. of benefit expenditure. That gives a leeway of 5 per cent., which is a lot of money in this context. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
  I shall follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who showed in exemplary fashion that the system of taxation under discussion today is regressive. I believe that it is wrong to shift the burden further from the Exchequer to the contributors and to place a greater burden on employees than on employers. The hon. Gentleman certainly proved to my satisfaction that over the distance there has been an increase in the total taxation burden for all groups when national insurance fund contributions are included.
  Since 1979, class 1 contributions have increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. The Minister may try today to make a virtue of the fact that there is no further increase, but he must accept that the increase since 1979 is not insignificant.
  Like the hon. Member for Mid-Kent, I appreciate that there is pressure on people in self-employed classes 2 and 4. The Government would do well to consider not just saying complacently that they are glad not to have to increase the contributions further but actually looking for ways to reduce them.
  As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the Treasury supplement has already fallen from 18 per cent. to 13 per cent. and the Government now seek a further reduction to 11 per cent. that is an unfair sharing of the burden between contributors and taxpayers and a disincentive to work.
  The reduction of the Treasury supplement from 18 per cent. to 11 per cent. before contracted-out contributions are taken into account will seriously affect pensions. The Select Committee on Social Services and the Social Security Advisory Committee in its second annual report, both highlighted the future problems for people with very little earnings-related contribution in their pensions. A gulf will inevitably open up between those people and younger people on earnings-related pensions as the present scheme matures. The oldest will thus be the poorest in terms of national insurance pensions until all those born before 1933 have died. How do the Government intend to deal with that problem if they wish to reduce the Treasury contribution to the national insurance fund still further?

  377
  On 30 November I attended a seminar organised by the Institute of Actuaries at which an actuary, Mr. G. T. Pepper, pointed out that the cost of national insurance pensions was expected to rise from about 9·5 per cent. of total wages and salaries to 19 per cent. in about 50 years. That is a 100 per cent. increase. At the same conference, the Government Actuary estimated that contributions would ultimately increase by about 50 per cent. That assumed a Treasury supplement of 13 per cent., however, and it is now proposed to reduce the supplement to 11 per cent. It also assumed unemployment at pre-recession levels.
  As the Select Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee stressed, a long-term problem will inevitably arise. There will be a serious shortfall in the long-term when pensions must be produced by the national insurance contributions system. Far from decreasing the amount of money that comes from the Treasury supplement, the Government might be forced to find resources and should be considering the long-term increase necessary to cover that problem if no other.
  Because of the regressiveness of the proposals, the strength of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the fact that we believe that the Government have reneged on their promises and the lack of long-term planning which we believe is necessary, we shall be voting in the No Lobby.
  10.55 pm
  Dr. Boyson: I shall be short and sharp. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have put the arguments backwards and forwards. I am not sure that we have convinced one another, but at least we now know where the arguments lie.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned the cost of the national insurance contribution scheme. Its running costs have increased by about 8 per cent. this year as there are more demands on staffing and general costs. The balance in the fund at any time is really enough for only about 10 weeks' expenditure on benefits. That seems reasonable. Most businesses run on larger balances but that is what the Government Actuary has accepted and we work with him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) mentioned helping the self-employed. I received his message. Like the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), he mentioned the work traps. I remain in political sympathy on that matter with my hon. Friend who reminded our party of the direction which we should take. I am not sure that I find myself completely in sympathy with the hon. Member for Birkenhead although I respect his views. I appreciate the point about the regressiveness of taxation.
  Under the Labour Government, the employer's contribution was increased from about 8·5 per cent. to 12·6 per cent., while the employee's contribution increased by only 1 per cent. We have balanced those contributions up, although that might not be popular with some Opposition Members. The incentive to work concerns both sides of the House. The Exchequer contribution to the fund is not the total extent of Government expenditure. If we reached a stage when 44 per cent. of the fund was paid for by the Government, it would be a burden.
  Mr. Field: The contribution should have been increased.
  Dr. Boyson: It has been increased by some pressures. If we listened to Opposition Members it would have been increased much more. The whole thing would have gone mad if we had followed their advice. I hate to say such things just before the Christmas season.
  The change is simply a 2 per cent. reduction in the Exchequer's contribution to the national insurance fund and a restoration to 49 per cent., as opposed to 50 per cent., of the total amount of social security expenditure which is paid for by the Exchequer. Insurance benefits cannot be separated from the rest.
  I have a list of 12 non-contributory benefits which have completely altered the balance. I shall not go through that list as it is coming up to 11 pm, which I understand is a significant time this evening. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the order, whether it be because of the strength of the arguments or because they want to enable the Opposition to have a good sleep so that they can make better arguments tomorrow.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]
  Motion made anti Question proposed,
  That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 90.

  Division No. 113]

  [11 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Budgen, Nick

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Anthony

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Colvin, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Cope, John

  Best, Keith

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Dicks, T.

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Body, Richard

  Dover, Denshore

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fallon, Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Farr, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Favell, Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brinton, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Crthpes)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

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

  379

  Grist, Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Grylls, Michael

  Pollock, Alexander

  Gummer, John Selwyn

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

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Powley, John

  Harris, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hayes, J.

  Raffan, Keith

  Heddle, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Henderson, Barry

  Renton, Tim

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Holt, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hooson, Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howard, Michael

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lang, Ian

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lester, Jim

  Sims, Roger

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamfd)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Speller, Tony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spencer, D.

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maclean, David John.

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Madel, David

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Major, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maude, Francis

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Merchant, Piers

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Miller, Hal (B grove)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Moate, Roger

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moore, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Viggers, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Waddington, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nelson. Anthony

  Walden, George

  Newton, Tony

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Nicholson, J.

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steven

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watson, John

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, John

  380

  Whitfield, John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Whitney, Raymond

  Yeo, Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Michael Neubert

  Wood, Timothy

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  John, Brynmor

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Barron, Kevin

  Kennedy, Charles

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Beith, A. J.

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Blair, Anthony

  Loyden, Edward

  Boyes, Roland

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McKelvey, William

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm

  McTaggart, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McWilliam, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Clay, Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Maxton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Michie, William

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Nellist, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Park, George

  Craigen, J. M.

  Parry, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Penhaligon, David

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

  Pike, Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dobson, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Dorrnand, Jack

  Redmond, M.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Robertson, George

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Eastham, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Stott, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Strang, Gavin

  George, Bruce

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Wareing, Robert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

  Fisheries (Northern Ireland)
  11.12 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
  That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
  This matter of inland fisheries administration in Northern Ireland has been the subject of much debate for some considerable time, including discussion in the Northern Ireland Committee of this House. Although it has also been a controversial issue, I hope that the House will accept a relatively brief explanation of the development of the draft order.
  When the present Fisheries Act was introduced in 1966 it provided for the establishment of the fisheries conservancy board. This board was to have, as its prime responsibility, the conservation and protection of salmon and inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, except for an area administered by the Foyle fisheries commission. The 1966 Act also provided that the Department of Agriculture should have overall responsibility for the development and management of inland fisheries.
  The passage of time and experience of working arrangements of the Act highlighted the desirability of certain amendments, and in 1977 the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), set up a committee of inquiry chaired by Professor R. D. C. Black of Queen's University Belfast. Its purpose was to examine the administration of inland fisheries provisions in the Act, and to recommend any changes that might seem desirable. Although the future of angling was given special prominence in the committee's remit, it was clearly instructed to cover all relevant issues and to try to resolve the acknowledged conflicting interests.
  In its report the Black committee recommended that a unified structure for inland fisheries administration would be desirable. However, the committee was divided on how this should be achieved. A majority recommended that all functions — conservation, protection, development and management—should be brought together under a new inland fisheries board, but a minority took an entirely contrary view and recommended that all functions should be co-ordinated under the Department of Agriculture. This fundamental disagreement among members of the committee reflected a similar lack of consensus among interested parties throughout the Province and for this reason the main recommendation of the report to set up an independent fisheries board proved unacceptable to Ministers. During the two years following the Black report the Government — I took an active part — undertook further discussions with all interest groups in an attempt to resolve conflicting views and find a satisfactory solution. In April 1983 an alternative strategy in the form of a proposal for a draft order was published. By this time the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly had undertaken an examination of the issues. Following a series of hearings at which evidence was taken from various interests, the Committee — to its great credit — achieved a wide measure of consensus and produced a report that was subsequently endorsed by the full Assembly. Finally, the matter was debated in the Northern Ireland Committee, at which I indicated that the
  382
  Government were strongly inclined to accept most of the Assembly's recommendations. Indeed, since then, my noble Friend has incorporated significant amendments in the draft which is before the House.
  The first two articles contain no provisions of substance. I shall deal with articles 3 and 4 in reverse order as this will make it easier to explain their purpose.
  Article 4 and its related schedule provides for the fisheries conservancy board to be retained but to be increased in size from 15 to a maximum of 24 members and for an executive committee to be established. The increase in size is to permit previously unrepresented interests to have their say in fisheries matters. For the first time, three farming representatives will sit on the board, and industry, sport and local government will have one representative each. Also, in future two of the six angling representatives on the board will be independent anglers, anglers who do not belong to clubs that are affiliated to the Northern Ireland angling advisory council. The remaining four angling delegates will continue to be representative of other club anglers. Also, the deputy chairman, instead of being the representative of the Department of Agriculture as at present, will be an independent member nominatee by the head of the Department—in effect, by the Minister. Numerical representation for commerical fishing companies, commercial fishermen and tourism will be unchanged. Finally, there is a provision for the board to nominate a further two members to represent any significant interest groups that they consider have not already been adequately catered for.
  The board will be too large to concern itself with day-to-day management matters, and so the legislation also provides for an executive committee of from three to six members. The committee will comprise the chairman and/ or deputy chairman of the main board and others chosen by the board from among its members. This committee will have specific responsibility for financial matters and for directing the permanent staff of the board. This arrangement should maximise efficiency in the control of illegal fishing and the investigation of pollution incidents.
  Article 3 deals with the functions of the new board and provides that these should include not only conservation and protection but the provision of advice to Government on matters relating to salmon and inland fisheries. Originally the Government intended to set up a new body —the inland fisheries advisory committee—to provide advice, but as the proposed new FCB is to be widely representative it will now be able to fulfil this function instead. That is done by the present board, albeit from a less representative standpoint. The Minister will be required to consult the board on all major matters. The article also provides that the board should retain responsibility for the protection of salmon at sea unless directed otherwise by the head of the Department. This provision, while it does not change the present arrangements, allows for a rationalisation in this area should that become desirable. The only other substantive provision in this article is that contained in the new section 25(2). At present, the board's functions include the improvement of fisheries. Article 3 contains a wider provision, which would allow not only improvement work to be undertaken but any other inland fisheries function which the head of the Department might specify.
  Article 5 would enable the Government to introduce a supplementary levy on fishing licences by means of an appointed day order. There are no plans at present to

  383
  introduce such a levy, and before doing so the fisheries conservancy board would be consulted on the level of any proposed fees. There will be no supplement on licences in the immediate future and I hope that Members will be reassured on this issue by my noble Friend's recent announcement that, pending a review of the financing of inland fisheries, permit charges are to be held at 1983 levels for the coming angling season. It would of course be counter-productive if an increase in licence fees invoked the law of diminishing returns, but on the other hand it is reasonable to look to those who benefit from the sport to make a proper contribution to the funding of it.
  Article 6 has no provisions of substance and merely provides for the removal from the 1966 Act of certain obsolete provisions.
  I hope that it will have been noted from this review of the provisions of the draft order that most of the changes sought by the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Committee have been accommodated. There are two areas where change has been sought and where the Government, while maintaining their basic position, have been disposed to alter their policy to some extent. The first of these—the provision for a supplementary levy on fishing licences —I have already dealt with. The second is the question of public water management.
  As a subsidiary but relevant point, I would like to first say something about the role of angling clubs in the development of angling facilities. At present grant-aid is available to clubs to carry out improvement and development work on their waters, provided that they have security of tenure and provided that there is a measure of access for the public, for example on a daily permit basis. Both in evidence to the Assembly and in the Northern Ireland Committee debate, I acknowledged the valuable role that clubs have to play in the promotion of angling. I have encouraged them to take greater advantage of the assistance available to them. Some clubs may want to extend their waters if so, although their is no specific reference in the order to enable the role of clubs to be extended, the Government would be prepared to consider entering into agreement with clubs, whereby, for example, some under-utilised public waters could be leased to the clubs under certain circumstances. The primary requirement for such an agreement would, of course, be that access for the general public to such facilities would be safeguarded. I believe that the clubs have a responsibility in that area. They have a particular expertise, and because of the voluntary labour that they can use, they tend to be able to do the job cost-effectively. I hope that they will take advantage of the opportunities available to them in the legislation, to which I referred a few moments ago.
  Among the recommendations that emanated from the Assembly on the management of public waters was a proposal that the Department and the board should consider how the Department's public water management function might be transferred to the board, on an agency basis, without leading to any overall increase in staff or public expenditure. My noble Friend—as I did before him— has given a great deal of consideration to this issue. As with any proposal, there are arguments for and against it. Staffing and public expenditure considerations point to a maintenance of the status quo on public water management, as do several other considerations.
  I shall say more about those considerations shortly, but I want to make it clear that the Government are satisfied that the arguments against a transfer of the management
  384
  function at present must be regarded as conclusive. Nevertheless, my noble Friend does not rule out the possibility of a reassessment of the position in the future should circumstances warrant it. I have already explained how article 3 of the order would allow the board to he given agency responsibilities. I should now like to say something about the circumstances in which use might be made of this provision with regard to public water management.
  The FCB is first and foremost a conservancy body. It receives agency payments from the Department of Agriculture and from the Department of the Environment, but its basic source of finance is licence revenue. That revenue is contributed by all fishermen—commercial as well as angling— and those fishermen are entitled to expect the board to deliver the goods in terms of conserving and protecting the Province's fisheries. The new board will therefore first have to prove itself ir this area by tackling effectively the problems of illegal fishing and of pollution of watercourses.
  In its wider role as the Government's adviser on inland fisheries affairs, the board will have to show that its members can work together as a team and can come up with sound, agreed advice on a wide variety of issues. When it has demonstrated its credentials in those areas, then, provided that there is agreement among the interests represented that it would be appropriate for the board to take on this further responsibility, the Government will certainly be prepared to look again at the public water management issue. The financial implications of any increase in the board's responsibilities could be considered in the circumstances then prevailing.
  I hope that from what I have said it will be generally recognised that the Government have done their best to listen and to accommodate their proposals to the various points of view that have been put forward. It has not been an easy matter. Despite the efforts that have been made to achieve a high level of success, there is still some disagreement among those various interested parties-- we are not just talking about the anglers—about ihe best way to manage fishery affairs in the future.
  This order re-establishes these matters on a sound footing and enable the matters that have been pressed for, and upon which the Government have not been able to give way fully, to be brought about in the future in the way that I have described.
  In the meantime a new spirit of co-operation is needed. My noble Friend will be establishing procedures to facilitate regular and effective consultation with the board. and high on the list of issues to be considered in that context will be the many detailed recommendations in the Black report. The Government will be looking to the anglers and other interests to play their part in what we hope will be a more constructive era in the inland fisheries affairs of Northern Ireland.
  In that spirit, I commend this draft order to the House.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister has come forward with a revised draft fisheries order containing amendments, some of which were recommended by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I gather that the Assembly's role was important and that a considerable degree of agreement was reached, which is encouraging. In a number of ways I think the Minister is in a minority in his comments. He has decided to leave control in the

  385
  hands of the Department of Agriculture and he seems still to take the view that there is too much dissent, whether among the minority that signed the Black report or among some of the angling groups, on the issue of where the control should lie. I note the expanded representation from 15 to 24, but there is no concomitant increase in powers or finances. Accordingly a very great deal is open to doubt on the effectiveness of the order.
  I was struck by the Minister's constant reference throughout his speech to the way in which the Government are to consult the fisheries conservation board on matters of concern. Unfortunately, a number of us have learnt that consultation with the Government is rather like having one's fortune told: they tell one what is in store, and one crosses their palm with silver. For many of us that is not the idea of effective consultation.
  I want to know what plans, if any, the Government have to develop publicly controlled waters. The Black report suggested that 1·4 per cent. of the publicly controlled waters of Northern Ireland were used effectively whereas the comparable figure in the south of Ireland was 5 per cent. and in Great Britain it was 6 per cent. There is, therefore, real opportunity for expansion. anyone with any knowledge of Northern Ireland knows that there is potential in terms of tourism and leisure facilities.
  The fishery conservation board could develop and promote public fisheries. It already has bailiff responsibility and I gather would welcome a more instructive role. There seems little doubt in my mind, although I would not claim to be an expert on this, that it could increase its role and activities in conservation and, indeed, expand, if it were given the power to do so, in leisure activities, thus creating jobs. Given that the Government underspent on last year's industrial development money, there is no reason why that money should not be made available to a fisheries conservation board.
  The tenor of the Minister's approach to this seems to be that he does not want to give the fisheries conservation board real control. I cannot help feeling that underlying this is a desperate attempt to keep down public expenditure. I imagine that we would all feel a little happier if the record of the Government were not so bad in this respect. Government expenditure, as we all know, has not significantly dropped in relation to gross national product, but local authority expenditure has been cut severely. It is a classic case of, "Do not do as we do, but as we tell you." The money that could have been spent on industrial development last year could be made available to a greatly expanded fisheries conservation board, its powers could be increased and that would be a real benefit to the industry in Northern Ireland.
  Another area about which I am concerned is the control of pollution. The Ulster Farmers Union issued an interesting press release recently arguing the case for concern about pollution by farmers and industry generally. It gave one example of a county Tyrone fish farmer losing approximately £80,000 worth of rainbow trout as a result of pollution. I wonder how much more effective an inland fisheries authority could have been if the Minister had chosen to give it sufficient power and authority to act.
  All the evidence from this country and elsewhere tells us that one needs power to insist that the polluter should take steps to improve the standards of control of effluent and other noxious substances that industry, farming or
  386
  other organisations release. The Minister seems to have given this matter insufficient thought. It is a relevant power for a fisheries conservation board to have, and yet no real power, financial or otherwise, exists. The Department of the Environment prosecutes, but there seems to be a case for enhanced power to be given to the fisheries conservation board.
  I am not sure what the Government meant by their recent announcement of an examination of the finances of inland fisheries. The Minister said tonight that the Government had made up their mind not to pass control to the new body, but then said that he would be willing to reconsider the matter in future. The Government are resolutely irresolute, and are willing to change their mind again. What did he mean by saying that the Government will re-examine those finances? Will it simply be an examination of permits and permit prices, or will the Minister go further, as one suspects, and say that the Government will reconsider the matter and perhaps find other ways of financing the new body or of increasing its financial powers? If so, the House would wish to hear about it soon.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. William Ross: In his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the Minister of State, the Earl of Mansfield, suggested in the Committee debate of 20 July that we should not stick too closely to the dated Black report. In the light of events then, it seems that the Black report is more up to date than was suggested, with massive changes in the Government's thinking taking them back in its direction.
  Nevertheless, three outstanding problems must be resolved quickly: the management of public waters, the composition of the board, and the financing of the new fisheries body. There have been many hiccups along the way. I gather from those involved in the negotiations that, after the Assembly debate, a meeting was requested between the entire board and the Minister. On 3 August the Minister met the chief executive of the board. That was followed by another meeting between departmental officials and members of the board on 11 August.
  At the second meeting, the board was told that the officials had no power to negotiate, that the Government did not contemplate any changes, and that there would be no full reassessment of the Government's position. It would have been wise for the Minister to meet the full board so that detailed discussions could have taken place, and a satisfactory conclusion thrashed out. Instead, it must be thrashed out tonight and in succeeding months and years.
  In the general to-ing and fro-ing, we seem to have lost sight of the important matter of the financing of the board. The Black report suggested that the Government should provide £200,000 so that the organisation could run satisfactorily. That suggestion has disappeared, and, although the board has received some Government money, it was in payment for what the board had done. There was not much profit in, for example, payments made for pollution control. It was not really Government money coming into angling. The board must now try to raise the money that it needs to improve fisheries from the present low standard, especially in migratory fish, to former

  387
  glories, if that is possible. I do not understand how the new board is expected to raise the money that is obviously needed, especially with the reduction in licences sold.
  The Minister mentioned the levy that the Government may or may not decide to impose. That levy worries the angling public, and the Government will be aware of the many rumours of a £60 fishing licence in Northern Ireland.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government would go into the whole question of the provision of the necessary cash for the fishery board in the near future. Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I should like to know how detailed that inquiry will be because the question of finance is crucial to the success or otherwise of the new body. I do not want to hear a Minister, of whatever party, say in a few years that the board had been a failure, when the real reason was lack of money to keep it working satisfactorily. The financial arrangements must be spelt out clearly in the early stages so that the board knows exactly what it will get and can cut its suit from the available cloth.
  I am concerned over the cost of licences. According to the documentation available to us, if there must be an increase, it will not be more than 60 per cent. in real terms spread over three years. If there is inflation, the licence will be more than £60. As I pointed out in the debate on 20 July, if one buys all the licences to fish in Northern Ireland, the present cost is £38·05. If there is a 60 per cent. rise in real terms, plus a little inflation, it will cost about £70, which is a considerable sum for those who fish in Northern Ireland.
  Let us consider the angling public. Fishing is not like other recreations or sports. Anglers are often very young. I started to fish shortly after my sixth birthday. I sometimes think that I have been doing it for far too long for the number of fish that I have caught. I have long since become convinced that it is the costliest way to get a fish for supper. We fish because we enjoy it, not for the pot; and those who go fishing for the pot are often sadly disappointed. Anglers may be very young or very old. The result is that large numbers of children fish, and they have licence concessions, and many pensioners, who have more time than most in which to fish, and it is a pleasant recreation for them.
  Most other sports are indulged in by those of wage-earning capacity who are in a better financial position to follow their recreation compared with those who fish. That point should be taken seriously into account because we in Northern Ireland have a tradition of cheap and relatively good angling. Although the number of public waterways —those owned and run by the Department—is low, there is no bar to any angler who wants to fish. The amount of water available to the general public in Northern Ireland is enormous, and that is available to people once they have their licence, and some is available at no further cost. It would be wrong to compare the position in Northern Ireland, or Ireland generally, with the cost and availability of waters in this country.
  Mr. Soley: If I remember the relevant part of the Black report correctly, it talked about the utilisation of water.
  Mr. Ross: That did not deal with the availability of water. Much of the water not utilised is available. It is not developed or looked after. Frequently, therefore, one is dealing with the problems of bailiffing, illegal fishing and the slaughter of the fish by illegal methods. The existing
  388
  laws must be enforced, thereby maintaining sufficient fish, so that the waters can be utilised by anglers. That is a different kettle of fish from fishing in Great Britain generally, although there is much more cheap fishing available in Great Britain than is generally realised.
  Fishing is a localised recreation. One has to go to the local area and find out where the fishing is good. I can assure the House that if an angler finds a good spot he does not broadcast the fact around but keeps it to himself. We are, at the end of the day, a fairly selfish bunch.
  Questions have been raised by the Department and echoed by the Minister about the ability of the board to control waters. It is an interesting reflection of the views taken by the Department of Agriculture. When we judge the ability of the Government Department concerned to protect and defend the fisheries, we must look throughout Northern Ireland. I shall refer to a few instances that have come to my attention. Although I live in the Fob le area, I am talking about the Department's ability to protect and defend fisheries throughout Northern Ireland, and not just the area covered by the conservancy board.
  As I told the Committee on 20 July, an enormous sum of money has been paid to farmers in the past to enable them to build silage pits and collection points for silage effluent. Far too often that effluent finds its way into the water course with the most dreadful effects, not least during the past summer.
  We must consider not simply the problem of pollution but the question of enforcement in building the tanks to contain the stuff. I believe that if matters had been dealt with properly and that the regulations laid down by the Department of Agriculture were properly enforced when the pits were put up, we would not have had half the trouble we have had.
  Who is the principal offender when it comes to dealing with sewage? The Department of the Environment has caused horrendous problems. During the industrial action in Britain last year involving the water workers, sewage was discharged into several streams and many rivers in various parts of Northern Ireland. The Government may try to get off the hook by saying that they were dealing with a strike and industrial action. I was told on 14 March by the then Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office that he regretted what had happened. If an industrial undertaking was guilty of pollution because its workers were on strike, would the Government bodies responsible for the purity of water stand back and say "Yes, we accept your excuse"? The Government must examine that problem seriously. If necessary, means must be devised to prevent sewage and other pollutants from getting into the streams during periods of industrial action. I do not think we can allow that to happen again. A strike may occur at any time and lead to serious consequences for fisheries. If the owners of the fisheries were to decide to sue the Department, I am sure that the Government would find themselves in a difficult position.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In England, water authorities are in charge of prosecuting pollution offences, and they are also the sewerage authorities. What is the position in Northern Ireland? English Members would be interested to know that.
  Mr. Ross: The position is very much the same. When the matter was discussed in the House some years ago, many questions were raised. The Government were

  389
  anxious to tell us that they would keep their house in order. The truth is that often they do not keep their house in order. As one Government Department is unlikely to take another Government Department to court, excuses are made and the Department is treated more lightly than private firms or individuals would be treated.
  I come to the second reason why matters went wrong. I raised the point on 20 July, when I pointed out that the Clough river in county Antrim was poisoned by a chemical put into the storage plant at a water treatment plant. Someone forgot to turn off the outlet valve, and the chemical ran into the river and, among other things, poisoned a fish farm. I understand that that cost the Department of the Environment between £150,000 and £200,000 in compensation.
  That was bad enough, but in September last year my local stream, the Roe, was poisoned by exactly the same chemical. The restocking of that stream has cost about £30,000. We are grateful to the Government for correcting the problem, but it does not say much for the ability of the Department of the Environment to protect the purity of the water.
  The Roe is in the Foyle area, but it comes under the general control of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture. Let us further consider what has happened to that river. I have a great interest in the matter as I fish in that river and it runs through my lands. Following the pollution, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment went out of their way to try to correct the problem, but they met difficulties. A number of requests were made by local anglers, and agreed to by the Departments. One was that a notch should be cut in the O'Cathans Rock weir to allow the free passage of salmon and migratory fish upstream. During the middle of the longest drought for many years, two men came to cut the notch. It was recommended that the notch should be 18 in wide by 6 in deep. The anglers, who take a keen interest in the matter, said that either the weir had to be breached so as not to cause any interference to running fish, or a suitable pass should be constructed. The notch cut was only 14 in wide and 3 in deep. The man who cut it said that a flood was needed to prove his contention that the notch was sufficient.
  Of course, I know that this is all very interesting to hon. Members, but the reaction of the Angling Association is quite interesting. The former secretary of that association told me, in a letter dated 12 December 1983, that there was a meeting on 31 May of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment and the Foyle Fisheries Commission. However, my informant told me that the Angling Association was not represented. To the best of his knowledge, the present secretary did not receive any notification of the meeting. He wrote:
  "The notch which has been put on the weir is useless. It is in the wrong place for all water levels and for all water flows. Again if the local anglers had been consulted they could have advised the Department of Agriculture as to where the salmon run the weir. Wishing you a happy Christmas".
  It does not seem that the secretary will have one.
  The trouble is that the river is running high now, and the opportunity of correcting the problem will not recur for goodness knows how long. The matter does not end there. The river is in a country park, and many other people have a toe in the door. Despite the guarantees and understandings reached by the anglers in the early stages,
  390
  they seem to have been overtaken by the Department's officials in the intervening months. New fish stock was to be brought in to restock the river. The local angling association said that it wanted a few large fish from the river Finn, which is a tributary of the Foyle system. It is the only spring river in that system.
  In 1982, the river Finn ran high all year. Incidentally, it is in Donegal. We are told that it ran so high that it was impossible to get fish. However, I have seen fish being caught by electro fishing methods in very difficult water conditions. This year, everything was perfect. But when the day came, and when all the nets, boats and men were ready to catch the fish, the Department of Agriculture informed the Foyle Fisheries Commission that due to the Diseases of Fish Act, which was placed on the statute book earlier this year, it could not allow the fish to be taken other than under the most stringent conditions. The end result was that no fish were taken.
  Even after a year in which to plan the operation the conditions were that the potential parent fish were to be removed to Ballyshannon in county Donegal for stripping. The eggs were to be hatched there and again removed to the Cushendall isolation hatchery. During the passage of the Fish Diseases Bill, I read into the record the conditions that applied to the importation of fish stock into the Republic of Ireland. They are very stringent. If the Minister is not aware of them, he will no doubt be prepared to look them up.
  The great problem for the anglers is that as far as I am aware the Diseases of Fish Act does not yet apply in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the excuses made by the Department's officials about the taking of fish from the river Finn are not valid. I see an hon. Member looking puzzled, but that Act opened the door for the importation of salmonoids to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, but under very strict conditions. The intention was that Northern Ireland could trade in such fish, but only when the avenues had been opened by certain orders. I believe that those orders have not yet been passed by the House.
  I am sorry to speak for so long, but the saga is interesting and all sorts of things crop up. I shall cover only a few of them, but there are plenty more if hon. Members want to go digging. The river Bush experiment has now been running for 10 years. It has been described as a luxury that we can no longer afford and that is no longer needed. It is run by the Department of Agriculture, and 10 or 12 scientific papers have been published about it, and it is of great interest to those in salmon fishing and management throughout the world.
  The Bush was originally a spring river and I am told that the historical catch was between 4,000 and 6,000 fish. According to the Government the catch was 2,614 in 1973, 3,591 in 1974 and 3,442 in 1975. Can the Minister tell us whether that was after the appearance of salmon disease? If it was, as I believe is the case, the figures are false in the sense that they are not the true historical figure. Perhaps the Minister can also say what the catch is now and what the chances are of catching any salmon on a visit to that river. It is no wonder that the salmon fishermen are displeased and most unhappy about the situation. The experiment is indeed a luxury that we can no longer afford.
  In stocking a river one tries to get fish from the same genetic pool. That is why we tried to get salmon from the Finn in the Foyle area. There have been so many restockings from so many places, however, that there are very few pure stocks left anywhere in the British Isles, and

  391
  that is no more so in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. Research carried out by Queen's university suggests that in lough Melvin the so-called brown trout comprises four or five different subspecies breeding in different parts of the river, some going down the outlet rivers to spawn while others go up into the headwaters. Experts are concerned that bringing in stock from outside may disturb the ecology of the river, but for a century or more every farmer in the country has been trying to improve his stock by cross-breeding. Fish farmers do the same, so why can it not be done in the wild? Why do the experts not apply the same commonsense farming attitudes to restocking schemes to improve the size and quality of fish?
  There are many conflicting interests in Government Departments, but I hope that I have made it clear that the disquiet felt by managers of Northern Ireland waters about the activities of the Department of Agriculture has at least some foundation. The concern is deep-rooted and widespread. No Minister can claim that the Department is always right and that its views should be heeded to the exclusion of all others. Certainly, most people do not share that view.
  I drew attention to the community aspect of the angling clubs in the July debate. At that time the Minister did not seem to understand what I was getting at, but his remarks today suggest that he has learnt a good deal in the intervening period. He has now expressed the Government's willingness to help anglers and angling clubs.
  As soon as an angling club gets going and sets up a fishery it becomes liable for rates, thus undermining its ability to carry out the improvements that it wishes to achieve. If the Minister really wishes to help the clubs perhaps he will take a long, hard look at that financial imposition as it is a definite bar to the extension of clubs and the willingness of groups of anglers to form clubs to improve fishing. As soon as they do so they have to find money. Many therefore prefer to reap the sparser benefits of continuing without a club.
  I read the schedule with the greatest of interest. Paragraph 2 says:

  (a) four shall be persons chosen by the Head of the Department from any list of candidates not being less than six in number that may be submitted to the Head of the Department by a body or bodies for the time being recognised by the Head of the Department as representative of a substantial number of anglers;

  (b) three shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of any companies for the time being recognised by him as substantially interested in the commercial operation of any salmon or eel fishery;

  (c) three shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of commercial fishermen (other than the companies recognised for the purposes of head (b));

  (d) three shall be persons nominated by the Ulster Farmers' Union from amongst its members, one of whom shall be a person representative of persons operating fish farms;

  (e) two shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of anglers not represented by the body or bodies recognised for the purposes of head (a);

  (f) one shall be a person nominated by the Confederation of British Industry;

  (g) one shall be a person nominated by the Department of Economic Development as representative of persons engaged in the tourism industry;

  (h) one shall be a person nominated by the Department of Education as representative of persons participating in sport and physical recreation;

  (i) one shall be a person nominated by such organisation as appears to the Head of the Department substantially to represent district councils;

  392

  (j) one shall be an officer of the Department;

  (k) not more than two shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of such other persons or bodies as the Board may recommend to him.

  The House will appreciate, therefore, that the members of the board will be nominated or appointed or chosen. It is the anglers who come out of the equation worst. I suspect that the Angling Federation is the body that will be put forward as representing a substantial number of anglers. It has to produce not less than six names of which the Minister will choose four. That is simply a means of the Department ignoring, or getting rid of, people who have been a thorn in its flesh.
  I see no reason why the Angling Federation cannot submit four names and have them accepted. Other people are able to do just that. The proposal that the Department should select from the six names must be changed as there is no way in which anglers—I speak as an angler—can accept someone else selecting who shall speak for us. We have a right to determine who shall speak for us.
  The two people who are selected as representatives of anglers who are not represented by a body or bodies will be independent-minded individuals. The interesting thing about such people is that they stand on their own feet. There are thousands of worthy people who would be perfectly good representatives. How will the Minister or the Department select just two? As we say in Ulster, the Minister might as well go out and play glam in the dark —he does not know what he will get. Does he hope that he will get someone who is acceptable to the Department? We should know how such people will be chosen. For whom will they speak? Surely it will be for themselves.
  Mr. Butler: I shall give the hon. Gentleman just a moment's rest. I assume for the moment that the hon. Gentleman would wish independent anglers to be represented on the board. If I can take that assumption for granted, perhaps he will say how he would choose them.
  Mr. Ross: I was not so daft as to write that prov:ision into the order. If I were confronted with the problem I would say to independent anglers, "Get down to your club and elect your representatives." That is the only way in which the matter can be dealt with.
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would definitely not have independent anglers represented on the board?
  Mr. Ross: I say that because there is no way in which the mass of independent anglers can have any say in who is to represent them. If they are to be represented, there should be some form of elective process. That is not to be found in the order. Such an omission is not acceptable to anyone who believes in the elective process, especially a Member of Parliament.
  If a board representing all these bodies is to be set up, let us have it set up in the same way. Let the commercial fishermen nominate their own people, as the farmers union can, let the anglers nominate their own people, and let the Department accept them. That will be far more acceptable to the anglers in Northern Ireland.
  There have been large changes from the original order, and the Government have gone a long way to meet objections, fears and worries of the anglers. These are three issues of great importance to the future of the new board. The Government have at least unlocked the door on

  393
  the control of public waters. They should go the whole way and should now start giving the control of those waters over to the board, let it run those waters, stand on its own feet and be composed of members that are nominated by their own body. Then they can defend their actions to those bodies and to the anglers.
  If the Minister wishes, there is no reason why he should not do what the anglers and the board have recommended —start with a partnership between the Department and the board, but let us start down that road now. When we do, we shall have a good order, but up to now, the order does not meet the real needs of the Ulster angling population.
  12.12 am
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Our Province tonight is shadowed and stained with the butchery and blood of terrorism, and that should never be forgotten when we are debating anything here that is relevant to Northern Ireland. Our society labours under intense and terrible difficulties, and that cannot be forgotten by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland. I hope that they will not forget it.
  We have an opportunity to discuss a matter that has caused a great deal of concern, and generated a great deal of interest and antagonism, in Northern Ireland. As Chairman of the Assembly's Agriculture Committee, along with my colleagues on the Committee I have had long conversations and fact-finding meetings on the matters that concern us. The Agriculture Committee has carefully studied this matter and has industriously considered the whole problem of angling administration in Northern Ireland. We have discussed this matter for the major part of the year, and I am pleased to be able to say that our efforts have not been in vain. They have been amply, although not fully, rewarded, as I shall explain.
  The Minister spoke of some of the history leading to the draft order. Angling matters in Northern Ireland are covered by the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, passed by the Stormont Parliament. The administration of the Act is carried out by the fisheries conservancy board, which was set up under the Act, and it performs agency functions, such baliffing and pollution control policing, but the Department reserves to itself the acquisition of angling waters, their development and management and fisheries research matters.
  When the 1966 Act was passed by the Stormont Parliament, the arrangements and division of responsibilities were needed to provide the necessary impetus for the development of public angling facilities in the Province. It was necessary for the Department of Agriculture to assume the major responsibility for the right and proper development of angling waters. I pay tribute to the Department. It did a good job. Our anglers were able to fish in publicly controlled waters all over the Province. The availability of facilities was also of great benefit to the tourist industry.
  Times change. We now have all the publicly owned waters that we need. The Department has developed them and the only real, on-going functions left relate to the prevention of pollution and illegal fishing, fisheries research and the management of existing waters. The question now is whether the existing division of
  394
  responsibilities between the Department and the Fisheries Conservancy Board should remain, or whether the balance should be altered to meet the new circumstances.
  The question is not new. The Black report's majority view was that a change of emphasis was required. That emphasis should be to encourage the increased use of fishing and its improved quality in these waters. That is the crux. How can that be achieved?
  The Black report made a number of recommendations with the majority view favouring the establishment of a new body—an inland fisheries board—charged with handling all aspects of angling management — the development of angling waters, promotion of the sport and the policing and bailiffing of poaching and pollution.
  Black recommended that the research aspects should remain with the Department. The report's minority view was that the best way forward was to move backwards. It recommended not only that the Department should continue its existing functions but that it should swallow up the duties of the fisheries conservancy board. At the same time, a widely representative, non-executive committee was proposed—a toothless talking shop—to advise the Department on all aspects of angling and other uses of our lakes and rivers.
  The report, with its two opposing views, came as a great disappointment to the angling fraternity in Northern Ireland and it rejected it outright. We had moved not one step further towards solving the problem.
  As a result of the deadlock, the Minister who has spoken tonight and who was responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland, issued press statements in August and November 1982 in which he said that as it had not been possible to obtain consensus among angling interests about the future administration of fishing in Northern Ireland he proposed to table a new set of ideas for discussion. Those proposals would have resulted in the demotion of the fisheries conservancy board to nothing more than a police force dealing with pollution and bailiffing. He proposed the setting up of a new body to be called the inland fisheries advisory committee with advisory and consultative roles only and with the Department running the whole show.
  There was no democracy in those proposals, in the opinion of the people who have an interest in the matter in Northern Ireland. It is no wonder that there was a bitter reaction among the anglers in Northern Ireland — a community which has been denied any democratic control for many years. It is small wonder that the aggrieved parties turned for help to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to its Agriculture Committee. The Committee responded by examining the whole position in detail in advance of the publication of the Minister's proposal.
  The Minister contended that consensus could not be obtained. On 28 February the Agriculture Committee of the Assembly took evidence throughout the day from the Minister himself, from all interested parties: the fisheries conservancy board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland angling advisory council, the Ulster Farmers Union—our farmers have an important role to play—the North Coast Salmon Drifters (Open Sea) Northern Ireland Association, and the Lough Erne fishermen's association. From the evidence we heard and in conjunction with all the written submissions from the parties involved, we concluded—we were proved correct—that a consensus was possible, that a solution could be worked out that

  395
  could satisfy, perhaps not entirely but certainly to a substantial degree, the wishes, aims and aspirations of all the interests involved.
  We prepared our report overnight on the findings, agreed the text the following day and presented our recommendations to the Assembly, where the report was debated and fully endorsed on 3 March 1983.
  In the debate on the subject in the Northern Ireland Committee of the House in July, I paid tribute to the interest and endeavour of the Agriculture Committee in this matter and to the efficiency of the staff of the Assembly in making it possible. I make no apology for repeating that message in the House tonight. That it was possible bears great testimony to the dedication of the democratically elected members of that place who, for more than a year now, have striven to represent the interests of the people of Ulster and to bring their views to bear upon the Government in a democratic manner.
  The main thrust of our recommendations was that the fisheries conservancy board should not be contracted, as the Minister was suggesting, but rather that it should be expanded to include representatives from the farming community and other interests and that such a restyled board should not only retain its existing functions but should be given the duty of managing public angling waters—a job presently done by the Department.
  I say to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that the Northern Ireland angling advisory council agreed that two members from independent angling interests should be represented on the board. It agreed that there was a difficulty in choosing, but it still said that it wanted that representation made. Our Committee had representations from the independent anglers. There are people who want to say that the Northern Ireland angling advisory council wants everything. I wish to refute that. We found it prepared to meet and discuss matters reasonably.
  Only in this way would it be possible to give all those directly involved in angling matters a meaningful democratic role, in the administration of angling matters. It would not be a talking shop; it would not be a purely advisory or consultative body; rather it would produce a body with real executive powers exercised by anglers and others for the benefit of all parties concerned.
  Our recommendations gained widespread acceptance and we asked the Minister to think again about his proposals in the light of the consensus we had achieved. He responded by accepting a substantial part of our report but was completely opposed to the devolution of management powers from the Department of Agriculture to the fisheries conservancy board. He said that he would be publishing his proposals as originally intended but that he would make it clear in the accompanying explanatory memorandum that he was minded to make adjustments to the draft order later, in line with the wishes expressed in the Assembly report.
  The main issue remained, which was that of management function. The angling interests were agreed that that fundamental issue should be within the function of an expanded fisheries conservancy board. The Minister published his proposals and we were afforded a second bite of the cherry.
  Once again, we consulted the various bodies involved in angling and those representing the farming communities. We found the prevailing opinion to be that angling matters should be democratically controlled by
  396
  those intimately involved. We achieved a consensus, which so remarkably had eluded the Government and the Department.
  In rejecting the transfer of functions, the Minister considered that the main objections to such a move were, first, the lack of consensus—this view seems to have been based largely, if not entirely, on correspondence from a handful of non-club anglers in Northern Ireland —and secondly, the implications for public expenditure because the Fisheries Conservancy Board would require a small number of extra staff to cope with the added duties. It was argued that it would be difficult if not impossible to make some parallel staff savings in the Department.
  The Agriculture Committee of the Assembly took the latter aspect fully into account. Indeed, specific recommendations on this very issue were made in the report on the draft order. It was the second report on the subject. It was published in June and it was laid in this place for all hon. Members to scrutinise. Both the department and the fisheries conservancy board were recommended to review and reassess their staffing requirements because we, too, would not wish to see any adverse effect on public expenditure even though the sums involved are tiny compared with the total amount of money allocated in public expenditure in Northern Ireland.
  The Minister still rejected our proposals on the management functions. We hoped to have further discussions with him, but the general election intervened and a new Minister, the Earl of Mansfield, was appointed to cover agriculture in Northern Ireland.
  The proposed order was submitted to the Northern Ireland Committee in July and I was heartened by the support that was given to the proposals that had been forwarded by the Assembly and by those who spoke in the debate. But it seemed that even the views expressed in that debate fell on deaf ears. It was not until I met the Earl of Mansfield on 2 November that reason prevailed.
  What the Minister told me then was most encouraging, and I am pleased to note that he reaffirmed his position in his speech in introducing the draft order in another place last Wednesday. The noble Lord has stated clearly and candidly that he is prepared to hand over management functions to our angling community and other interested bodies. He is prepared to devolve powers to an enlarged fisheries conservancy board, provided that the members of the board can show that they can act together responsibly and to the benefit of all concerned. This is something that the angling community is prepared to demonstrate. I have had talks with it and it is ready to prove its mettle. I have every confidence that it will do so. I am confident that it is willing and able to demonstrate its unity of purpose with a single-mindedness which will cut across all the barriers which one normally associates with our society in Northern Ireland. I believe that it will be able to pull together and reel in the bait of the management of these public waters.
  I welcome the promise of developed democratic control in future. I welcome also the Minister's statement that he will establish procedures to ensure that the board has a regular and effective advisory input to Government. That is an important assurance, for which the anglers asked. It will help pave the way for the full devolution of management powers. I hope that we can progress quickly to that position.

  397
  Finally, I wish to record the value and significance of the contribution made by the Northern Ireland Assembly, especially its Agriculture Committee, in reaching the point at which we have now arrived.
  It is clear that, without the Assembly's scrutiny of the proposals originally set out by the Government, the legislation presented to the House tonight and later appearing on the statute book would have failed to meet the needs, wishes and aspirations of those involved in salmon and inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, or of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. As it is, the Government have been forced to reconsider their position and to review their proposals in the light of the overwhelming consensus and the cross-community support of those closely involved in angling matters. They have had to table the draft order now before us, which takes account of the recommendations of the Assembly. That is democracy in action, and I hail it as such.
  12.31 am
  Mr. Butler: I have about 10 minutes in which to reply to many points. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) knows his fishing very well. He made some detailed points which I shall not have time to answer from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke with his usual authority, augmented by the fact that he spoke as the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Assembly.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made a joke about the way in which the Government consult. It was not a terribly good joke. I do not believe that it is true in other areas, and it is certainly not true in this case. It would have been almost impossible to have held wider consultations. The hon. Member for Antrim, North recognised that fact. He recounted the history of the arrangements, and welcomed the fact that there will be regular consultative arrangements between the Department and the new fisheries conservancy board. He might have reminded the House that there will be a new requirement on the Minister to consult.
  The hon. Gentleman also reminded the House of the contribution of the Assembly. It was indeed a good contribution, but it was not the only contribution. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government were found to have got everything wrong. There were almost as many points of view on this subject as there are fingers on my two hands. I believe that we have the right answer, and the enabling provisions to which I have referred will allow progress to be made, if it can be.
  Quite rightly, a certain amount of stress was laid on the question of finance. The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked me what I meant by a review of the financing of inland fisheries. What I meant was a very thorough review. Those who look at the finances of the present fisheries conservancy board will find that a deficit of nearly £200,000 runs from year to year. That state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. My noble Friend the Minister of State, the Earl of Mansfield, intends to have the review carried out and to form his conclusions accordingly.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East tried to run the old hare about the £65 licence. In order to get out of his difficulty, he pointed out that if one wanted to fish
  398
  throughout the Province on public as well as club waters one might have to pay a great deal more than the single licence fee. However, the scaremongering was in regard to the licence fee. This year a season's licence for game anglers is still only £9-50. By no stretch of the imagination could inflation bring that £9·50, plus 60 per cent., to £65 over three years—or certainly not under a Conservative Government. In fact, the hon. Gentleman reminded the House that anglers are prepared to pay quite a lot to take advantage of the wide choice which exists in the Province.
  The question of finance is very serious, and will be addressed by my noble Friend.
  Mr. William Ross: Both the Republic of Ireland and Her Majesty's Government make subventions to the Fisheries Commission. Why cannot that be done for the fisheries conservancy board?
  Mr. Butler: Her Majesty's Government make large subventions to angling in the Province.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East spoke from his knowledge about pollution and reminded us of some serious occurrences. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will read what he said, be reminded of it and ensure that some of the types of accidents that have taken place in the past do not happen again. I share the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about that. By drawing attention to the problems and pointing not just to the Department of the Environment but to the farming community and many others, the hon. Gentleman stressed the vital significance of pollution control. That has to be one of the two prime responsibilities of the new FCB.
  I have to take the hon. Gentleman to task about the membership of the board. Calling it "a fix" is unnecessary. He dislikes the provision requiring six names of club anglers to be put forward from which four should be drawn. It is fairly standard procedure, and I have not heard him criticise the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 which required six rod anglers to be chosen by the Minister from a list of not fewer than 10. There are precedents for the provision and he has no right to suggest that there would be picking and choosing to avoid the right people. We want to ensure that out of those who are finally selected for the board there is a sensible geographic and other spread.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he would have no independent anglers on the board. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that there was no conflict, but here we have conflict. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East would deny the independent anglers the right to sit on the board. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that the Northern Ireland Advisory Angling Council recommended exactly right.
  If one can devise a satisfactory method there will need to be some form of election. It should be possible in a place as small as the Province to have a few meetings which those who are interested can attend. The hon. Gentleman denies that right to the independent anglers, yet he wants to have the control of public waters put into the hands of the new FCB. Who are the people who principally use the public waters but the independent fishermen? He talks to me about democracy and yet he wishes the public waters to be controlled by a body on which there is no independent fishermen representation. That is why they have been so anxious about the possibility of the public waters coming under the board's management. They have

  399
  been anxious that club anglers would achieve too much control. He has fortified that anxiety in their minds and my feeling that we are right to proceed as we are with the control of public waters.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North said—I may not quote him exactly—that my noble Friend was prepared to devolve the management of the public waters to the new board if certain conditions were fulfilled. I must correct the hon. Member. In recent letters my noble Friend set out, and I repeated it tonight, the circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to consider such a transfer to the board. Although the hon. Member did not intend to mislead, I believe that he was mistaken in what he said. I believe that I have quoted him correctly, but he gave the wrong impression.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister define what he means by "intending"? He promised to consider the matter and devolve.
  Mr. Butler: I do not believe that I can sensibly add to what I said in my opening remarks, and what is clearly written in my noble Friend's letter to the hon. Gentleman in his position as Chairman of the Assembly Committee. It is writ large. My noble Friend was going no further than I had in putting forward this new provision in the draft order which would provide for the board, on an agency basis, to take on a number of different functions, which might include the management of public waters. We are concerned, and have to be concerned, that angling is organised and operated to the best advantage in the Province, to the benefit of those who live there and to the benefit of tourists tourists.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked me whether the board would be able to promote tourism. If he reads the order, he will see exactly what the board may do in that respect.
  We believe that we need to have waters that are available to independent anglers and that are termed "the public waters". There is generally an excess of public waters in the west of the Province. In the east there is a scramble for those waters, they are limited and they are difficult to acquire. We have waters under the control of the clubs, which I said had a special responsibility to maximise the opportunities available to them. If they wish to extend their authority in angling, the opportunity is provided in the order, as we have made clear. Given the responsibilities as they will rest for the time being with the Department, and given the responsibilities that are available to the clubs, angling will benefit, provided that the fisheries conservancy board carries out its primary functions. Its primary functions on which all are agreed —the stopping of illegal fishing and pollution control—must be carried out as effectively as possible. It is those two jobs that the new reinforced larger board, with its more streamlined organisation through its executive committee, has responsibilities to fulfil.
  I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 9.

  Division No. 114]

  [12.42 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ashby, David

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (8'm'th E)

  Best, Keith

  400

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Murphy, Christopher

  Brinton, Tim

  Newton, Tony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Norris, Steven

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Osborn, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Ottaway, Richard

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Butterfill, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Powley, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Chope, Christopher

  Raffan, Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Coombs, Simon

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Cope. John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Ryder, Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Dover, Denshore

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Evennett, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Farr, John

  Spencer, D.

  Favell, Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Forth, Eric

  Stern, Michael

  Fox, Marcus

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwaod)

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

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Harris, David

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Hayes, J.

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Holt, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Viggers, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Waddington, David

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Knowles, Michael

  Walden, George

  Lang, Ian

  Waller, Gary

  Lester, Jim

  Watts, John

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Wheeler, John

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Wolfson, Mark

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Wood, Timothy

  MacGregor, John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Maclean, David John.

  Yeo, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mather, Carol

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Mr. John Major and

  Merchant, Piers

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Nicholson, J.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. Harold McCusker and

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

  Rev. Martin Smyth.

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.

  OCCUPIERS LIABILITY BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of provisions of that Act relating to improvement notices and prohibition notices.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

PETITION

  Southwark (Hospital Beds)
  12.53 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 24 nurses and others, the nurses being employed in Guy's hospital, Southwark, and working for the Lewisham and north Southwark district health authority.
  The petition has been organised by the Guy's hospital nurses action group, who have been to the House twice in the last seven days to make their views known to hon. Members. More than 50 nurses visited the House last week and 23 nurses came to the House today on the occasion of the Second Reading debate of the Health and Social Security Bill.
  The petitioners say:
  We wish to express our anger and concern at the recent cuts in financial allocation to the Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority which has resulted in the threatened closure of beds in most hospitals throughout the district.
  We deplore the closure of 180 beds and any lessening of the facilities available for the people of this community which will lead to lengthening time on waiting lists and needless suffering which may even result in some patients dying whilst awaiting admission.
  We urge the Minister and Her Majesty's Government not to renege on the promise that they made before the last General Election, that the National Health Service is "safe in their hands".
  The petition contains 15,000 signatures of people who share the anger and concern that is felt on this issue, and who have signed the accompanying petition which is in similar wording and which is to be presented by hon. Members representing other parts of the district, one of whom, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) is present tonight.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Plastic Pound Note
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
  12.55 am
  Mr. Marcus Fox: The reason for this debate is important, and it goes much further than the suggestion that a plastic £1 note should be introduced. It is important because our traditional £1 note is under threat, and the Economic Secretary will forgive me when I suggest that a little dirty work at the crossroads may be in hand. By that I mean that, much more quickly than we think, there may be from the Treasury a move to take our £1 note away from us, leaving us with only a £1 coin. My hon. Friends know me well enough to appreciate that I would not lightly, in an Adjournment debate and at this hour, make such a strong statement.
  Many of my hon. Friends feel as I do on this issue, and in the new year, if I am driven to it, I shall table an early-day motion on the subject. I am sure that it will attract many signatures, because we must take care when certain proposals are foisted on us.
  It should not be thought that the £1 coin was introduced without causing some anxiety. In my part of the world a £1 note is a valuable piece of currency and is not to be dismissed lightly. Many of my constituents, when doing their Christmas shopping, do not just buy computers as presents. Indeed, when they do their weekly shopping they watch every penny, and they certainly do not want to have only a £1 coin that gets lost among their other loose change. That is happening now, but it would happen all the more if what is forecast were to happen.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is to reply to this debate because I have always found him courteous, although in some answers to parliamentary questions on this subject he has given the impression that people were consulted about the introduction of the £1 coin. Having looked carefully into the matter, I suggest that the only consultation that took place—I agree that many groups were brought into it — was to question people about the design in metal that it should be. They were not given a choice between a coin or a note, be it of paper or any other substance. In other words, in that consultation people did not have a choice, or option.
  In my view, if people had been given a choice, the £1 coin would never have seen the light of day. I do not want to cite examples from other countries, and perhaps I need only mention America, where a dollar coin was introduced. It received very short shrift and it is now a thing of the past as the American people overwhelmingly opted for the dollar note that they had always known. I do not stand alone in my warning to the Minister about the phasing out of the £1 note.
  On 18 November 1983, the Minister said:
  "It has always been the Government's intention to withdraw the £1 note from circulation in due course once the public have had time to become accustomed to the £1 coin." —[Official Report, 18 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 596.]
  That plan is misguided. There is another option called consumer choice. Conservative Members talk a great deal about choice, but it appears that the Government do not want it to apply to currency. Yet that is a classic area for choice. We must be careful not to make changes that cause people to point their fingers at us because they have not been consulted.
  404
  The public are far from becoming accustomed to the £1 coin. Indeed, the reverse is true many people detest it. They live with it, but by any yardstick the new coin is a flop. Short of imposing it, there is no hope of it being accepted voluntarily.
  The figures speak for themselves—and who better to quote than my hon. Friend the Minister? When the coin was introduced, 580 million notes were in circulation. By last month, that figure had fallen by only 50 million. The banks hold about 50 per cent. of the coins that have been minted—about 280 million. There is little demand for the coins, and they have not disposed of their initial allocations. If I am wrong, no doubt my hon. Friend will correct me.
  There are other ways of ensuring that notes are phased out. They are becoming so filthy that people may be persuaded that a coin is a better alternative. Perhaps that is a deliberate policy. I am rather long in the tooth, having been in the House for 13 years. Until the coins were introduced, when I cashed a cheque at our Post Office I used to get new notes. I have not had any for months. When I mentioned that to the cashier—who shall be nameless as he is a public servant—he told me that the Post Office does not get new notes any more. He said that they were too expensive. Apparently there is a considerable charge for new notes. I cannot complain about that as I am trying to persuade our nationalised industries to be more efficient and to make the public sector aware of the need to economise. But there is something rather sinister in the fact that I cannot obtain a reasonably clean £1 note. I hope that that is not a deliberate policy to show that, ultimately, we must turn to the coin.
  One option would be to continue to run the note alongside the coin. But that means a fair test, and new notes must be issued. The notes in circulation must not be allowed to become ever more tatty and dirty. If my colleagues turned out their pockets, I should be surprised if there was a new, clean £1 note among them. That option assumes that there is only one alternative, which is to move from notes to coins. But there is another way, which is the subject of the debate. I refer to a plastic pound note. When many of my colleagues heard about that they thought that it was rather hilarious. They perhaps had visions of something like an Access card. I had better be careful to maintain the impartiality for which I am famous. They may also have had visions of something like an American Express card or Visa card. However, the plastic note is as thin as paper. It is very hard to tell the difference between it and paper. I am grateful to my neighbours in Bingley, because some of them have friends in the Isle of Man, and they have sent me detailed news of what is happening in that little part of the United Kingdom.
  Those on the Isle of Man are far more enlightened than we are. Their research goes back nearly 15 years. They know what consumer demand is. Since decimalisation in 1971 they have retained a 50p coin and a note. I leave it to hon. Members to guess which is the most popular. There are no prizes. Since 1978, they have had a £1 note and a £1 coin. Again, there are no prizes for guessing which is the most popular. Since 1981—and this shows how far-sighted they are they have had a £5 note and a £5 coin. In every instance it has been proved conclusively that notes are preferred. That is true the world over.
  I admit that we have a problem with our existing f:1 note, just as the Isle of Man had. Pound notes deteriorate

  405
  much more quickly these days. It is reckoned that a £1 note has a life of about nine months. As a coin has a life of 30 to 50 years, the choice is easy. The Isle of Man has opted for a plastic note that is specially designed. The results have been staggering. The notes were issued by the banks from 23 November. Within 11 days, 33 per cent. of new notes printed were in circulation. The old paper note is still valid, but all new notes will now be plastic. The public's reaction has been startling. The new notes were received, according to an official spokesman for the Isle of Man. with delight, interest and acclaim. People liked the note's durability, and it is expected to last between five and 15 years. Who can say how long the notes will last, but several of my colleagues have tried to tear the note by hand and none of them has succeeded. It is virtually impossible. It can be folded. It does not absorb water, so it is resistant to dirt which is carried by moisture. It will, therefore, overcome all the problems of the dirty note.
  No doubt people will want to know the cost of such a note. However, there is hardly any difference in the cost of producing the old note and the plastic note now issued in the Isle of Man. The difference is 2·8p. With our demand, that cost difference could no doubt be reduced. I do not know what the cost of producing a £1 coin is. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Of course. there are drawbacks. For example, the plastic cannot hold a watermark or plastic strip. However, it is a low denomination note. Forgers will not be thrilled about the idea of making a £1 note. They are interested in fivers, tenners and £20 notes. I suppose that the risk of detection is just as great, but the take is much higher. No doubt the Treasury will make much of the idea that we could prevent forgery of such a note. But I have some good news for it. The Treasury may believe that there is no answer to counterfeiting. But can we talk about building Concorde, putting a man on the moon, and fighting a war in the Falklands and then say that something like this is beyond us? I cannot accept that there is no way in which to solve the problem.
  Since initiating the debate, I have been inundated with messages of support. Two major companies, one of which is an American multinational employing many thousands of people in the United Kingdom, have given me a solution. I shall not give the name—it consists of three letters — of the highly successful British chemical company that has informed me that its petrochemicals and plastics division can solve the problem.
  In America driving licences are used like identity cards. They must be carried at all times and it is vital that forgeries are able to be detected. Again, we are talking about plastics and laminates, but a watermark has been devised so that a small illumination will show whether the licence is a forgery. It would not take much to adapt that.
  What is beyond doubt is that the El coin is not acceptable. I have been in touch with two supermarkets. The chairman of Tesco described the situation as a nightmare and said that customers refused to take the coins. Every hon. Member appreciates the confusion of elderly people. In a sub-post office today I heard two elderly ladies say, "Please don't give us any of those coins." One lady actually pushed them back and received notes instead.
  Returning to basics, I have a sneaking feeling that the Treasury intends to do the dirty on us and to withdraw£1
  406
  notes in the near future. That must not be. The Minister must at least promise that he will evaluate the possibility of a plastic note, together with the information that I have given today. I hope that he will also allow time for my proposals about tackling the problem of forgery to be understood.
  The Minister's Department is not the most popular in the United Kingdom. It has the greatest possible interest in conquering inflation. Yet it is proposing a measure which, psychologically, will undermine its policy. One has only to remember the effects of decimalisation in that respect. Will we never learn? Compulsion—the idea that the man in Whitehall knows best — is very bad policy. It is our currency and the £1 note is central to everything. Why should it be swept away? It would be a breath of fresh air if the Treasury would say that it is open to persuasion on this.
  1.12 am
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, on the topical subject that he has chosen and on the very agreeable way in which he has presented his case.
  I think that we agree in part on the problem although we disagree about the solution. We seem to share the view that the £1 note is no longer satisfactory in currency as a medium of exchange as it once was. In my view, however, the right response is not a plastic note such as that now offered in the Isle of Man, but a £1 coin designed to meet the needs of current uses, in which slot machines play an increasingly important part.
  Due to its decline in purchasing power in recent years, the £1 is now used far more than before as a denomination in cash purchase and change-giving. When the 10 shilling note was replaced by the 50p coin in 1969, its purchasing power was more than twice that of the £1 note today. That leads us all to treat the £1 note rather differently. Instead of being carefully placed in a wallet, it is mistreated by the public, retailers and so on. It is frequently stuffed into pockets and purses instead of wallets and kept in tills with coins instead of being paid into banks for sorting and return to the Bank of England for destruction and replacement.
  In terms of consumer choice, therefore, in a sense the public are being consulted through their daily use of the £1 note. If it is under threat, the threat comes from the way in which it is misused. The result has been a serious deterioration of £1 notes in currency. Tatty and dirty notes remain in circulation far longer than they did previously. The results of that are obvious to us all although I assure my hon. Friend that the Bank of England is issuing new notes at about the same rate as last year although the stock itself has declined. It is difficult and expensive to maintain a reasonable standard of note when that stage is reached. Although it represents only about 6 per cent. of the total value of the notes in circulation, the £l note accounts for nearly 40 per cent. of the new notes that are issued. Those are fairly recent figures. One of the consequences of inflation is that the £1 note is not now used in banks' cash dispensers.
  While the value of total notes in circulation increased by one third between 1978 and 1983, the number of £1 notes in circulation has fallen steadily from more than 800 million in 1978 to about 550 million now. Moreover, there

  407
  has been a decline in the number of £1 notes in circulation of about 10 per cent. in the past year. It is not surprising, therefore, that earlier this year the Government decided to introduce a coin for the £1 unit although we made it clear that the coin and the note would circulate together for an extended period before the note is phased out in due course.
  I should now like to deal with my right hon. Friend's argument that a plastic £1 note could serve better than the paper one. I am afraid that the matter is not quite as straightforward as he might suppose, although he has imagined some of the points that I intend to raise. There are several reasons for proceeding with caution. Chief among them is the importance of security. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be prudent for me to go into detail about counterfeiting and its detection, but I shall make a few points on the subject.
  Tyvek 919, the material that is being used for the Isle of Man notes cannot, as the Isle of Man authorities admit. accommodate several key features such as the security thread and a high quality watermark. My hon. Friend mentioned them. Such notes would have to be much more sophisticated than I think is possible to be satisfactory for security purposes. In Britain, we are used to those security devices to check authenticity and any note that is suspected of being a forgery.
  Sharpness of features is another feature of genuine paper bank notes. The worn plastic bank notes that I have seen exhibit an unacceptable wearing of the design. The lack of the characteristic feel or crispness of a genuine banknote has also often led to the detection of forgery. I do not want to suggest that wholesale forgery of Isle of Man £1 notes is likely. The security implications of using Tyvek 919 in the limited currency of the Isle of Man are rather different from those in the whole of the United Kingdom. With modern reprographic techniques, however, the risk of extensive forgery and the circulation of false Bank of England notes, even for a value as low as £1, would he considerably increased if the security specification was lowered.
  As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the manufacturers of Tyvek 919 claim that the material will give notes a life which is at least four times longer than that of traditional low denomination bank notes. The Isle of Man authorities are more optimistic and look to a circulation life of between five and 15 years. Being realistic, however, they have said that:
  "only practical experience will indicate their true life".
  Because of differences of scale, the experiences of the Isle of Man and Haiti, which is the only other country that I know has experimented with plastic bank notes, will not necessarily be directly relevant to the United Kingdom.
  As to the durability of the new material, I am advised that wear tests show that the material has a tendency to delaminate. That can lead to the disintegration of notes and gives worn notes, even if still comparatively clean, a distressed appearance. Another major problem with plastic notes is their lack of resistance to heat. Such a note which is left on a radiator or another warm surface will crinkle badly and permanently—some even shrivel up.
  Plastic notes do not always look as clean as the new Isle of Man samples that we saw last month. I have seen, and can show my hon. Friend, some plastic notes which display only too clearly the effect of use and age. I can only describe them as being in a very unpleasant condition. Those are the serious defects and are quite
  408
  separate from our anxiety about the potential for forgery. My hon. Friend will know that no major note-issuing authority has yet felt confident enough to abandon paper as the best available and most secure substance for banknote printing. That suggests that the search for alternatives to paper still has some way to go, but if a satisfactory alternative material for banknotes were to emerge in the future, we should, of course, give it full consideration. The material so far available does not appear to provide the answer.
  I remind my hon. Friend of the point that I made earlier about the problem with the £1 note, which the public is already treating as though it were in coin form. There is no reason to believe that a plastic note would be treated any differently. Various comments have been made about the £1 coin, so I shall say a little about that. The issues from the Royal Mint are proceeding at a satisfactory rate. At the end of October, the Mint had issued 150 million coins, of which 136 million were in general circulation. As one would expect, there has been a notable increase recently as Christmas approaches, with issues from the Mint reaching £170 million and more than 150 million in circulation this week. Eight months after the launch, the £1 coin already represents over 20 per cent. of total £I units in circulation. The uptake of a new coin is always gradual. The 20p piece met with initial dislike, but it moved into regular use within six months of its first issue.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties in the United States, where a dollar coin did not successfully replace the greenback and said that notes there, and generally elsewhere, are preferred to coins. Circumstances are rather different here. The British public accepted a coin of roughly equal value to a dollar when the 50p was issued in 1969, and experience elsewhere has shown, for example in France with the 10 franc piece and in Germany with the 5 deutschmark, both roughly equivalent to £1 in value, that the public in Europe are not averse to high value coins.
  It is sometimes alleged that the £1 coin is difficult to distinguish from other coins. In recognition of some sections of the community, organisations for the blind, handicapped and elderly were consulted in advance about the coin's specifications. Tests carried out by Nottingham university showed that blind people had no difficulty in distinguishing different coins. The wide rim on the 20p coin was put there to help, and the additional thickness of the £1 coin serves a similar purpose. Indeed, after the £1 coin was launched, representatives of the bodies that we had consulted confirmed that the £1 coin, because of its relative thickness, was sufficiently identifiable for their purposes.
  Other extensive consultations took place before the coin was launched. These revealed a demand for a £1 coin, particularly from those, like transport undertakings, that use coin-operated machines. I am advised that, for example, London Transport, which favoured a coin, has already converted some of its ticket machines and hopes to complete conversion in the coming months.
  Finally, as a Treasury Minister, I should respond to my hon. Friend's comments about costs. It is true that the Isle of Man expects to make savings from the use of the plastic note compared to the costs of conventional material, but the plastic note does not compare well against the coin on cost. I should be as keen as any to take the public expenditure savings that should follow. Details of cost comparisions are understandably commercially confidential between the Mint and commercial firms, but I assure

  409
  my hon. Friend that, although perhaps modest in the scale of total public expenditure, there are useful public expenditure savings to be had from the coin over time.
  For the reasons that I have given, I have come to the conclusion, after considerable thought, that, on a number
  410
  of counts, and particularly because of the risk of counterfeiting, plastic notes are not appropriate for the currency of the United Kingdom.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Research Funds
  Research Funds
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Education Authorities (Cost-effectiveness)
  Education Authorities (Cost-effectiveness)
  Manpower Services Commission (Off-the-job Training)
  Manpower Services Commission (Off-the-job Training)
  Education Authority Expenditure
  Education Authority Expenditure
  Education Vouchers
  Education Vouchers
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Young Persons (Further Education)
  Young Persons (Further Education)
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  Undergraduates (Education Costs)
  Undergraduates (Education Costs)
  Children (Cultural and Racial Groups)
  Children (Cultural and Racial Groups)
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
  Education Authorities (Budget Control)
  Education Authorities (Budget Control)
  Warrington (Roman Catholic Sixth Form Unit)
  Warrington (Roman Catholic Sixth Form Unit)
  GCE O-level
  GCE O-level
  Devon County Council (Representations)
  Devon County Council (Representations)
  Polytechnic Students
  Polytechnic Students
  A-level Courses
  A-level Courses
  West Midlands College of Higher Education
  West Midlands College of Higher Education
  Hall Fees
  Hall Fees
  Higher Education (Consultations)
  Higher Education (Consultations)
  Schools (Remote Rural Areas)
  Schools (Remote Rural Areas)
  School Rolls
  School Rolls
  Student Maintenance Grants
  Student Maintenance Grants
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Further Education (Allowance)
  Further Education (Allowance)
  Development Initiatives
  Development Initiatives
  Teachers' Unions (Discussions)
  Teachers' Unions (Discussions)
  Vocational Courses (Polytechnics)
  Vocational Courses (Polytechnics)
  School Assemblies
  School Assemblies
  Selective Education (Richmond and Solihull)
  Selective Education (Richmond and Solihull)
  Core Curriculum (Definition)
  Core Curriculum (Definition)
  Higher Education (Cost-effectiveness)
  Higher Education (Cost-effectiveness)
  University Lecturers
  University Lecturers
  Higher Education (Women)
  Higher Education (Women)
  Higher Education (Access)
  Higher Education (Access)
  Manpower Needs
  Manpower Needs
TRANSPORT
  Concrete Carriageways
  Concrete Carriageways
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Road Transport Subsidy
  Road Transport Subsidy
  British Transport Police
  British Transport Police
  Local Authorities (Transport Powers)
  Local Authorities (Transport Powers)
THE ARTS
  Arts and Libraries Programme
  Arts and Libraries Programme
  Royal Opera House and Royal Shakespeare Company
  Royal Opera House and Royal Shakespeare Company
CIVIL SERVICE
  "Public Bodies" (1983 Edition)
  "Public Bodies" (1983 Edition)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Noise
  Noise
  Young Workers Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Skillcentre, Lambeth
  Skillcentre, Lambeth
  Job Release Scheme (Allowances)
  Job Release Scheme (Allowances)
  European Community Council of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers (Meeting)
  European Community Council of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers (Meeting)
  Trade Union Elections (Malpractice)
  Trade Union Elections (Malpractice)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Easter Recess
  Easter Recess
DEFENCE
  Skynet
  Skynet
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
  International Military Services
  International Military Services
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Departmental Land
  Departmental Land
  Cruise Missiles (Convoys)
  Cruise Missiles (Convoys)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Stephen Waldorf (Report)
  Stephen Waldorf (Report)
  Private Security Firms
  Private Security Firms
  Travel Documents
  Travel Documents
  Cigarettes (Young Persons)
  Cigarettes (Young Persons)
  European Community
  European Community
  Police Exercise (Fulham)
  Police Exercise (Fulham)
  Roads (Police Patrols)
  Roads (Police Patrols)
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Police (War Duties)
  Police (War Duties)
  Cinematograph (Amendment) Act
  Cinematograph (Amendment) Act
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Extradition
  Extradition
  British Nationality Act 1981
  British Nationality Act 1981
  London Fire Brigade
  London Fire Brigade
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
ENERGY
  Natural Gas Prices
  Natural Gas Prices
  Radioactive Waste (Leakages)
  Radioactive Waste (Leakages)
  Energy Use Surveys
  Energy Use Surveys
  Grants
  Grants
  Refuse-derived Fuels
  Refuse-derived Fuels
  North Sea (Oil-related Contracts)
  North Sea (Oil-related Contracts)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Cable Television
  Cable Television
  Rank Xerox (Undertakings)
  Rank Xerox (Undertakings)
  Estate Agents Act 1979
  Estate Agents Act 1979
  J. Bibby Edible Oils Ltd. (Takeover)
  J. Bibby Edible Oils Ltd. (Takeover)
  Asbestos Fibres
  Asbestos Fibres
  Motor Vehicle Batteries
  Motor Vehicle Batteries
SCOTLAND
  Schools Inspectors
  Schools Inspectors
  Colleges of Education (Inspection Arrangements)
  Colleges of Education (Inspection Arrangements)
  Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education
  Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Housing Support Grant
  Housing Support Grant
  Housing (Dundee)
  Housing (Dundee)
  Lanarkshire Health Board
  Lanarkshire Health Board
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Support Financing Scheme
  Support Financing Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Britannia Building Society
  Britannia Building Society
  National Debt
  National Debt
  European Community (Budget Contribution)
  European Community (Budget Contribution)
  Life Insurance Premiums
  Life Insurance Premiums
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  Coins
  Coins
  Reflation
  Reflation
  Civil Servants (Travel Allowances)
  Civil Servants (Travel Allowances)
  Personal Income and Taxation
  Personal Income and Taxation
  Public Sector Houses (Valuations)
  Public Sector Houses (Valuations)
  Deep Sea Mining (Licences)
  Deep Sea Mining (Licences)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Budget Council Meeting
  Budget Council Meeting
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Cornhill
  Cornhill
  Hungary (Visit)
  Hungary (Visit)
  Lord Mayor of Birmingham
  Lord Mayor of Birmingham
  Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925
  Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Auchinairn
  Auchinairn
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  European Community (Environmental Policy)
  European Community (Environmental Policy)
  Public Sector Manpower
  Public Sector Manpower
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Polygraph
  Polygraph
  Science, Technology and Industry Seminar
  Science, Technology and Industry Seminar
  Pay Review Bodies
  Pay Review Bodies
  Rayner Scrutinies
  Rayner Scrutinies
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Fleet (Aid)
  Fishing Fleet (Aid)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Surplus Foodstuffs
  Surplus Foodstuffs
  Meat
  Meat
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Nuclear Attack (Emergency Feeding)
  Nuclear Attack (Emergency Feeding)
  White Bread
  White Bread
  Fisheries Conservation
  Fisheries Conservation
  Intervention Payments
  Intervention Payments
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Drugs
  Drugs
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Green. Belt
  Green. Belt
  Milton Keynes Development Corporation
  Milton Keynes Development Corporation
  Sports Stadium (Luton)
  Sports Stadium (Luton)
  Rates
  Rates
  European Community (Environmental Policy)
  European Community (Environmental Policy)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Haringey
  Haringey
  Collaton Cross, Newton Ferrers
  Collaton Cross, Newton Ferrers
  Law Centres
  Law Centres
  Lambeth
  Lambeth
  Dewsbury
  Dewsbury
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Lead-free Petrol
  Lead-free Petrol
  Mortgages (Support Lending Scheme)
  Mortgages (Support Lending Scheme)
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
  Derelict Land Schemes
  Derelict Land Schemes
  "Agriculture and Pollution"
  "Agriculture and Pollution"
  School Playing Field Facilities
  School Playing Field Facilities
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  Belfast Rail Link Scheme
  Belfast Rail Link Scheme
  Old People's Home, Portaferry
  Old People's Home, Portaferry
  Foyle Bridge
  Foyle Bridge
  Ulster Defence Force
  Ulster Defence Force
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Unfair Dismissal
  Unfair Dismissal
  Ulster Museum (Attendances)
  Ulster Museum (Attendances)
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Agricultural Products (Imports)
  Agricultural Products (Imports)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Foreign Police Officers (Educational and Training Courses)
  Foreign Police Officers (Educational and Training Courses)
  World Bank
  World Bank
  Egyptian Citizens
  Egyptian Citizens
  Passports
  Passports
  Passport Office
  Passport Office
  Sapodilla Cays
  Sapodilla Cays
  Treaty Obligations (Military Assistance)
  Treaty Obligations (Military Assistance)
  Mr. Richard Stope
  Mr. Richard Stope
  Central America
  Central America
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Appointments
  Appointments
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Friern Barnet Hospital (Closure)
  Friern Barnet Hospital (Closure)
  Health and Social Security Bill
  Health and Social Security Bill
  Social Services Select Committee Report
  Social Services Select Committee Report
  Islington Health Authority (Meeting)
  Islington Health Authority (Meeting)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Departmental General Index
  Departmental General Index
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Allowances and Pensions (Lay Adjudicators)
  Allowances and Pensions (Lay Adjudicators)
  Allowable Rent
  Allowable Rent
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Pensions (Early Leavers)
  Pensions (Early Leavers)
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Osmosin
  Osmosin
  S Manual
  S Manual
  Benefits (European Community Residents)
  Benefits (European Community Residents)
  "Which Benefit?"
  "Which Benefit?"
  Labour Force Survey
  Labour Force Survey
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Extra-statutory Payments
  Extra-statutory Payments
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Pensions Uprating (Canada)
  Pensions Uprating (Canada)
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Taxi Advertising (Tobacco Health Warning)
  Taxi Advertising (Tobacco Health Warning)
  Benefit Leaflets (Gaelic)
  Benefit Leaflets (Gaelic)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Alcohol Consumption (Pregnancy)
  Alcohol Consumption (Pregnancy)
WALES
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Hospital Staffs
  Hospital Staffs
  Hospital Treatment
  Hospital Treatment
  Psychiatric Services
  Psychiatric Services
  Residential Accommodation
  Residential Accommodation
  Day Centres (Places)
  Day Centres (Places)
  Bilingual Schools
  Bilingual Schools
  European Regional Development Fund (Mid-Wales)
  European Regional Development Fund (Mid-Wales)

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone):My Lords, before the commencement of

The Long-Term Unemployed
Lord Dean of 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 are the annual figures since 1979 of the long-term unemployed.

Following is the table referred to:

The numbers unemployed for over 52 weeks in the United Kingdom in October each year since 1979 were as follows:

Registered unemployed

1979

357,066

1980

401,114

1981

784,636

Unemployed claimants

1982

1,029,000 (estimated)

1983

1,142,898

October each year

Registered unemployed

Unemployed claimants

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

(1) Total unemployed

1,367,639

2,062,866

2,988,644

3,049,008

3,093,998

(2) Unemployed for over 52 weeks

357,066

401,114

784,636

989.306*

1,142,898†

(3) (2) as percentage of (l)

26.1

19.4

26.3

32.4

36.9

of which:—

(4) Unemployed for over 52 and up to 104 weeks

173,747

200,356

512,719

555,322

581,151

(5) (4) as percentage of (1)

12.7

9.7

17.2

18.2

18.8

(6) Unemployed for over 104 weeks

183,319

200,758

271,917

433,984

561,747

(7) (6) as percentage of (1)

13.4

9.7

9.1

14.2

18.2

*Because of industrial action in 1981 it is estimated that this recorded figure shows a shortfall of about 40.000.

†Affected by the provisions announced in the 1983 Budget for unemployed men aged 60 and over: by October 1983 it is estimated that 122,000 in this duration group had been relieved of the need to sign on.

Lord Dean of Beswick:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that, despite the predictions of the Government and those from other sources that the economy is on the upturn, these figures are continuing to rise at a considerable rate? Can the noble Earl tell the House when Her Majesty's Government expect these figures to level out and to start to move downwards?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, I am afraid that in modern economies there is little correlation between increased economic activity and increased levels of employment. That is true all over the western world. The principal way in which we can help the long-term unemployed, and unemployed more generally, is by tackling the underlying causes of unemployment, by setting the economy to rights and creating the conditions for growth. In the meantime, we are spending nearly £2 billion a year on schemes of special help for unemployed people who, through no fault of their
586
business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty The Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Zealand to attend the Seventh Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth Parliaments to be held in Wellington from Monday, 9th January, to Wednesday, 11th January, and to take part in a tour of New Zealand which has been arranged immediately thereafter. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Monday, 16th January and Tuesday, 17th January.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the numbers unemployed for over 52 weeks in the United Kingdom in October this year were 1,142,898. With permission I will now circulate a table giving the figures for previous years since 1979.
their own, are caught in the machinery of an economy changing gear.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, while acknowledging that this is a question that would confront any Government of whatever political complexion, may I ask the noble Earl whether he agrees that, so far as young people are concerned, the heart of the unemployment problem has shifted from school-leavers to those aged between 18 and 25? Is he satisfied that the recent Government announcement of a target of 130,000 filled places in the community programme, which is to run, I understand, for a further two years from October 1984, is a sufficient response to the problem of the 1,140,000 people, as he has just told us, who have now been unemployed for more than 12 months, one in four of whom are aged under 25?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, it would be impossible to be fully satisfied, but I am satisfied to the

587
degree that within available resources the community programme does a good job. I can confirm to the noble Lord that about 40 per cent. of all participants in the community programme are in the 18 to 24 age group.
Baroness Gaitskell:My Lords, how can the noble Earl say that the health of the economy has nothing to do with the numbers of unemployed? It has a great deal to do with them.
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, that is not what I said. What I said was that increased economic activity in the modern world is not necessarily reflected in the numbers of the unemployed.
Lord Glenamara:My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree, especially in view of what he has just said, that the increasing and accelerating growth of technology means that there is no hope whatever of employment for large numbers of people unemployed in this country and throughout the world without a radical new approach to our employment policies? Does the noble Earl not agree that this is a challenge facing the whole western world? Unless we take up that challenge there is no hope whatever, because of the advance of technology. Cannot the Government take the initiative through the United Nations or elsewhere?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. Nevertheless, demographic factors and the fact that the number of people available for work at any one given period or one given decade shows fairly radical alteration must also be taken into account. What we are trying to do at the moment is to ease the special generation facing very particular problems (through no fault of their own, as I have said) into employment through training and re-training, and through other measures. In the meantime, we also have to see to the internal health of our economy and its competitiveness in world markets generally. I believe that over the next decade this will ease the situation somewhat.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords, while we clearly welcome any effort the Government make to ease the problem of those who are out of work, especially young school-leavers and others, is it not the case that the argument between the political parties and, indeed, the argument within the Conservative Party itself is that the time has come for the Government to stimulate the economy? Temporary expedients, such as finding something for young people to do for 12 months, are no alternative to, or substitute for, a job which has prospects. Therefore, will the noble Earl apply his mind to the problem which has been put so clearly by Mr. Edward Heath, Sir Ian Gilmour, Mr. Francis Pym, and others of his right honourable friends—namely, that the time has now come for the Government to take a clear step to stimulate the economy by building roads and houses and other parts of our infrastructure so that people can get a permanent job?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not consider that the spending of £2 billion of public money on training schemes, community programme schemes
588
and the like, are temporary expedients. That is a great earnest of the Government's commitment in this area. I am in no sense against the stimulation of the economy so long as it is recognised that it must be paid for in terms of things which can deflate the economy such as higher rates of interest or higher taxation. I also have the personal experience of having worked in Northern Ireland where enormous sums of public money, have been spent by successive Governments over the years and are still being spent. If the noble Lord's analysis were right, Northern Ireland would now be one of the more prosperous parts of the British economy.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that there is a lesson about long-term unemployment buried in today's news from the Scott Lithgow yard on the Clyde?
The Earl of Gowrie: Yes, my Lords.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, will not my noble friend agree that the trends in total unemployment in the past four months have been surprisingly encouraging considering that the economy has only recently turned upwards in Britain, and Britain has only recently become competitive and started to regain market share? Will my noble friend agree that this is perhaps because we live in an age of change and the new jobs are coming in new industries in small numbers at a time, while the old industries continue to decline and catch the news headlines?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is encouraging that the overall trend in the rise of the numbers of unemployed has stabilised consistently over the past four months, and that bears witness to the truth of a great deal of what he has said. Nevertheless, of course the numbers are too high. The individual tragedies involved cannot be underestimated, and that is why the Government are spending the amount of money that they are on the special programmes and other schemes that I have mentioned. I also agree with my noble friend that it is very important for us in Parliament to give clear signals to this political economy that future employment levels will come in smaller batches than we have known since the war.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the basic philosophy of capitalism in my lifetime has always been to have an unemployed market so as to keep the men quiet for fear that their jobs will be taken? Is this not a continuation of a capitalist economic policy?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, it is at least interesting to look at the very severe unemployment problems that exist in the non-capitalist economies such as China and Soviet Russia.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the Minister's comment on Northern Ireland, will the Minister review the position of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's report which stated that the level of public spending reflects the degree of economic activity? If there had not been public spending in Northern

589
Ireland to the degree that there has, would the noble Earl agree that the position would now be even worse?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not disagree with that analysis at all. What I was trying to deal with by way of illustration was the simple fact that if large sums injected into the economy, in terms of public spending, could correct the economy, then Northern Ireland would have a pretty healthy economy.
Lord Alport:My Lords, will my noble friend consider, from the Government's point of view, that there might be advantage in dealing with this problem by using not purely the material and financial yardstick by which to judge it, but sometimes to judge it by the human consequences which employment brings on the people of this country?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, that is precisely why levels of taxation in this country are already high—too high in my view—so that those of us who are fortunate enough to be in employment can make a contribution towards the plight of the unemployed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl must be aware that a large number of the people who are unemployed were formerly employed in the public sector. Therefore, will he urge Her Majesty's Government to respond to the overtures of both the CBI and the trade union movement—the TUC—to reflate the public sector in order to get jobs moving in that sector and get these appalling unemployment figures moving downwards?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most happy to take that point on board so long as the noble Lord, for his part, also looks into the employment consequences of higher rates of interest, higher taxation and higher rates of inflation.
Lord Leatherland:My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government training schemes, to which he referred, will also cater for octogenarians, many of whom find it impossible to get a job or to live on their pensions?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the very fact that the noble Lord is able to put that question to me shows that he is usefully employed.
Lord Seebohm:My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that considerable sums are now being received—
Noble Lords: Order, Order!
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead):My Lords, the next Question has been called. We have had a good run on Lord Dean's Question, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will let us move on.

The One Pound Coin
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molson: 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 continue to issue one pound notes in view of the inconvenience of one pound coins which are almost the same size as twenty penny pieces and difficult to distinguish after dark.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is the Government's intention to withdraw the £1 note from circulation in due course once the public have had time to become accustomed to the £1 coin. The need for a coin results from the way the £1 note deteriorates now that less frequent replacement is feasible. As the £1 coin becomes more familiar the public should find little difficulty in distinguishing it from the 20p coin which is of a different shape and colour, and is also noticeably thinner and lighter than the £1 coin.
Lord Molson:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that many cashiers find that when giving change for larger notes they are asked for pound notes and not for coins? If the paper wears out unduly fast, have the Government given consideration to substituting a plastic pound note?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am aware of many representations which have been made about the £1 coin. The fact remains that the main impetus for the introduction of the coin was the increasing treatment of the note as if it was a coin: it is kept in tills; it is not returned to banks by traders, and so it is not possible to replace it with the frequency that is desirable in order to keep the note in proper condition. As regards plastic notes, as my noble friend will be aware. the Isle of Man has recently introduced a plastic £1 note. Evaluations by the Bank of England suggest that plastic notes are not a suitable alternative to paper notes or, in the case of the £1, to the coin. They are not as secure from forgery as paper notes. For that reason we do not propose to go ahead with any idea on that line.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the weight of these coins is so heavy in one's purse or wallet that I have already worn through one, and that they also fall out of my husband's pockets? In view of inflation, it is very expensive both to replace the trousers and to replace the wallet.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have as many £l coins in my pocket as the noble Baroness, and I suggest that she invites her husband to change his £1 coins for a £5 note.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, yesterday during the Second Reading debate on the Cable and Wireless Bill we heard that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to give the people what they want. Is my noble friend quite sure that they want this coin?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, extensive consultations established a demand for the £1 coin, and in some anticipation of my noble friend's question both yesterday and today I have conducted my own private survey round your Lordships' House, and I have found that it is 50–50 in favour.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the new –1 coin is now being called a "Maggie" because it is hard, it has rough edges and pretends to be a sovereign?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but at another time I could tell the noble Lord a similar story in relation to the 50p piece, which I think was introduced by his party when they were in Government.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs:My Lords, will the Minister agree that this coin is disliked not because people are unable to get used to it and not because of their reactions to it, but because they just do not like it? Will the Minister not agree that we should continue to take soundings for a little longer and keep the £1 note, which is popular. for a little longer?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, no announcement has been made about the point at which the £1 note will be removed from circulation. However, I think it is important to bear in mind that the fact that, apart from anything else, it costs quite a lot of money to keep the £1 notes in circulation. A £1 note lasts for about 11 months and a £1 coin for about 40 years.
The Earl of Kimberley:My Lords, can my noble friend say for how long the Americans keep a one dollar bill in circulation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot speak for the Americans from this Dispatch Box.

"Buy British": The Public Sector
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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 draw the attention of Government departments and agencies, including those engaged in procurement for the armed forces, public corporations including nationalised industries, local authorities, private industry and individual citizens, to the need to "buy British" whenever feasible, and to ensure that their agents, employees and sub contractors do so.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they expect and hope that British goods will be bought whenever they are the best, the most competitive and offer value for money. For the past three and a half years we have been vigorously pursuing a major policy initiative aimed at encouraging the public sector to use its purchasing power in a positive manner to help develop and maintain suppliers' competitiveness.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most helpful and encouraging reply. Does he agree that, if we show confidence in our own products when the price and quality are right, people overseas are more likely to follow our example and buy British, and thereby help the export trade?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. The answer is, Yes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the nationalised industries have achieved a remarkable success in purchasing on a competitive basis from this country the vast bulk of their supplies, averaging over 90 per cent? In the case of the National Coal Board, which I had the honour of serving together with the noble Lord, Lord Gormley, the industry achieved even more than that. Would the noble Lord kindly indicate to us, in percentage terms, what success has been achieved by Government departments and agencies directly responsible to Government in the purchase of goods produced in this country?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord shot my fox because I, too, have the figure of 96 per cent. for the industry which he served with such distinction. On the noble Lord's second question, about the percentage of British goods bought by the private sector, I understand that it is in the region of 90 per cent.
Lord Blease: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the "Buy British" campaign, initiative or appeal also includes goods and manufactured products produced in Northern Ireland? Given the elements of price, delivery, quality and the statutory requirements, will he not agree that there is an urgent need to have some sort of appeal mechanism at ministerial level, so that enterprises that have tendered for products or goods and have been overlooked, or which consider that they have been overlooked or bypassed in favour of some foreign product, may appeal at ministerial level for their goods to be reconsidered?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall see whether I can obtain any information about the percentage of orders that are placed in Northern Ireland. However, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government are indeed monitoring the situation, and are very aware of the efforts which are made by British industry to sell to nationalised industries. Indeed, the public purchasing initiative is one of the arms of the Government in this particular area.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in the privatisation measures which the Government are now proposing, are they taking into account the outstanding record of the nationalised industries in supporting British industry?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question is a little wide of the answers that I have been giving.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, recently I ordered some peat for my garden and was astonished to find that it came from Moscow. Would it not be better if it came from Northern Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point. If she will give me the details, I shall see what substitute can be arranged for Moscow peat.
Lord Avebury:My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to address his mind to the question put to him by my noble friend, which was not about the private sector but was about the percentage of goods purchased from British sources by Government departments and other agencies for which the Government are responsible? Can the Government say what that percentage is?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sorry, but I should have said in my original Answer that other nationalised industries were in the region of 90 per cent. If I can obtain any further information on a detailed basis, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, just as my Question was intended to cover goods made in Northern Ireland, so also does his Answer?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's assistance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Taylor was perfectly in line with the Question on the Order Paper, because it says quite distinctly:
"including nationalised industries, local authorities, private industry and individual citizens"?
Will the noble Lord now answer the question?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, my noble neighbour is, I think, making a mountain out of a molehill. His noble friend asked about privatisation, not about private industry.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government encourage the police forces to purchase British cars instead of German cars, which I understand they do?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, that, I would think, is a matter for the police forces concerned, and of course the police forces must make their own decision on that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is important not only that people should buy British but that we should all be able to say, as we did before the war, that British is best? Is he aware that the only way that that can be done is for the Government to change course and to stimulate the economy and find jobs for people who will produce the best?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on the contrary, the Government's policy is to encourage British industry to see that things are the best on quality; and on delivery, technology and international competitiveness—D, T and I, which spells out the department for which I answer.
Lord Leatherland:My Lords, would the noble Minister care to go upstairs and see in one of the corridors a duplicating machine upon which there are piles of paper indicating that it was made abroad?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should be interested to see the corridor afterwards at the noble Lord's behest.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, may I refer back to the question of my late noble friend who asked, if I understood him properly, what would be the effect of privatisation of nationalised industries which are at the present moment buying British? Surely that is something to do with the Question?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I cannot see that privatisation would have any adverse effect upon their purchasing policies.

The Rating System: SAUS Response
3.2 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 consideration is being given to the response by the School for Advanced Urban Studies on Government proposals on the reform of the rating system, rate limitation and the proposals contained in Streamlining the Cities.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the response in so far as it refers to the White Paper Rates has already been considered. It is not clear as to whether or not this document is the official view of SAUS. It certainly does not share the Government's commitment to the need to protect ratepayers, to reduce public expenditure, and to achieve the Government's overall economic plans. The more recent response, which combines these comments with observations on the proposals in Streamlining the Cities, is currently being considered.
Lord Graham of Edmonton:My Lords, can we assume that the Government and the noble Lord welcome the observations of these distinguished academic individuals? On the very day on which the rate capping proposals of the Government are to be published, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the conclusions in the report in respect of rate capping, which indicate that there will be a significant increase of central control over local government? Lastly, in respect of the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties has the noble Lord noticed that so far as the case in the White Paper is concerned the report says that it is totally unconvincing, ill-prepared, and wholly unjustified?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I had noticed that, but in fact the signatories to the document clearly do not share the Government's view of the need to contain public expenditure within what the country can afford. But we have that view and we were elected on the basis of it. As to the other references to the abolition, and so on, clearly the noble Lord and those who put their names to this paper have a totally different view from that of the Government and certainly from mine.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that it is perfectly possible for the Government to maintain their mistaken policies about limiting Government expenditure without dismantling big city government?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, there is no intention to dismantle big city government.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what is an advanced urban study?
Lord Bellwin:My Lords, there are those who might fairly question that, certainly by reading the conclusions which the signatories to this paper reach. But far be it from me at Question Time to attempt such a definition.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps the Minister is not aware that the School for Advanced Urban Studies was set up by the Department of the Environment. Apart from the opposition in the noble Lord's own party and by the local authority associations which has been expressed today when the Bill has been published, is he aware that Professor Jones, professor of government at the LSE, and Professor John Stewart, professor of local government at Birmingham, in a recent paper demonstrated that the rate limitation proposals destroy the basis of local accountability? It was this on which Professor Jones expounded on radio this morning. Can the noble Lord find and let us know of any objective academic or other impartial specialist opinion which supports the Government's proposals and the so-called reasoning in the White Paper? If so, we should be grateful if he could let us know so that we can read it and find Out from whom and where it comes.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness pleads in aid the cause and the writings of the academics. I prefer to plead in aid the needs of the people who pay the bills at the end of the day.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a natural mnemonic for the School for Advanced Urban Studies is "sauce"?
Lord Bellwin: I pronounce it "sowse", my Lords.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister seemed to dismiss my noble friend's question as to whether he is aware that the general attitude of this report is also reflected by the three local authority associations. As there was a White Paper seemingly for consultation, what notice have the Government taken of the wholesale rejection of the Government's White Paper by the three local authority associations?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have to repeat something I said a moment ago, that the one group of people who do not reject wholesale the Government's proposals are the mass of people throughout the country, businesses and individuals, who have to pay the bills at the end of the day.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but is the Minister really saying that these
596
proposals are based on ignorance rather than knowledge and experience—that one should just take the objective and view of keeping down rates—and that the proposals do not make financial, social, or economic sense?
Lord Bellwin:My Lords, the noble Baroness makes her own judgments as to what the proposals mean. I would only say that the criticisms in this particular report, or paper, are based largely on value judgments which, at the end of the day, are clearly political in character.

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 a Statement that is to be made in another place on rate support grant 1984–85, Wales. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on British Shipbuilders: Britoil contract.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time for a Tuesday of 7.30 this evening. The Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Somerset House Bill will be taken.

Mental Health (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

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

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin):My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power of the Scottish Tourist Board to engage outside the UK in the promotion of Tourism in Scotland]:
Lord Carmichael Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which may be considered in two ways. If we look at it carefully we see that the word "only" in the context of this Bill is really superfluous. There is no suggestion from the wording that an activity can be carried on outside the United Kingdom without the consent of the Secretary of State. Unless the Minister can point to some legal necessity for including the word "only" here, I hope he will agree to its removal.
However, there is another way of considering the inclusion of this word "only; that is, that it could be construed as being mildly offensive and even diminishing the gesture made on Second Reading, which we all welcomed, small though it was, that the Scottish Tourist Board would have some power to promote Scotland overseas. I feel that the inclusion of this word "only" diminishes that gesture which was made. On Second Reading many speeches emphasised the special attractions that Scotland has in certain parts of the world, and the Minister responded well to the debate. Why does he spoil a good initiative by unnecessarily emphasising the master/servant relationship that is embodied in this part of the Bill? I hope that the Minister will reflect on this—I am sure that he has already done so—and will allow the Bill to read,
"to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom with the consent",
and not, "only with the consent".
"of the Secretary of State".
I therefore hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically, or explain why the word "only" is essential. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: This amendment would weaken the emphasis on the need for the Scottish Tourist Board to obtain consent for its activities outside the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will recall our discussion at Second Reading of the policy underlying the requirement that the Scottish Tourist Board should obtain the Secretary of States's consent before it exercises its overseas promotion power. I referred then to the broadly similar provision already applying to the Scottish local authorities and to area tourist boards, and I explained that through the consent procedure the Secretary of State is able to ensure that there is no wasteful overlap or duplication of effort.
A similar purpose underlies the consent procedure in this Bill: we wish to ensure that any overseas activities undertaken by the STB in practice complement the British Tourist Authority's promotion efforts for Great Britain, and that the overall Great Britain effort by BTA remains properly co-ordinated. To achieve this, the Secretary of State
598
has to be informed of all STB overseas promotion proposals and check their compatability with BTA's plans. In practice, We expect the board to submit an annual programme of detailed proposals for approval, enabling the Secretary of State to consider the Board's plans largely in one coherent package.
As Clause 1 is currently drafted, it is perfectly clear that the Scottish Tourist Board cannot properly exercise its overseas powers without the Secretary of State's consent. The use of the word "only" is perfectly natural in ordinary English, and by including it the policy intention—that the Scottish Tourist Board should invariably seek the Secretary of State's approval before carrying on overseas activities—is reflected with maximum accuracy.
Omission of the word "only" would I believe make it less clear that consent is necessary on all occasions; and it might imply that the obtaining of consent is of less importance. While I repeat that there is no intention to exert the power to give consent in a heavy-handed manner, we feel that it is important to ensure proper co-ordination by following the procedures suggested. It seems to me altogether fairer that our policy intention should be conveyed as unequivocally as possible; and I hope that on reflection the noble Lords may be persuaded that their amendment should be withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I think that anything that has been said by the noble Lord confirms me in my attitude regarding the meanness of the concession that has been given. What is the Minister saying? He says that if we leave out this word it will not be sufficiently clear that we mean to tie down the Scottish Tourist Board to get the consent with all the other things that apply to it. The Lord Advocate is here. He is a legal man; he will deal with the more difficult legal problems that will arise in relation to Scottish roads, but can he bring his legal mind to hear on this point? Would it greatly affect the sense of the clause if we left the word "only" out? It would then say that it had to be done "with the consent…of the Secretary of State". What is the advantage of putting in the word "only"? My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove is quite right. The Government are being grudging and mean about the whole business of giving this new power, small as it may be, to the Scottish Tourist Board.
May I remind the noble Lord that this is the one Tory manifesto commitment that has been carried out. This was included in the manifesto. Noble Lords from England, and even those from Scotland, may find that this is news to them. Here is a Tory Government carrying out for Scotland a Tory manifesto commitment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, will give us the benefit of his wisdom on this matter. He will remember what he demanded. I will read it again:
"We recommend very strongly, therefore, that the Scottish Tourist Board should be given overseas promotional powers in its own right, and be solely responsible for promoting Scotland abroad, after consulting district councils. (In saying this, we reserve the position of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, as we make clear in paragraph 154).
In fact that reference to the Highlands and Islands Development Board is because it has more power in promoting tourism for the Highlands abroad than has

599
the Scottish Tourist Board. At present the Scottish Tourist Board has none, but we are now bringing it up to the level, so we were told, of the councils and the area tourist boards.
I think it is offensive to put in this word "only" when it is unnecessary. I object to the principle of the cabining and confining of the Scottish Tourist Board as has been done here, but the Government have put in the word "only" and that is tautological and unnecessary. As for the Minister's telling us what we all know, that if we took it out it would weaken the power and the hold that the Secretary of State will have on this tourist board, does the Minister believe that this is necessary, or is he just reading a brief? May I tell him that he is a Minister of State? It is time he realised his power and told the civil servants that he would exercise the privilege of power and say that this is an unnecessary word and why should we carry on wasting the time of this noble House over this kind of thing? There is plenty of that in the next Bill, but here it is probably much more serious. I hope that the Minister will think again about it.
I am not a lawyer. This is a fairly commonsense bit of law. If one leaves the word out it makes no great difference. We are told that the reason why it is there is to make it clear that they are going to have no independent power—which was what the noble Lord, Lord Stodart sought, an independent position for the Scottish Tourist Board, one that we have been asking for for years. We were lucky to get a Scottish Tourist Board. I think it was in 1967. I was one of the sponsors of the Bill. It was a United Kingdom Bill and not a purely Scottish one, although we had things in the Bill that did not apply to England or Wales or they do not require any legislation for the changes that are going to come over them.
When it was announced by the Government in a press statement that they were going to give this power to the Scottish Tourist Board, we had laudatory leaders in the Glasgow Herald and in the Scotsman. All the papers were so startled by the fact that the Government were keeping a commitment that they forgot small print. But the small print was not there until the Bill came out. At the present time, we are told, the British Tourist Authority spends £2 million on behalf of Scotland. We have been told—and we are grateful to the Minister for telling us this at Second Reading—that with this new great venture, this commitment that has been accepted gladly by the Government, the Scottish Tourist Board are going to be allowed to spend £200,000 if they get the consent of the Secretary of State and if the Secretary of State has consulted the British Tourist Authority. And just to make sure of these things, there is put in this word "only".
How miserable can the Government get? When a Government behaves like this, no wonder the noble Lord is in this place. Well, he will be used to the Government blowing the trumpets of what they are going to do followed by the sad realisation that they are not going to do very much at all; it should be engrained in him by now. But it is sad that he should come along and read to us this rubbish as to why the word "only" should be there. The word "only" is
600
completely unnecessary and is offensive. Unless the noble Lord has something further to say I think we should divide the Committee on this.
Lord Gray of Contin: I never cease to be amazed at the transformation which can come over a Member of Parliament—whether in this place or the other place—when he moves from one side to the other. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who had a distinguished parliamentary career in another place, was responsible for a great deal of Scottish legislation. He was noted as one who hounded the draftsmen in order to get Bills exactly as he wanted them—and rightly so. I think that we can assume that any Bill for which the noble Lord was responsible received a very high degree of scrutiny. Therefore he will not be surprised that I have in front of me a copy of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. Nor will he be surprised that in that Act there is stated:
"The powers specified in the foregoing subsection shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary of State".
I should have thought that the difference between the noble Lord's "only" and the "only" that he is suggesting should be deleted from this Bill is really not of great relevance.
I think that the Committee will agree that the reasons which I have given for not accepting the amendment are compelling. There is no doubt that the object of this exercise is to ensure that there is no duplication of effort between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority but that their objectives which are the clear objectives to promote tourism for GreatBritain—and particularly for Scotland—are complemented. I believe that what we are doing in this Bill—and I will not be drawn at this stage into the question of the finance, the £200,000—is by far the best way of achieving for Scotland the advantage of individual identification and the promotion of that identification by the Scottish Tourist Board along with the benefits of promotion in a Great Britain scene which we can obtain through the activities and efforts of the British Tourist Authority.
I do not think that we should waste too much time on this amendment. I do not think that the case for it has been made by noble Lords opposite, and with the greatest respect—and I fully appreciate their interest and their wish to discuss the Bill at Committee stage—I suggest that they do not have a strong point in this amendment and I hope that they may feel that they can withdraw it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:We on these Benches think that it is perhaps not as strong a point as some which come later; but, equally, we think the Government might as well have given way on this matter. With that strong position that we have taken up, I will say no more.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It was a pity that the noble Lord had not said that before we had the second "no" from the Government. He must learn to use his powerful influence—his weighty influence—at the right time. I must come back to this attack on what was said in the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. If the noble Lord drags in this

601
very red herring then I have to make some comment on it. He will remember that that red herring, that Bill, gives very considerable powers to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The noble Lord was not there at the time. He was only a very temporary sojourner in the other place compared with some others that I know. If he had been there, and coming as he did from the Highlands, he would probably have been as appalled as I was at the fact that this wonderful Bill which everybody wanted was castigated by a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (who is now in this House) as Marxism run wild. It was straight from Karl Marx. You can understand what a reasonable fellow I was when I said, "It will only be put forward with these powers used and exercised with the consent of the Secretary of State".
Now let us have a look at this Bill before us. There is nothing very Marxist about this one. It is a very different set-up. There is only one limited little power to spend as far as we know at the present time. I can understand him not wishing to go into the finance of the £200,000. So that is the answer to that one. Surely, when the Government are trying to be generous, trying joyously to meet a commitment which they gave to the people of Scotland—a commitment which the people of Scotland did not want anyway from them, judging by the results—they could have done a little better than this. I think that the real question is whether it is necessary to be in the Bill. It is a matter of simple drafting.
How does the Bill read if the word is not there? At present it reads:
"…shall exercise the power … to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom only with the consent (which may be given from time to time…) of the Secretary of State…".
It is a case of "only with the consent of" or
"…shall exercise the power with the consent…".
That is what we are arguing about. That is the great matter of principle on which the researchers have been delving into almost every speech I have ever made: they may even have gone hack to 1946, for ought that I know, in respect of this. Is it really worth arguing about?
It is up to the Government to justify what they have done, and if there is something tautological and unnecessary in a Bill I am all for getting rid of it. I love interruptions but I like to hear them. Noble Lords will have to break from their usual custom of speaking from sedentary positions and I hope they will do it without covering their mouths with their hands. But I quite welcome them to get up. I know they do not like it, but this is a fact—the word "only" is unnecessary and, being there, is purely and simply offensive. I will give the Government time to think about it. I will put the same amendment down at the next stage, hoping that between now and then they will reconsider the matter and maybe find some better arguments for its being there.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Having listened to my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and also to the reply from the noble Lord the Minister, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter before it comes up at Report; otherwise we will put the amendment
602
down again at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page1, line 15, leave out from ("State") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: this amendment seeks to remove words which would give a senior Minister or Cabinet Minister an instruction to consult with a Government-appointed body before permitting another Government-appointed body to do or not to do something. This seems to me to envisage a situation where there was no real contact between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board and the Ministers who appointed them. If we look at Clause 2, it makes it clear that the Scottish Tourist Board must have the consent, with or without conditions, of the Secretary of State before carrying out any promotions overseas. Surely that is enough? In practice, we all know there will be a great deal of discussion within the British Tourist Authority on all promotions and schemes and that particular attention will be paid to overseas promotion by the Scottish Tourist Board, especially since its budget for such work is so small, and the Secretary of State through his staff will be very well aware of whatever the Scottish Tourist Board are likely to propose. I hope that the Minister will take the point.
Again, I am concerned that a power which is being given to the Scottish Tourist Board and which we all welcome appears, from the wording in the Bill, to be given grudgingly and not in an outgoing manner at all. It is giving them something but trying all the time to say: "But we want to know all the time exactly what you are doing". It is taking any freedom away from them. So I am concerned that the Bill, which had been well received, should seem to be giving the Scottish Tourist Board not a reasonably free hand. I believe that the Minister should remove these unnecessary psychological fetters on the Scottish Tourist Board and not diminish it in the eyes of the Scottish people and of the British Tourist Authority. We should try to get away from the old "master/servant" business that I mentioned earlier. I hope the Minister will realise that Scottish tourism will be well supervised by the people of Scotland, because it is not an enormously large country. The Secretary of State, with this staff, will be able to provide many safeguards against any irresponsibility, either now or in the future. I believe that the inherent and overall power of the Secretary of State for Scotland is sufficient control without there being any need to put in this particular clause. I beg to move
Lord Gray of Contin:The Government are concerned to ensure that any overseas activities proposed by The Scottish Tourist Board will complement the British Tourist Authority's promotion efforts for Great Britain; that there is no duplication of effort between the two bodies; and that the overall Great Britain promotional effort by the British Tourist Authority remains properly coordinated. This amendment would remove the

603
obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority on the Scottish Tourist Board's overseas promotional proposals. The requirement on the Secretary of State in subsection (2) to consult the British Tourist Authority will ensure that the Authority has a voice in the shape and structure of the activities which the Scottish Tourist Board proposes to undertake overseas. It is entirely appropriate that this should be so. The British Tourist Authority will continue to be the organisation with primary responsibility for the promotion of Scotland overseas. Nothing in this Bill is designed to alter that in any way. What we propose is that the Scottish Tourist Board should supplement the British Tourist Authority's efforts. If the two bodies' activities are to dovetail, it is crucial that the BTA, the lead body, be given the opportunity to comment on the Scottish Tourist Board's activities. Scotland, after all, is to be marketed as part of Great Britain as well as in its own right. This is not, of course, to say that the British Tourist Authority will dictate what the Scottish Tourist Board should do overseas. The final decision on the Scottish Tourist Board's activities abroad will rest with the Secretary of State, who will take a view on the basis of all the advice available to him, including that of the British Tourist Authority.
I do not anticipate that the requirement of the Secretary of State to consult the BTA will cause delay. The consent provision in subsection (2) is similar to that imposed on local authorities and area tourist boards under the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. The BTA is involved in that consultation process and at no time since the procedure was introduced, some ten months ago, has there been any difficulty about obtaining the British Tourist Authority's comments quickly. I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Lords will agree that their amendment may be withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must say that the Minister's explanation rather highlights what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, that now we want to oversee the Secretary of State as well and instruct him to consult the British Tourist Authority. Surely to goodness the Secretary of State knows his duty without its being laid down exactly to him. I must say that the argument to the effect that we have to dovetail every single thing and gain the consent of both bodies does look a little thin when you consider that the Scottish Tourist Board are going to be spending £200,000 and they are hardly likely to throw it away and duplicate something that was already being done by the British Tourist Authority. I must say that it appears to me excessive, but it is not, again, a tremendous point. However, I think that the Minister could well remove these lines and improve the Bill and perhaps show a little more trust in the tourist authorities in Scotland and in the Secretary of State for Scotland, instead of hedging them in with every possible definition.
Lord Hughes: I am very surprised that the Minister of State should have reacted as he did to this amendment, which undoubtedly, I think, would improve the Bill. I particularly appreciated what my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said on the previous amendment, when he was inviting the
604
Minister of State to remember that he was the Minister of State, because when I occupied the position which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, occupies now I was given a very clear mandate from my noble friend (who was then Secretary of State for Scotland) to exercise my discretion on matters where the Bill would be neither impaired nor improved by accepting an amendment. Of course, I was in a different position from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. I did not have hordes of possible votes sitting behind me, and I had to try to be reasonable to the House and carry the House with me. Now he knows that if any of these matters are taken to a Division he will win it. That does not make the argument any better.
I should like to draw his attention to the fact that, while he points out how necessary it is that the Secretary of State should consult the British Tourist Authority before giving his consent to proposals, if the noble Lord goes a little further down the page—and I would appreciate it if he would pay attention to what I am saying and not allow himself to be distracted by his colleagues—he will see:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall—
(a) affect the power of the British Tourist Authority to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Scotland".
There is nothing in that hit saying that, before it exercises its powers. it should consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. But when the Secretary of State wants to consider something. he has to consult the British Tourist Authority.
That indicates to me that my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove are right when they say that the Government give all the impression of having allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce this Bill, but they have done it in the most grudging fashion possible and are seeking to preserve the power of the British Tourist Authority even over the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, would do more honour to his office if he exercised a little more discretion, and did not feel obliged to stick to every word or comma which appears in the Bill before the Committee today.
Lord Howie of Troon: I think that the Committee will by now be well on the way to agreeing that my noble friend Lord Carmichael must be right or, if not totally right, very nearly right. In parenthesis, let me say that it is a very good thing to see him here. He brings a great deal of expertise and distinction from another place to our deliberations.
What we should consider against this amendment is the Title of the Bill and what the Bill purports to be about. I come here not to cause trouble but to bring peace, but, as I see it, the Bill is intended to enable, to help or to assist the Scottish Tourist Board to do a variety of things. It is not to assist the British Tourist Authority to do things, estimable though the British Tourist Authority may be, and desirable as its information and help might be. The main thrust of the Bill is to help the Scottish Tourist Board to do something and, therefore, I should have thought that anything in the Bill which appeared to hinder the Scottish Tourist Board in carrying out those duties which are written into the Title of the Bill, ought to be

605
looked at fairly closely. If the provisions of the Bill are such as to hinder the Scottish Tourist Board in carrying out any of the duties which the Bill is intended to a lay upon it, we ought to think about that fairly carefully.
I should have thought that if the Bill, in Clause 1(2) which we are considering, insists that the British Tourist Authority ought to be consulted, it might be a good thing. The British Tourist Authority is a great fount of wisdom in all these matters and consulting it might be helpful. But if the duty to consult is laid upon the Scottish Tourist Board, that is certainly an inhibition between the tourist board and the duty which is laid upon it in the Title of the Bill.
The problem might not be great, nor so enormous as to be insurmountable, and we know that Secretaries of State for Scotland can get round these problems with great dexterity and adroitness. But we should think very carefully before we put into the body of a Bill an instruction which, as I see it—and I may be wrong—amounts to an inhibition on the tourist board in carrying out the duty which the Title of the Bill lays upon it.
The Minister of State is a very sensible man. We know that from his previous career in another place. we know it from the time that he has spent with us, and he has done quite a hit of work in that relatively short time. I think that he should pay very great and careful attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and think them over and wonder whether on this occasion Lord Carmichael might be right.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend to look at the word "shall". That is really the point which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is making. The Bill is putting an obligation on the Secretary of State. If the British Tourist Authority say, "But you never consulted us about this", and the Secretary of State has given his consent, he is technically in breach of the law. Is this really a very sensible burden to put upon the Secretary of State? I know that this is the very old controversy about the words "shall" and "may", but I should have thought that the word "may" would have been quite enough to cover all that is required. I fully recognise that there must be co-ordination, but it seems to me that this is putting a burden on the Secretary of State which is not necessary and which might land him in quite a lot of difficulty.
Lord Stodart of Leaston:The noble Lord, Lord Ross, quoted some words from the report which we submitted to my noble friend two years ago, and I make no bones about saying, as I said on Second Reading, that I wish that the Government were prepared to go a little further. That is what the report said and that is what I wrote my name to. I am bound to say that I think my noble friend the Minister of State is labouring under a most unfortunate burden from the remarks that were made in another place, when I believe that a Statement was made and the Minister made it emphatically clear that this would mean virtually nothing and would be of little importance to the Scottish Tourist Board. I think that that did an immense amount of harm.
606
But what I ventured to say in my Second Reading speech was that, since the report was submitted, we have made a certain amount of progress. There was a Director of Overseas Tourism appointed almost immediately to the Scottish Tourist Board. This Bill is giving an ability to the tourist hoard to promote abroad—albeit on a limited scale—and I do not think it unreasonable of me to say that, in the course of the Second Reading, I did not get the support or the acclamation which I think I was entitled to get, in view of what the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Carmichael, have been saying today. They did not say "Great stuff that Stodart Report!" All they said —and I shall quote what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said—was:
"I am glad that we have this new flexibility for the board"—
that is, the Bill as it is written—
"We welcome the Bill…I hope that this will he just the start of something". [Official Report, 29/11/83; col. 601.]
I think it is. I do not have so long an experience of Parliament as the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, but I have come firmly to the conclusion that the mills of God indeed grind slowly. I can only hope that they will grind sure in due course.
Lord Gray of Contin:I cannot add a great deal to what I said initially, when I replied to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I will, however, try to clarify one or two points which may not be fully appreciated by the Committee. First, the British Tourist Authority does not have to give its consent. The words are:
"the Secretary of State…shall…consult the British Tourist Authority".
At the end of the day, the decision about which activities the Scottish Tourist Board engages in overseas is the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no question of the British Tourist Authority having to give its consent.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk put forward the argument that we have had on so many occasions in both Houses about "shall" or "may". There are many examples of a Secretary of State being placed under an obligation to consult any number of other bodies with a view to achieving a better result in the case of the matter under consideration. This obligation does not apply just to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my noble friend is aware, there are many other instances where Secretaries of State are required to consult. I cannot really believe that by making this amendment we shall improve the Bill. The requirement is perfectly reasonable, and is well precedented.
I emphasise, because I am quite sure this point has not been fully appreciated (I come back to the first point which I made in my earlier remarks), that there is absolutely no question of the BTA having to give its consent, but it is right and reasonable that the BTA should be in the lead. As I explained earlier to the Committee, the BTA spends a very substantial sum of money upon helping to promote Scotland—a very much larger sum of money than it is intended that the Scottish Tourist Board will spend in order to supplement the efforts of the BTA. So it is reasonable and in the best interests of Scotland that the BTA should take the lead. With the BTA taking the lead,

607
Scotland will get the benefit, not only of its own promotion through the Scottish Tourist Board, but also of the British promotion which the British Tourist Authority carries out on its behalf. Far from doing anything to weaken that situation, I believe the fact that it will be strong and secure will be in Scotland's best interests. I do not believe that the amendment does anything to improve the position, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Wilson of Langside: This amendment has already occupied a good deal of time, and I hesitate to take up any more of the time of the Committee. However, I find it quite astonishing, having listened to the Minister's reply, that he has not received one word of support either from his side of the Committee or from this. The Minister has not said that he will take the matter away and look at it again. I agree with everything that, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in support of the amendment. I find it surprising that in answer to what has been said on both sides of the Committee the Minister should apparently still be reluctant to have another look at the matter, and that he is content to leave the Bill with, apparently, an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority. It is not enough to reassure us by saying that in the Bill as it stands an implied veto is not left in the hands of the British Tourist Authority.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have a great deal of sympathy for the speech of the Minister of State. There was a good deal of sense in it, but it might be worth his while to reconsider the words -shall" and "may". The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made a quite strong point. A great deal of what the Minister of State said about the input of the BTA is correct. We know about that, and we accept it. But the Minister said something which is quite important. Though he felt it was right that the BTA should be consulted, he emphasised more than once that the consent of the BTA was not necessary. It was a key point in his reply. It was a weakness in a very sound reply—a weakness in the following way. If the consent of the BTA were necessary, the word "shall" would not only make sense but would be necessary. But since the consent of the BTA is not necessary the word "shall" is unnecessary and the word "may", as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, makes a great deal more sense.
If the noble Lord the Minister of State were to reflect upon the comments which have been made in this extremely brief debate he would realise that by making the kind of change which has been suggested at a later stage of the Bill—either the large change which my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove has moved or the lesser change which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has mentioned—he would be doing the Committee a very good turn.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I had hoped that the noble Lord would give us some pleasing words about the possibility of looking again at this matter. The fact that he dealt so timidly with the previous amendment makes his performance on this one even more disgraceful. He said that there was a precedent for the
608
Secretary of State having to consult. However, they are not necessarily mandatory consultations. On previous occasions I have put down amendments to the effect that the Secretary of State should consult the trade unions. The answer I received was that the Secretary of State would do that, anyway; those words did not need to be inserted. If these words were not included, I am sure that, because this other body is there and does the bulk of the work, they would be consulted.
Because of the praise that the Minister heaped on the shoulders of the BTA, I began to wonder why there was any need for the Bill. If the situation is so good, why have the Bill? The overseas projection amounted to over £200,000. It is quite humiliating that the Secretary of State should be told that he has got to consult the BTA. The Scots are suspicious people. The Government have already announced changes relating to the BTA. One of the changes is that the chairman of the English Tourist Board is to become the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. I believe that is all the more reason for being a little more considerate of the feelings of the Scots and saying, "We don't need this".
Of course we realise that there is no power of veto here for the British Tourist Authority; but to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make this consultation is quite unnecessary. The Bill, as we read it, becomes more and more offensive. I do not believe that we want to divide the Committee; I know that my Welsh colleagues want to hear the good news about Wales—if, indeed, that be the proper phrase. I shall therefore advise my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove:I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister of State will have felt the feeling of the House on this particular amendment and realises his own particular isolation. Perhaps between now and Report stage he will reconsider the matter. In order to give him a chance to do so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I believe that this is probably the right moment to take the Statement, move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and. on Question agreed to.
House resumed.

Rate Support Grant—Wales
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
"Mr. Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement about the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1984–85. I have this afternoon announced to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance the details of the 1984–85 rate support grant settlement. Copies of the text of my statement to the consultative council

609
will be placed in the Library of the House. The rate support grant report will be laid before the House after the recess and will be debated in the usual way.
"The main features of the 1984–85 settlement confirm the intentions I announced in November. They must be seen in the context of the Government's continuing commitment to secure reductions in public expenditure. The total of relevant expenditure provision accepted for grants is £1,440 million. This comprises £1,253 million for current expenditure and £187 million for non current items. Aggregate exchequer grant will be £996 million, comprising £138.8 million for specific grants, £31 million for transport supplementary grant. £1.9 million for national parks supplementary grant and £824.3 million for the rate support grants, Domestic rate relief is unchanged at 18½ pence in the pound which costs £25.3 million, leaving £799 million for distribution as block grant.
"The settlement is a fair one. Current expenditure provision, after allowing for the 1½ per cent. reduction in authorities' national insurance surcharge from next April and the way in which housing benefit administration costs are now counted for rate support grant purposes, is £57 million or 4.8 per cent. more than the provision underlying the 1983–84 settlement.
"Aggregate exchequer grant at £996 million is £21 million or 2.2 per cent. more than the aggregate exchequer grant provision in the main rate support grant settlement for the current year. More importantly for rating purposes, it is £36 million or 3.8 per cent. higher than the amount authorities have included in their budgets for the present year.
"As in the present year and preceding one, I have set individual authority expenditure targets. Experience has shown that these are helpful to authorities in providing a degree of certainty of grant entitlement for spending at target and clearly exert a significant influence on expenditure decisions. In the light of the views expressed by the two Welsh local authority associations I have retained the same method for determining next year's expenditure targets as that used in the current year. This enables me to withhold grant in an equitable way by ensuring that the amount of grant withheld from an authority is directly related to its own overspending and not to the expenditure decisions of other authorities.
"The targets I have set are very tough for some authorities—but are reasonable for all. Every authority's target gives a cash increase in its current expenditure: the minimum increase is 11 per cent. and the maximum 6 per cent., after making allowance for the reduction in the national insurance surcharge next year and a modest amount of budget drift.
"The grant withholding penalty for spending in excess of targets has been strengthened. As in the present year the amount of grant withheld for excess expenditure up to 1 per cent. above target is 40 per cent. of that excess but above that level the rate of holdback increases progressively with a maximum rate of 90 per cent. for authorities spending 5 per cent. or more above target: this compares with a
610
maximum rate of grant withholding in the current year of 75 per cent. at 6 per cent. spending above target. I am retaining the grant protection arrangements already adopted whereby any authority spending at or below target will be exempted from both grant holdback and close-ending. Similarly the limitation of grant holdback for low rateable resource authorities set in the present year will be retained for 1984–85.
"Block grant will be distributed in accordance with the grant related expenditure formulae agreed by the Welsh local authority associations. I have decided to retain the existing block grant mechanisms which determine the distribution of block grant before holdback and the same safety net for limiting grant losses associated with changes in GRE—a maximum 4 pence loss at the county level and 1 pence loss at the district level.
"There is a continuing need for restraint in local government expenditure. Some progress has been made on this front but there is still some way to go. Since 1978–79 local government current expenditure in Wales has risen by about 2 per cent. more than the increase in costs for the economy as a whole. We must reverse this trend. The realistic increases in expenditure provision and aggregate exchequer grant for 1984–85 should enable authorities to maintain reasonable service standards provided pay settlements are kept down and authorities continue and reinforce their efforts to secure greater efficiency and economy and better value for money. In this respect I note that the latest joint manpower watch figures, which are being released today, confirm that staff numbers in Wales have risen by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September. This alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year, after making allowance for the effect of a grant holdback. Clearly if authorities are to meet their targets for next year this growth of manpower must he reversed. I appreciate of course that authorities have difficult choices of priority to make but that applies in all areas of public expenditure, including my own programmes.
"What happens to rates next year will of course depend on the decisions of authorities themselves. Here I will simply make two points. Authorities can on average increase their net revenue expenditure next year by nearly 4 per cent. and still spend in line with targets. And if authorities spend at this level and apply only half of the balances they have applied in the present year, rate increases would average only 1 per cent. Indeed, rates could fall if authorities applied balances to the same extent as in the current year.
"These figures are a very far cry from some of those which have been bandied about: for example the average rate increase of 17 per cent. reported in the press. I regard this figure as wildly exaggerated and simply do not believe it. It would imply about a 7 per cent. increase in net revenue expenditure which I am sure authorities in general will not seek to impose on their ratepayers. Furthermore, rates this year on average rose by less than 1 per cent. despite earlier local authority forecasts—and forecasts by Opposition Members in this

611
House—that average rate levels in Wales would be into double figures.
"I conclude by repeating that the settlement is a fair and reasonable one. I am confident that local authorities. like the Government, want to keep rate increases down to the absolute minimum. Low rate increases benefit all sectors of the community: industry, commerce and domestic ratepayers alike. It is now for each local authority to take its own spending decisions in the light of the settlement provision and of the effect of their decisions on ratepayers as a whole."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. This is another complex Statement which we shall need to study very carefully. I hope that there will be opportunities in due course to debate this Statement as well as the English and Scottish Statements on the rate support grants.
Is the noble Baroness aware that because of the very high unemployment figures in Wales, local authorities occupy a position of special importance both as employers of labour and as providers of services—for example, home help and other social assistance in communities where poverty is. unfortunately. only too evident at this time? May I point out to the noble Baroness that in aggregate the spending of Welsh local authorities has in fact been economical and very close to the totals allowed for in RSG settlements? Yet the Statement says that the targets are very tough for some authorities. Could the noble Baroness be a little more explicit and say which authorities the Government are going to be tough with and why; what is the reason for this toughness? Does it follow that in some areas the increases in the ratepayers' share of the total will mean rate bills going up substantially?
The Statement seems to me to give the impression—although here I must make plain that I have not yet had an opportunity to digest it as I should wish—that there are going to be no cuts. Could the noble Baroness say what will be the position in real terms if inflation goes up by 4.5 per cent., which I think is the Government's estimate, although there are many who think that inflation will go up by 6 per cent. or more? But even if the figure is 4.5 per cent., does not that mean that in real terms local authorities are going to suffer a cut?
Furthermore, the Government say that the local authorities can save by increased efficiency and economy. Does not the noble Baroness realise that the local authorities are in fact bearing extra costs as a direct result of Government policy? For example, direct labour organisation legislation, publication of information, response to MSC initiatives, sale of council houses—all these are the result of Government policies. Furthermore, there is the transfer of work from the Civil Service offices into the town halls throughout the country and throughout Wales; for example, in regard to unified housing benefits, statutory sick pay schemes, proposals for the alteration of valuation lists, and so on.
612
The noble Baroness has repeated the Statement indicating that staff numbers in local authorities in Wales have risen—I am quoting now—by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September, and this alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year. Is the noble Baroness aware that these increases are the result of Government policy? This is not a deliberate step by the local authorities, although, frankly, as one who lives in Wales and sympathises with unemployment there, I would sympathise with local authorities for increasing jobs in order to find work for people. Is the noble Baroness aware that the increases to which she has referred are the result of the Government policies to which I have referred?
Is she further aware that the Government's policies must result in real cuts in the standards of services in many areas? Is she aware that the standards of service and efficiency of Welsh local authorities are recognised to be of high quality and that the grant holdback represents a significant increase in the severity of that scheme? Is it not inequitable and harsh that relatively minor variations should result in severe grant penalties of up to 90 per cent? Is the noble Baroness aware that the task of councillors and officials in Welsh local authorities in communities which are suffering more and more as a result of Government policy is going to be virtually impossible and this really is a matter which must be criticised severely? Can the noble Baroness therefore give the House an undertaking that this matter will be looked at very carefully before damaging cuts are inflicted on local authorities with splendid records of public service?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, should like to express from these Benches our thanks to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I share almost entirely the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Is the Minister aware that many of the Welsh local authorities believe that their rate bills will have to rise by at least twice the rate of inflation, since the total cash available for local authority services, according to the Statement, is only up by 2.2 per cent. on the £996 million available? That means that there has been a cut from 70.4 per cent. to 69 per cent. in the RSG.
Is the Minister also aware that the Welsh local authority treasurers, after the Secretary of State had had initial consultations with them, did not accept the view of the Secretary of State for Wales, who believed that the average rate rises for Wales would be below inflation? The district councils in Wales believe that their average rate rises will be at least twice the rate of inflation; that is, between 8 and 12 per cent. The only way for them to ease that rate burden, apart from severe cuts in services, is by imposing huge rises in council house rents. Can the noble Baroness tell us how much of the £138.8 million for specific grants is to help to meet the costs of the 60,000 home improvement grant applications already in the pipeline, which the Welsh authorities were hoping they would have some assistance with in the block grant? Is the Minister aware that we shall be watching the results of the RSG settlements, both for Wales and for the rest of the United Kingdom, with considerable interest in the future? I trust that we are not going to be able to say later that the rate support grant this year

613
was deliberately engineered to produce higher than average rate rises in order to get public support for Government measures to come for rate capping.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their reception of this Statement. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that this is a very complicated subject. As to the question of a debate on this subject as on the English rate support grant, that would, of course, be a matter for the usual channels, who I am sure have taken note of what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a great many questions, and, if I may, I will try to deal with them in turn. He first of all asked about the increase in numbers of local authority employees in Wales and said that some of these were due to the Government's putting on to Welsh local authorities services which they would not otherwise have had. I would confirm that all the increase in manpower, the 1,000 increase in manpower over this last year, is in the county tier authorities, which have not been affected by the transferred functions that the noble Lord mentioned.
The noble Lord asked me which authorities would be affected, when I said that the effect would be tough on some authorities. In a sense, the answer was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The targets will be very much affected by the element of the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will understand, the changeable element in the targets set, which can be tough on some authorities and less tough on others, is determined by the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. This reflects the exercise of local discretion in setting increases in rents. If authorities decide not to increase their rents in line with the increase in the local contribution assumed by central Government when setting housing subsidy levels, then, of course, the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account will he higher than that component of the authorities' targets. So an authority ought not to be surprised at the way that this is worked and the results that it will have.
As far as the increase in the severity on the holdback is concerned, here the rate of grant withholding is exactly the same as in the current year for authorities spending up to 1 per cent. over their targets, but the penalties increase on a sliding scale rapidly over that percentage. The intention is, of course, to squeeze the overspenders in this particular way in order to keep down the total level of expenditure. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that many Welsh local authorities think that their rate bills will rise by very considerable amounts. The noble Baroness will understand from the answer I have already given to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that this will depend very largely on the amount of rate fund contribution that is made to the housing revenue account. We do not believe that the sort of figures that have been talked of will in fact be necessary if local authorities are prepared to consider their costs, which is a very important matter, and are also prepared to use some of their balances. Some authorities did that this year, with some success in keeping down the rate fund contribution.
614
On the point raised by the noble Baroness concerning consultation with the Welsh authorities I am of course aware of the view that they have taken about the rate support grant and that they are opposed in principle to the expenditure targets, and have said so. But 1 understand that the Welsh authorities pressed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to retain the same methodology for constructing the targets for this coming year as that used in the current year, and that has in fact been done.
The last question raised by the noble Baroness related to home improvement grants. I understand that the proportion out of the £138.8 million is about £40 million.
Lord Elwyn-Jones:My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether the Government can take steps to compensate Welsh towns such as Llanelly, which has suffered grievously through the closure of factories like Duport Steel and the Carmarthen Bay power station, by making special provision for a new infrastructure in these greatly suffering communities to enable industrial enterprise to be recreated in towns which, I am sorry to say, by reason of Government policy, at any rate to a considerable degree, have become rather derelict in the course of the past four years?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord about Welsh towns. My understanding of the position is that Welsh local authorities have discretion within their spending targets to determine how they spend their money. I would not be in a position to comment on particular capital spending in any particular authority, at least not without notice, but my understanding is that where there are these cases it is possible for the town to use some if its money in that way.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the noble and learned Lord's question was very pertinent and should be taken into account, the Government must look at it in a wider sphere? People are unemployed in other parts of the country because the rate burden, on top of other tax burdens, is making it impossible for firms to give the high level of employment that they could if greater efficiency and more stringency on spending came about. It is not only a matter of local councils, and the effect on certain authorities, but the fact that the overall effect of high rates and high taxes is interfering with any attempt which can be made to reduce the high unemployment figures.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I think I am right in saying that overall about 60 per cent. of the rate bill is paid by industry and this affects their ability to employ more people.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the Statement, allied to the Statements in relation to Scotland and England, and the Bill published today, bring into high relief the whole future of democratic local government in this country? If, for example, in an economic depression

615
local authorities are forbidden, in reality, to do some relief work which the Government refuses to do, what is to be the future?
Baroness Young:No, my Lords, I cannot accept that. I accept this is a tough settlement, but we believe that it is achievable. It is worth remembering that last year 32 out of the 45 Welsh authorities achieved their targets and have shown that it is possible to do so. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that it is the duty of the Government to fix total expenditure levels, for all the reasons we have given, and that it is central to our economic policy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords, will the noble Baroness deal with one short question? Will she confirm that if inflation runs at the Government's predicted figure of 4½per cent. there will be a cut in the grant in real terms?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the general estimate for the future rate of inflation is 4.8 per cent., as it is now, or perhaps lower. We believe it is important that when fixing their wages local authorities must take account of the 3 per cent. increase that the Government have given as a guideline on wage settlements. Furthermore, we believe that local authorities must continue to ensure that they are getting value for money and look for good housekeeping in the way that they spend their money. Given those aspects and the other points I have made, we believe that it is possible for authorities to keep within the targets which have been set.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, coming back to my noble friend's point, does not the noble Baroness accept that if the Government fix all spending, and force the local authorities so to do, there will be no incentive for the ratepayers and the electors in a district to get rid of their authority or its members?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government have fixed expenditure levels, but within those there is wide variation between authorities on what they choose to do. Some authorities have got themselves into difficulties because, for example, they have not increased rents by the amounts suggested and on the basis of which the grant will be calculated. There is discretion for local authorities, and it is therefore within the right of the electors to choose, if they so wish, to change the council at local elections.

British Shipbuilders: Britoil Contract
4.27 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about the contract between Britoil and British Shipbuilders.
616
"In December 1981 Scott Lithgow contracted with Britoil to produce a semi-submersible drilling rig. The contract value was £88.6 million, and the contractual delivery date was April 1984. Construction began in February 1982.
"By March 1983, British Shipbuilders had provided for losses of £43.8 million on the rig. The then Chairman, Sir Robert Atkinson. warned that performance and losses at Scott Lithgow were unacceptable.
"On 31st October 1983, Britoil were sufficiently concerned about progress on the contract to issue through its agents a notice requiring Scott Lithgow to demonstrate within 30 days that the rig could be completed by February 1985.
"Scott Lithgow responded to Britoil by arguing that, despite the undoubted delays on the contract hitherto, completion would be possible within the terms of the contract.
"However, on 19th December a notice of cancellation was served on behalf of Britoil on the basis that Scott Lithgow had not demonstrated that the rig could be delivered by February 1985.
"British Shipbuilders have responded to the cancellation notice by disputing its validity, and I understand that they have now instituted legal proceedings. While British Shipbuilders and Britoil are considering the next step in this negotiation, all work on the rig will be stopped. British Shipbuilders are instructing suppliers to suspend work on contracts relating to the rig. Up to 2,000 members of the workforce are involved in construction of the rig. The remainder of the workforce—approximately 2,250 men—are employed on two other contracts: one for BP and one for the Ministry of Defence. It is British Shipbuilders' intention that these contracts will continue.
"Unemployment in this area is already high and a further increase of the scale implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern to the Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has this morning met the Scottish TUC and told them that he would of course seek to do all he can to alleviate the very real distress that would be caused in the local community. However, the offshore industry is highly competitive and customers insist upon contractors—including management and workforce—delivering on quality, price and time. Regrettably, Scott Lithgow so far appears to have been unable to satisfy Britoil that it can fulfil its obligations on this contract."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. He will perhaps forgive me if initially I say that the Statement is set out in terms that amount to a debonair detachment from the real problems that are involved. The Statement is indeed a very grave one. There is not only the possibility that 4,000 people will be unemployed ultimately as a result of the loss of the contract. There is also the possibility that a mortal blow will be dealt at the whole oil rig construction industry in the United

617
Kingdom. These are matters which should be of considerable concern to the Government. They cannot leave things exactly where they are.
It is difficult when matters are at issue between parties, as at this time they appear to be between British Shipbuilders and Britoil, to elicit from published statements much information as to the relative culpability of either party. As is well known, when contracts are delayed certain rights attach to the customer. These often give rise to disputes between the parties as to the real reasons why there have been delays. Anyone who has had experience in construction generally or in the building construction industry well knows that there can be changes or modifications in design half way through the contract or defaults in the case of nominated sub-contractors at certain parts of the contract, all of which can contribute to delay.
The statement that by March 1983 £43.8 million had been lost on a contract the total value of which was £88.6 million is absolutely astounding. The loss cannot be accounted for merely by restrictive practices on the part of the workforce, which is an argument that may be in the minds of some noble Lords. There must have been a considerable miscalculation. As I understand it, the contract is about 30 per cent. complete. It requires considerable explanation as to how half of the contract value has been lost within the first year of the work. Did the noble Lord or his right honourable friend know in the spring or early summer of 1983 that those losses had already taken place? If so, surely that merited active intervention by the Government to see what was going wrong.
The noble Lord states that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today met Scottish TUC representatives and told them that he will do all he can to alleviate any hardship that might conceivably arise. However, another statement has been made by the Secretary of State on BBC radio, which the noble Lord may or may not he able to confirm. It is to the effect that there is still a six-week breathing space before matters become absolute and still the possibility of negotiation between the parties. If that is so, far be it for me to say anything that will in any way prejudice the success of these negotiations. But, if there is a six-week breathing space—and I hope that the noble Lord will he able to confirm this—I suggest that, in view of the national importance of this industry, it is the Government's duty at any rate to investigate the claims being put forward by the respective parties and to assist them in arriving at a solution. The matter certainly cannot be left where it is.
On this side of the House we hope that the Government will accept that their responsibility is to do everything that they can—if necessary by ministerial guidance and advice—to ensure that some settlement is reached within the six-week period. In particular, they ought to investigate the position in regard to the representations made by Britoil about requesting British Shipbuilders to demonstrate that it could complete by February 1985. In shipping terms that is known conventionally as the "drop dead" date. According to the statement, Scott Lithgow argues that it could complete, whereas Britoil says that it is not satisfied. Surely there is scope for investigation by the
618
Government in that matter. I sincerely hope that they will take active steps to do that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for his Statement. In many senses the situation is a tragedy. It seems that this Christmas is associated with tragedy, and this particular tragedy appears to be self-inflicted. I live within a few miles of Scott Lithgow's yard and can readily visualise the real depth of the tragedy in a district which already has 20 per cent. unemployment. The number who will be thrown out of work on the loss of this particular contract will be about 2,000. The viability of the whole yard will also be brought into question since it has on its books only the two remaining contracts mentioned by the Minister. That would probably mean that the number of people unemployed would be increased by 4,000 as a result of the closure of Scott Lithgow. Ships have been built there at the tail of the bank since 1711.
Is the Minister aware that in that yard British Shipbuilders spent £13½ million last year in modernising the plant? This decision reported today represents a colossal waste, not only of its investment of public money but also of thousands of skilled workers who are being thrown on the scrap heap. Has the Minister taken into account, when he makes the calculations reported in the Statement, the national implications of this decision? In Scotland we have been building up a new industry, based on our experience of North Sea oil. Does he realise the implications of the closure if this rig, which is one-third completed, is towed away to Japan, South Korea or France for completion? This would have very serious implications, not only for Scott Lithgow but for the whole image of this new industry on which so many of our hopes in Scotland are based.
Will the Minister accept that while he recites a very sad story of delays, this is, in fact, a very highly sophisticated rig? In fact, it is the most advanced rig in the world. It is dealing in technologies of which we have little previous experience. The rig is designed to work in depths of 4,500 feet in the hostile waters of the Atlantic, and this has never been previously achieved in this new technology without anchors. Will he accept that there are probably responsibilities on all sides for the difficulties that have now arisen? Will he also accept that it is easy but not always helpful to attribute all the difficulties and blame to the workforce of Scott Lithgow?
Will the noble Lord accept that the closure of Scott Lithgow and the closure of the rig building activities at that yard have serious implications for the steel industry in Scotland and also implications for Ravenscraig? Will the Minister tell us a little of what the Secretary of State for Scotland promised in his negotiations with the TUC? To be helpful in relieving distress is one thing: to intervene in this serious situation and to try to knock heads together is another. I hope that it is that positive approach, rather than the prospect of social security, that is going to be offered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Finally, will the Minister read The Scotsman of today—a newspaper not unfriendly to the Government? It says that,

619
"those who sought to allocate blame for the difficulties now facing Scott-Lithgow were following an irresponsible quest which can produce only a fruitless outcome".
It points out:
"The customer and the supplier will desert their social and industrial responsibilities if they do anything other than to seek to resolve their differences…".
This dispute is between two industries in which the state has a substantial responsibility. British Shipbuilders is 100 per cent. state owned. Britoil is 48 per cent. state owned. Is it beyond the capacity of Government to bring these industries together before this tragedy has its full impact on the Clyde? I hope that the Minister will encourage us a little on this account.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that the Statement indicated "a debonair detachment". I must take issue immediately with his comment. The Statement said specifically that a further increase of the scale of unemployment implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern for the Government. I agree entirely with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that this is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for Scotland. It is a tragedy for British Shipbuilders. It is a tragedy for the management. It is a tragedy for the workforce. Let there be no question about that.
But, equally, it is a clear illustration of what happens when people are not prepared to come to terms with the problems of the world in which they live. There have been great deficiencies, both in management and on the part of the workforce in Scott Lithgow. I am not attempting to apportion blame. I could go into the matter in great detail. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, admitted that it was not merely the result of restrictive practices. I agree with him. The restrictive practices have played a considerable part. We are threatened, in fact, with a national strike in order to maintain restrictive practices, which hardly seems to be the right way of dealing with the kind of problems with which British Shipbuilders is faced.
There is a long history of difficulties in the Scott Lithgow yard. It has made very large losses over a period of years. There is nothing new about this. All of these facts are on the record. They appear in the published accounts of British Shipbuilders. Over the years, since nationalisation, Scott Lithgow has lost£165 million, which is 38 per cent. of the total losses made by British Shipbuilders. In the year 1982–83 alone—these figures are in the published accounts —Scott Lithgow lost £66 million out of a total loss by British Shipbuilders of £117 million. So there is no question but that the problems confronting Scott Lithgow have been well known, have been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the press, and, indeed, have been raised in this House by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, who has repeatedly pressed me on the progress being made in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked if this was the end of the United Kingdom's off-shore rig capacity. The answer is "No". Within British Shipbuilders there is Cammell Laird, which has an
620
established position in the construction of both semi-submersible and jack-up rigs. Harland and Wolff also has suitable facilities for mobile off-shore structures. In the private sector, UIE at Clydebank has an excellent record and there are a number of other firms with a good record in this field, including Highland Fabricators and McDermott's who are jointly building a floating production platform for Sonoco, and Howard Doris who have tendered in competition with Cammell Laird for Sun Oil's semi-submersible floating production facility. So there are other facilities available.
So far as the merits or demerits of the case are concerned, a writ has been issued. The matter is now before the courts and it is sub judice. It is not therefore open to me to comment on the merits of the cases put forward either by British Shipbuilders, on the one hand, or by Britoil, on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to a six weeks' breathing space before these matters become finalised. Here again, one of the major issues in the litigation is whether or not the notice of cancellation served by Britoil is a valid notice. The noble Lord will not therefore expect me to comment further on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made a passionate plea for intervention by the Government. But the simple truth of the matter here is that this is a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and its customer. A very substantial loss has already been made. There are likely to be further losses incurred. The Government have provided a very large amount of finance for British Shipbuilders and this was a matter which I touched upon in the Bill that your Lordships recently passed dealing with the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders. But as regards an individual order, it is not right for the Government to intervene.
Lord Beswick:My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is simply a dispute between Britoil and Scott Lithgow. But has the noble Lord done the sums about the cost to the British Government if the rig is cancelled? What would be the additional loss which would have to be met by the Government? What would be the loss in revenue from the income tax which otherwise would be paid by the workers? What would be the cost to the state of maintaining those workers if they were thrown out of work?
Lord Cockfield:My Lords, the noble Lord believes that the Government should intervene in this individual case. We do not think it is a matter for the Government to intervene. As far as British Shipbuilders as a whole are concerned, their total loss last year was £117 million, of which not less than £66 million related to Scott Lithgow. Exactly what the future level of losses will be, either for Scott Lithgow generally or in relation to this particular order, must depend upon the outcome of the litigation.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, with respect, I did not advance any opinion as to whether or not the Government should intervene. I asked a question. I asked, first, what would be the direct cost to the Government of the additional loss: secondly, what would be the cost to the Government of the loss of

621
revenue if the workers are no longer earning; and, thirdly, what would be the loss to the Government if the Government had to maintain these workers by way of social security.
Lord Cockfield:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for not advocating that the Government should intervene. As regards the rest of his questions, I did, frankly, answer them. The financial consequences depend upon the outcome of the litigation and any negotiations which may take place between British Shipbuilders and Britoil.
Lord Howie of Troon:My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister accept that not many of us in this House see him as being detached from this problem, debonair or otherwise? At the same time, will he realise that his Statement seemed to chide the management and the workforce, and they alone, for what must be a very complex problem, and that that hardly seems sufficient in the circumstances? Will he turn his mind to some of the matters which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington raised? What part, if any, was played in these regrettable delays by design changes or other alterations in the requirements of the customer? What part has been played by delays or difficulties in supply by sub-contractors, whether nominated, as my noble friend said, or otherwise? What part, if any, has been played by the difficulties among suppliers? All of these matters are important, and all of them contribute towards something which the noble Lord the Minister has quite rightly recognised as a tragedy. However, in view of the difficulties of the situation will he recognise that, while he says that he blames nobody, he does seem to blame two groups when they may not be entirely to blame?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, no man is an island entire unto himself, and any tragedy which occurs affects all of us. I do not think that there is any dispute between any of your Lordships on that point. Nobody is attempting to pretend that this situation is not a tragedy. There is a point of difference as to the extent to which the Government ought to intervene in a situation of this kind, but let me not pursue that any further at the present juncture.
The noble Lord raised a number of specific points. I entirely agree with him that they are all important, but they are all points directly related to the litigation which is now in progress, and it would therefore, I fear, be improper for me to comment upon them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord a little further. When the noble Lord made reference to the breathing space referred to by me, he did not at the same time confirm or deny that it was his right honourable friend who, according to the BBC, said that six weeks remained to consider and settle the matter between the parties. Will the noble Lord confirm or deny that those words, or substantially those words, were used by his right honourable friend? On the assumption that they were used, surely the noble Lord will agree that, notwithstanding the observations he has correctly made about matters sub judice, it would be in order for the Government to assist the two parties to arrive at some agreement during the six weeks which, according to his
622
right honourable friend, remain for the matter to be considered and settled between the parties?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have not seen the text of the statement to which the noble Lord refers, and I would hesitate to make any comment upon it, particularly as one relevant point is when the statement was made. I do not want to go into an excessive degree of detail on this, but the contract provides for notice to be served within a 30-day period. The contract can extend 300 days after the delivery date. Some of the points in issue in the litigation are whether valid notice was served within that 30-day period and whether or not the rig could be completed within the further 300 days allowed under the contract. But we are treading on very thin ice at the moment because the whole of this matter is the subject of litigation, and I really ought not to comment further on the merits or demerits of the arguments being advanced.
Lord Wilson of Langside:My Lords, in that situation, can the Minister tell the House whether any estimate has been made of how prolonged or otherwise this litigation is likely to be, and whether or not any action is open to them to expedite the matter?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's first question is, I fear: No, I do not know how long it will take. The noble and learned Lord himself is well aware—and I have to be very careful—that sometimes the law proceeds with greater speed than it does on other occasions. The Government have no plans, and nor. indeed, are they in any position to intervene in the litigation.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill: read a first time.

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.59 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that, if in the judgment of the Scottish Tourist Board the time required to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State and to consult with the British Tourist Authority as aforesaid would be likely to result in the opportunity to carry on the particular activity under consideration being lost or prejudiced to the detriment of the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities in Scotland, then the Scottish Tourist Board may proceed without such consent and after such consultation with the British Tourist Authority as they consider administratively desirable and necessary to carry on that particular activity.").
The noble and learned Lord said: One returns, as one often does in your Lordships' House, from the tragedy of Greenock to the minor problems of the overseas promotion of Scottish tourism with a horrible sense of anti-climax. However, this a very simple, uncomplicated amendment, and one which I am sure

623
will commend itself to the Minister, who is nothing if not an altogether reasonable man.
The purpose of the amendment, as appears on the face of it, is to reduce to prospects of possible bureaucratic delays, and perhaps inefficiency, in seeking the consent of the Secretary of State and carrying out the necessary consultations with the British Tourist Authority. One can well understand that in the ordinary run of case no doubt the matter of seeking consent and carrying out consultation can be completed without difficulty, but from what I have heard said in public about the working of the Scottish Tourist Board I get the impression that there may be situations in which it is essential to reach a quick decision on the activity proposed to be embarked upon overseas. I assume that the Minister would be anxious to reduce such delays and will have investigated—and I hope that he can tell us something about it—the situations which may arise where the Scottish Tourist Board has to seek this consent and to have carried out by the Secretary of State the consultations with the British Tourist Authority.
Of course, one does not want to be rude about the Scottish Office, but, like delays in the law to which reference has been made, the Scottish Office does not always work with extraordinary speed. I do not need to dwell on that. However, from the point of view of the practical working of the Scottish Tourist Board, I am a little anxious about this matter, because there must often be situations in which speed of decision is vital and contacts are made with people overseas, and opportunities for the development of Scottish tourism may be lost. If that is wrong, I should like to be assured by the Minister—and I think that the Committee would wish to be assured by the Minister—that there is no danger of anything of this sort arising from time to time.
That is all there is to the amendment. It seeks to give the Scottish Tourist Board a discretion to exercise its judgment, whether it needs to go through the process required of it by the Bill as it at present stands or, in special circumstances, to dispense with the need either for seeking the consent or not dispensing entirely with the need for consultation with the tourist authority, but rather consulting direct with the authority instead of through the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that this amendment will commend itself to the Minister, who I know is a reasonable man and dislikes the unacceptable face of bureaucracy just as much as do the rest of us. So I await with interest his acceptance of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This is an interesting amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could use it to give us some indication of a number of points, including the nature of the consultation that is likely to take place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has raised the question of the time taken to carry out these consultations. It would be interesting if the noble Lord the Minister of State has any information as to how long a consultation on specific promotions will take. I agree that long-term plans will be laid periodically. For instance, can he tell us how many people in St. Andrew's House, or wherever else in Edinburgh they
624
happen to be in the Scottish Civil Service, deal exclusively or largely with the Scottish Tourist Board, and what sort of relationship they have with the Scottish Tourist Board? I can understand that an amendment as long as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, would, from my experience, not be acceptable to a Government department. However, I am sure that the sentiment in it is something that I should be only too happy to support.
Even in these circumstances, and given the well-worn formula that the Minister accepts it in principle but will take it away to look at the wording again, perhaps we could get that concession from him. He has been rather tardy about giving us concessions so far. Perhaps he could also, if not immediately then before the end of the debate, give us some idea of the other points—namely, the nature of the consultation and the number of Scottish civil servants actually involved with tourism.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for the way in which he moved this amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the very reasonable attitude which he takes to it. The amendment would permit the Scottish Tourist Board in certain circumstances to disregard the obligation imposed on it under subsection (2) of Clause 1 to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before promoting Scotland overseas.
The amendment provides that, where the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or lead to the loss of promotion opportunities, it may proceed without Secretary of State approval, undertaking only such consultations with the British Tourist Authority as it thinks fit.
The amendment as drafted would negate the purposes of subsection (2). The Scottish Tourist Board. which in the Bill as currently drafted is under an obligation to obtain the Secretary of State's consent, would by this amendment itself be entitled to determine whether to disregard the consent requirement. There would be little point in imposing a statutory obligation on a body if that body were itself entitled to decide when to disregard it. I think, therefore, that as a matter of logic I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.
I recognise, however, that in tabling this amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, may be concerned to probe the mechanics of the consent procedure and to guard against any possibility that the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals could get silted up in time-consuming bureaucratic procedures. I wholly share the concern of the noble and learned Lord in this matter. But I assure the Committee again, as I did at Second Reading, that the consent procedure is designed as a final check on the compatibility of the Scottish Tourist Board's and the British Tourist Authority's programmes, not as an exhaustive appraisal of the tourism merits of the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals.
It may be helpful to refer to the comments made during debate on the provision in the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, on which this subsection is modelled. Then, too, concern was expressed that the requirement on local

625
authorities and area tourist boards to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to their overseas promotion proposals would lead to delay and possibly to the loss of promotion opportunities. This is exactly what the noble and learned Lord has in mind. Experience has since confirmed our view that such proposals can be dealt with expeditiously—they are, in fact. processed within a matter of days of their receipt by my department. And a special accelerated procedure for urgent applications ensures that there is no loss of promotion opportunities. The procedure applying to the approval of the Scottish Tourist Board's programme should be no more complex or time-consuming than that followed in relation to the approval of local authorities' proposals. Indeed, since the Scottish Tourist Board will, each year, be submitting its programme of overseas promotions for the year ahead for the Secretary of State's approval well in advance of the promotion season, there is little risk of delay resulting from the consent requirement. May I emphasise, too, that, since we fully expect continued close liaison between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board on overseas promotion proposals, the Secretary of State's separate consultations with the British Tourist Authority should normally be only a fail-safe measure.
I do not believe, however, that there will be any delay by the British Tourist Authority in considering any request for views. I am confident that the BTA will play its full part promptly in the consent procedure. The BTA has a statutory right to advise any Minister on tourism matters in Great Britain, and is expert in this advisory function. I hope that I have been able to allay the noble and learned Lord's concern about the impact of the consent provision in the Scottish Tourist Board's plans, and I hope that he may feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Before I sit down, however, I should like to deal with the two points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The number of civil servants engaged in tourism in the particular functions to which he referred amount to four and a half. From his own ministerial experience, he will realise that it is not unusual to cut civil servants in two when giving such figures. I have touched upon the nature of consultation briefly already: it is to ensure that there is not a duplication between the projects entered into by the British Tourist Authority and those of the Scottish Tourist Board, and the nature of the consultation can be from a wide-ranging consultation to merely ascertaining the dates on which certain projects are to take place.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove:Can the noble Lord tell us whether, in consequence of this Bill, the number of civil servants devoted to Scottish tourism will rise, and whether perhaps they will get to a round figure from now on?
Lord Gray of Contin: There is no likelihood of any rise in the number of civil servants overall. Whether there may from time to time be justification for a slight apportionment to bring them up to five, or down to four, will remain to be seen, but it is not likely that there will be any major change. The Scottish Tourist Board itself considers that it will be able to carry out
626
the new responsibilities given to it principally from within its own numbers.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is not the noble Lord the Minister being uncharacteristically harsh in accusing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, of trying to negate the provisions of subsection (2)? I do not think that that is his intention, although the amendment is longer than the kind of amendments I am used to; nor, as I heard his speech, was he intending so much to negate the provisions as to make the provisions more reasonable. Is that not a reasonable thing for a reasonable man like the Minister to want to do?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in his amendment begins with the word "Provided". The very word "provided" indicates that he is not trying to negate the provisions of the Bill. It sets a body of circumstances in which the harsh rigour of subsection (2) might be ameliorated. Within these provisions it seems to me sensible that the noble and learned Lord should ask for the provisions of the Bill to be ameliorated. If we refer back to the discussions we had on the earlier amendments some little while ago the Minister will understand why the provisions should be ameliorated, and I have no intention of repeating the arguments because we have but a short while here and we do not want to overstay our welcome.
I was a little taken aback by the Minister's assertion, or apparent assertion, that the department would deal with any matter expeditiously. It is not my experience of the Civil Service that they deal with things expeditiously—not even the Scottish Department. They deal with them as rapidly as they may, of that I have no doubt, but I think that expeditiously is too much to claim. All that the noble and learned Lord was asking for, as I understood it. was that in certain circumstances where speed was of the essence the Scottish Tourist Board should be able to act with vigour, haste, and immediacy without being held back by the provisions of the Bill.
I am perfectly willing to have the Minister tell me that Lord Wilson's amendment, as drafted, goes perhaps further than that modest intention, and the Minister, I think, would be right if he were to say that, but the intention is that the Minister should apply his mind not merely to the wording of the amendment. The Minister should say, "Lord Wilson of Langside's intention is sound, the principle is sound, and the principle should be accepted: the Bill should be drafted in such a way as to make that principle appropriate in law and in practice". I hope that the Minister will take heed of these words, which are meant to be advisory, friendly, and helpful.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: May I proceed to be helpful too? What this amendment by my noble and learned friend does is highlight the position of the Scottish Tourist Board and the amount of difficulties which hedge it around. Perhaps I may take a practical example. The situation that I envisage happening very easily is that the Scottish Tourist Board will find out that in the programme which they may or may not have had from the British Tourist Authority an

627
important promotion has been neglected or left out, or there may be an outright disagreement with the British Tourist Authority, which I would imagine the budget given to the Scottish Tourist Authority is designed to correct. If they feel deeply that a certain promotion should be undertaken and that there is only a certain amount of time to get in on it, then they should be able to act quickly.
The Minister should now take the advice on a previous amendment of his noble friend Lord Selkirk and, instead of being forced to waste a lot of time in negotiations with the British Tourist Authority in consultations, he will be able by using the word "may" to listen to the reasonable case of the Scottish Tourist Board and authorise them to go ahead. The amendment raises the points that we have been making on previous occasions.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment for what they have said. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, were perhaps a little sensitive to the criticisms of my drafting, which I thought was at least as comprehensive as what the draftsmen often produce for our delectation. However, the amendment as it stands was essentially, as the Minister said, a probing amendment, and in the light of what he has said—and I hope he will give serious regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said—
Lord Howie of Troon:I have a horrible feeling that the noble and learned Lord is about to withdraw his amendment. Does he wish to withdraw before the Minister has had a chance to reply to these probing points put to him?
Lord Wilson of Langside:I had rather thought that I would withdraw at this stage. I had overlooked the circumstance that the Minister had not replied. I am sorry. I thought that we had been on these amendments for quite a long time.
Lord Gray of Contin:I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that we have been some considerable time on them, and I do not feel that I can make any great further contribution. But as a matter of courtesy I shall try to deal with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, raised and which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made. I shall deal with Lord Mackie's point first. He said there might be a case where there could he outright disagreement. Of course if there was outright disagreement then the will of the Secretary of State for Scotland would be the deciding factor. I explained earlier that the British Tourist Authority is consulted, but the decision is not dependent on its consent. The decision would ultimately be with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, suggested that I was accusing his noble friend of trying to negate something. What I was trying to explain was, like it or like it not, that would be the effect of the amendment: but as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it was a probing amendment. We have considered the
628
possibility and I have tried to explain what the effect would have been.
If the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or to lead to loss of promotional opportunities, it may proceed without the Secretary of State's approval. That is virtually what the noble Lord is suggesting in this amendment. As I said earlier, I do not think it would he sensible to proceed on the basis that one writes something in and allows the person most directly concerned with it to decide whether it should be approved. That to me does not sound like the making of good law. There are others who are much better able to pass judgment on that than I am. As a layman it would seem a weak point to me.
Lord Howie of Troon:May I make a brief point? I do not wish to delay the Minister, but surely it will be within his experience—as it is within the experience of most of us—that the law of this country is dotted with provisions which make statements of a fairly straight forward and clear kind which are followed by the words, "except in so far as". Then follows the exception. Thus the notion of making an exception to a provision in the law is by no means new. It is hallowed by time immemorial.
Lord Gray of Contin:That may be so; but I am afraid I cannot really accept the amendment as it is proposed nor, indeed, is the principle behind the amendment sound. I do not think that we want to write into legislation anything which is not absolutely sound. Therefore I must, with the greatest respect, suggest that it would probably be better if this amendment were withdrawn. I trust that the noble and learned Lord might consider withdrawing it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:I am sorry to delay proceedings, but I think the Minister misunderstood the point that I was making. My point was very simple, that if the Secretary of State had a statutory duty to consult the British Tourist Authority and it was in direct dispute with the Scottish Tourist Authority, there was nothing like an authority of that sort for delaying its answer to the consultations until it was too late for the point at issue. Therefore the Secretary of State should be able, if necessary, to ignore that, which he could do by taking advice from his noble friend and putting in the word "may" instead of "shall".
Lord Gray of Contin: I am afraid that the noble Lord has misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. That is not what this amendment says. It suggests that the Scottish Tourist Board should not necessarily consult when it does not see the necessity for doing so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister is quite right about this amendment. I dare say I was totally out of order in going back on a previous amendment to show him the error of his ways in a previous discussion.
Lord Wilson of Langside:With the leave of the Committee I shall in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am sorry I seem to have upset Lord Howie of Troon in doing it too soon.
Lord Howie of Troon: No.
Lord Wilson of Langside:There is no-one I should less like to upset because I have a great respect for the noble Lord. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I should like to make it clear to the Minister that in my fallible judgment he was wrong to suggest that giving people a discretion makes bad law. Half the had law we have emerges because we do not give people discretion, but they have to stick to the letter and lose sight of the spirit. Having made my point that I am not impressed by that part of his argument, in the light of what else has been said by the Minister and by others who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 20, after ("Scotland") insert ("provided they do so with the consent of and after consultation with the Scottish Tourist Board").
The noble Lord said: At first sight this amendment may seem to be asking for the Scottish Tourist Board what earlier amendments have sought to deny to the British Tourist Board. Even had the Minister been more yielding in some of the earlier amendments and given the Scottish Tourist Board more power, I would still have felt that this was an important amendment to the Scottish Tourist Board and to Scottish tourism. The difference between this amendment and the powers that the British Tourist Board has was emphasised by all the speakers at the Second Reading; that is that the promotion of Scotland is a highly specialised and delicate job.
I have no doubt that once again in any promotion that the British Tourist Authority will have for Scotland, there will be a great deal of discussion and involvement within the industry. Within the British Tourist Board the Scottish Tourist Board will have a voice and with the whole tourist industry generally before any major decision is made or any major promotion takes place. In this Scotland will have certain safeguards.
Nevertheless, the sheer difference in size between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority seems to us to mean that Scotland should have a more positive representation and a more positive voice in anything that the British Tourist Authority might do. This is coupled with the fact mentioned at the Second Reading debate and in the Statement in another place by the Minister of State at the Department of Trade, that the chairman of the British Tourist Authority will ultimately become the chairman of the English Tourist Board as well, working in both organisations. As I said earlier, because of the sheer size of the BTA and the combination with the English Tourist Board, it would be easy for the British Tourist Authority in promoting Scotland abroad, with the best intention in the world, to get it disastrously wrong. There have been examples—I am sure the Minister is aware of them—where there has been an overdoing of the Brigadoon type of promotion overseas. We are learning. Nevertheless, I am sure it would be helpful if the Scottish Tourist Board could be given the power to
630
be consulted about anything that the British Tourist Authority will do in promoting Scotland overseas.
We know that there will be a great deal of co ordination and co-operation between the various bodies that make up the tourist authority. Since the Minister did not think that the co-ordination, co operation and consultation was sufficient in the case of the earlier amendments and insisted that powers be retained by statute, that the Scottish Tourist Board was so much subject to both the Secretary of State and the British Tourist Authority, it seems reasonable that the Minister should be willing to make this very important concession.
From what he told us earlier it is not as though there is likely to be a great falling out of the different parties. On the odd occasions when there is disagreement, the Secretary of State's word would be important. We are concerned that the Scottish Tourist Board should know how Scotland is being depicted overseas and should have some power to decide what shall not be put forward as Scotland to overseas markets. While he was defending the role of the British Tourist Authority and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister seemed to he considering always the importance of belt and braces. He would make no concessions; everything had to be watertight, and to anything that was suggested by us or by other noble Lords, he seemed (in the best spirit) to say, "No" because there could be risks here and risks there. Everyone, quite correctly has paid a tribute to him as being a very fair man. I would submit that it is asking very little that the Scottish Tourist Board be given the right to examine and, if necesary, even to veto any, particularly Scottish, promotion about Scotland that the British Tourist Authority are suggesting be put forward.
I would say to the Minister that the Bill generally has been given a very good welcome, but I feel that there has been a tendency to get the wrong flavour into the original idea of giving the Scottish Tourist Board some sort of authority, and the wrong flavour to the extent (as has been said by many noble Lords) of the grudgingness of the whole Bill compared to what was originally a good intention and idea. In order to try to recoup a little, I hope that the Minister will make the concession that we have asked for in the amendment. If, as the Minister has said continuously, everything goes with great consultation and great friendliness between the British Tourist Authority, the Scottish Tourist Board and the 4½ people in the Scottish Office that deal with tourism, it is a small enough concession to ask for and I hope that he will find some way to accommodate the amendment. I beg to move.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:I should like to urge the Minister to accept this amendment. It would make some sense of the whole Bill. Up to now it is a small thing—the £200,000 to be used somewhat grudgingly, as allowed by the Secretary of State and approved by the British Tourist Authority. But it is only sensible to give Scotland and the Scottish Tourist Board a proper say, a significant say, in the £2 million which the British Tourist Authority is spending overseas. To do that, they need the powers given in this amendment. It makes it into a real Bill which gives the Scottish Tourist Board some real say overseas without

631
interfering with the British Tourist Authority and the general promotion of Britain. I think it is a very sensible amendment and I urge the Minister to accept it.
Lord Wilson of Langside:I, too, think that this is a wholly admirable amendment. It is right in principle in the context of this Bill that it should be there. I think in practice it would make the working efficiency and competence of the various tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority better. For that reason, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin:This amendment would impose on the British Tourist Authority a requirement to consult the Scottish Tourist Board and obtain its consent to the BTA's promotions of Scotland overseas. I am grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the way in which he presented his case, but this amendment is fundamentally at odds with our intention as to how the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board should exercise their overseas promotion powers. I believe that approval of this amendment would be profoundly damaging to the cohesiveness of the 1969 Act framework, and to the coherence of the total British marketing effort abroad.
This amendment would oblige BTA not simply to consult the Scottish Tourist Board on its efforts overseas involving Scotland—BTA already does this as a matter of course—but it would make BTA's promotions involving Scotland subject to STB approval. Your Lordships will appreciate that much of BTA's effort on Scotland's behalf is made in the context of all-Britain promotions covering the three countries. In preparing such Great Britain promotions. BTA has to assess the relative marketing requirements of England, Scotland and Wales in relation to the target market and the particular product being promoted. The Scottish Tourist Board is in no position to gauge its marketing needs against those of England and Wales in any particular promotion. Only the British Tourist Authority, which can take an overview of the three countries' requirements, is in a position to make this kind of judgment. To give STB control over all-Britain promotions with any Scottish element would inevitably and unfairly prejudice English and Welsh interests. Where all-Britain promotions are concerned, the body at the centre—the British Tourist Authority—is the body best equipped to reconcile all the various competing needs and to take a final view of the right promotional "mix" for England, Scotland and Wales. This is the view I expressed at Second Reading and it remains a cornerstone of our policy on tourism promotion overseas.
The need for approval which this amendment would introduce would be wholly at odds with the basis of co-operation and consensus on which the boards currently operate and which I want to see continue. The BTA consults the national boards individually at an early stage in preparing its main Great Britain marketing programme and takes due account of comments made. Also, through the membership of the BTA board, the chairman of the
632
three national boards are able to influence the scale and content of BTA's marketing programme for Britain as a whole. It is through such consultation and discussion that the marketing programme takes shape and is finally agreed. A statutory consultation provision affecting BTA and STB alone would just not work.
We fully acknowledge that Scotland would benefit from additional, specialised overseas promotions by the Scottish Tourist Board. Clause 1 is designed to allow this to happen. But we are also firmly committed to maintaining a coherent British effort under BTA's overall control. This amendment would fragment the overall effort, setting Scotland against the rest of Britain; and that is the last thing we want to happen. The way ahead, in our view, is not to seek confrontation—and I do not suggest for a moment that that is the intention of the amendment; but it could be its result—but to build on the existing framework of co-operation and consensus among all four tourist boards.
When we talk about the tourist boards, I think that I must emphasise, as I did at Second Reading, that there is no commitment to a merger of the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. The new British Tourist Authority chairman, Mr. Bluck, will be looking only at the possibility of combination. No decision whatsoever has been taken at the present moment. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that it is our view that Scotland will benefit more amply from the measures which we are taking than if we were to do as the noble Lord in his amendment suggests. I hope that on reflection he may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon:I am beginning to have serious doubts about the noble Lord the Minister who. I am sad to say, I do not know very well, since he entered another place after I left it and has only recently joined us here. But I am watching with great interest. He has the reputation of being a reasonable man and we have all been telling ourselves all afternoon that he is a reasonable man. I do not know how reasonable he is; but he has not done anything remotely reasonable today as yet. He has not conceded anything. He has not said that he will think again. He has been nice, he has been agreeable, but he has not given us a thing. I see sitting beside him his noble friend Lord Lyell, whom we have often enjoyed on these Scottish occasions. He treats us fairly roughly and endearingly, but every once in a while he says, "I will think over what you have said". He does not mean that, but at least he says from time to time that he will consider, in thinking over what we have said, whether or not some sense can be made out of our arguments and the principles that we have tried to argue here. I have not seen the Minister do that today. I am not as yet convinced that he is an unreasonable man, because I see that he has a very reasonable face and I feel sure that in time he will convince me that he is a reasonable man: but he will have to hurry if he is going to do it today, because he is well behind the start-line in that particular matter.
He has just given us a very lengthy, detailed and extremely informative speech, which told us quite a bit about the relationships between the Scottish Tourist

633
Board and the British Tourist Authority. I dare say it was philosophically sound, and it related precisely to certain questions put to him by my noble friend Lord Carmichael: but I am not sure, interesting though it was, that it was totally relevant to the principle of this amendment.
The principle is really a very sound and simple one. I would have thought it was a very reasonable one, which required a reasonable examination and possibly a reasonable reply, which I hope to have later. If it is right that the Scottish Tourist Board should consult with its British equivalent about particularly Scottish matters under subsection (2), it cannot be wildly wrong that the British authority should consult with the Scottish authority about specifically Scottish questions under subsection (3). The principle seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward one.
It is quite possible that the amendment is unduly brutal, because we on this side are simple folk and sometimes put complex arguments in over-simple ways. But the principle is clear, and I should have liked the Minister to have paused in the middle of that extremely informative speech and said, "Yes, there is an interesting principle here." He might possibly have said that the principle was wrong: but at least he could say. "I will have a look at the principle and consider it", instead of just damning it outright as he seems to have done. After all, we are just at the Committee stage, and there is a fair way to go. I should not like the Minister to lengthen the process by obliging us to put down all kinds of amendments at a later stage. All he has to say is, "There is some sense in this; I will look at it and see what sense there is, and see whether or not something can be done to make the Bill better."
The Earl of Selkirk:May I ask my noble friend, before he replies, whether he would be good enough to confirm that under the 1969 Act the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority? Is that correct? If so, does that in fact mean that all that the British Tourist Authority is doing will necessarily be known to the Scottish Tourist Board?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I can confirm that, if I might answer my noble friend before I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is correct that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority. I indicated earlier that when the British Tourist Authority presents its programme for overseas promotion at the beginning of each year the chairmen of the various national tourist boards are in a position to hear exactly what is intended. They can then report back to their own boards, and thus, hopefully, conflicts are avoided.
To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who has been very nice to me all afternoon, I must say—and I feel rather unkind that I cannot give him something as a reward—the plain fact is that, however well-intentioned the amendment is, I am not satisfied that it is going to be an improvement. To accept the amendment, or even to give a commitment to take this away and look at it again without having some real conviction oneself that
634
one can produce something which is better, is not really what the Committee would expect.
I cannot accept this amendment because I am not convinced that it would be an improvement. I believe that the arrangement the Government have proposed in the Bill is the best for Scotland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is as anxious to see the best for Scotland as I am. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is equally anxious to achieve that end, and although he supports the noble Lords in this amendment I must tell him that I am not convinced that it would be an improvement, and therefore I cannot accept it.
Lord Wilson of Langside:The noble Lord the Minister earlier spoke a good deal about the need for cohesiveness and consensus. That is a view with which none would disagree. For my part, I would have thought that this amendment would produce more cohesiveness and a more readily-reached consensus than the Bill as it now stands, under which the obligations to seek consent and to consult are all on the other side.
I have felt for a long time—and I said something of this on Second Reading—that there was perhaps a fatal flaw in the set-up which we introduced in 1969. I speak of the Government of which I was then a member. I thought it might very well be that the bureaucratic difficulties, which one gathered from the press, radio and television had arisen from the working of the 1969 Act, derived perhaps from the circumstance that the British Tourist Authority and the three national hoards all had common functions within the United Kingdom and then the British Tourist Authority was given, in addition to those same functions as the other boards, the overall responsibility for activities overseas. I could have understood a set up where the British Tourist Authority, having been given no functions within the United Kingdom, was given the overall administrative responsibility for co-ordinating the activities overseas (and perhaps within the United Kingdom, too) of the three boards.
I think this is relevant, or it may be relevant, to the Minister's search for cohesiveness or consensus, if that is what we want, in the working of the three hoards. I would have thought that in practice this amendment would promote that, instead of the wording of the Bill which, as I say, puts all the obligations to consult and to seek permission to do things on the Scottish Tourist Board and leaves the British Tourist Authority with a question mark against its place in the set-up, if I am right, with its powers and duties unimpaired and unaffected by this Bill.
Lord Gray of Contin:I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. I really cannot add, I am afraid, to what I have already said, other than perhaps to say that the Scottish Tourist Board itself is pleased with this measure. It believes it to be more than reasonable. The board itself has made no representations to me regarding the sort of amendment which noble Lords are suggesting at the present moment.
With the greatest respect to noble Lords opposite, I am not convinced that this would be an improvement. I believe that what the Government have set out is the

635
most satisfactory position for Scotland. I am sorry that I cannot be more sympathetic to the amendments that have been proposed, but the only reason I am not sympathetic to them is that I do not see that any one of them would improve what is proposed. If I did, I would willingly take each suggestion away and look at it again. But I am not convinced and that is why I have not suggested that I might take them away.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to know that we have a piece of perfect legislation before us. This comes from a reasonable man. The only conclusion I can come to is that we have a reasonable man in an unreasonable Government. He now comes along and suggests to us that, after all, the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased with the Bill and has not complained. Mind you, the Scottish Tourist Board happens to be the creature of the Secretary of State. He appoints the members and he gets rid of them. I do not know whether or not they are reaching the stage of reappointment, but I cannot see the Scottish Tourist Board raising its voice in respect of this Bill. The question is: Are we satisfied that it is a piece of perfect legislation?
The Minister, if he is a reasonable man—I hope that he is not an insensitive man—must have been aware that on two earlier amendments he sat there isolated and alone. He listened for a voice of support from his own Back-Benches in respect of this perfect piece of legislation and it did not come. It is all right to expect the Scottish Tourist Board to require the consent of the Secretary of State; and if you go back to the original legislation on to which this Bill is tacked your Lordships will find that the consent of the Treasury is required as well, so far as money is concerned. It is all right for the Secretary of State to have to consult—the word used is not "may" but "shall"; it is a mandatory obligation—the British Tourist Authority. But when we try to put the balance right just a little, so that when dealing with Scottish projection overseas and all the publicity worth £2 million—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: £200,000.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I am not talking about the Scottish Tourist Board; I am talking about the British Tourist Authority interpreting the needs of Scotland in respect of tourism, and that spends £2 million, not a grudging £200,000. But I gather that we shall be talking about money on Clause stand part. There was a promise given by the Minister, but we shall come to that later. But, surely, if there is any body which should know and should be concerned about our projection overseas, it is the Scottish Tourist Board. Is it unreasonable to ask for its consent? The Minister says, "But it already consults." I can see a gleam of light. We might even get that into the Bill at Report stage, if we miss out "consent" and put in "consult". We shall then get mandatory consultation.
Things are changing in the tourist field and that is the whole point of the Statement made by the Minister of State in another place. Our hackles were first raised when he tried to soothe the Welsh and English Members by saying, "This is only a very limited power that we are giving to Scotland." Before that, we
636
thought we had achieved a great victory. I can understand that the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased that we have opened the door, but it would be far better pleased if it had some say in the spending of the much larger sum of £2 million. I could speak about some of the mistakes made abroad in the projection of Scotland by the British Tourist Authority. I could talk about incidents in Paris which affected Strathclyde, because of an individual from the British Tourist Authority, but I do not want to do that.
Every reasonable man would agree about the best people to advise on the projection of Scotland and on what is required in a particular year. In a year when we shall probably have a gathering of the clans you would not think that somebody who was purely identified with England would be able to advise properly. He probably could not even spell most of the Scottish names. That has happened, too. I could tell your Lordships about English Ministers who thought that Benbecula was off the West Coast of Northern England. There is an abysmal ignorance about anything that happens north of the Tweed among people who should know very much better. So we are reasonable in asking for consent.
The Minister says, "What we want to get is consensus". How do you get consensus without consent? What does the word "consensus" mean? It means everyone agreeing. The Minister made the perfectly valid point to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority, as are the chairmen of the English Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. I do not know whether it has escaped the noble Earl's notice that the gentleman who is to be chairman of the British Tourist Authority has already been told that he will become chairman of the English Tourist Board as well. I do not know how we shall get a fair consensus with one of these regional chairmen in the chair. I could have understood it if the chairmanship had gone around. That would have been sensible and fair—fair to the Welsh, fair to the English and fair to the Scots. This is really a very national matter of concern.
I know that there have been voices raised before about the prominence of English stalls at various functions, where they stake out the tartan and all the symbols of Scotland. Sadly for the English, they do not have the same symbolism in respect of nationalism as we have in Scotland. It may be easier for us. But, surely, this is why we should have consent. It is why this is so right. It puts right the balance in relation to the timidity of the Minister of State in respect of the other amendments. We would not have talked at any length about this amendment, if he had shown himself to be reasonable on the other amendments.
He is going away for Christmas and the New Year, and something said by Burns about independence might be relevant. What we want is a little more freedom for Scotland. Burns said that freedom and whisky went together. I know that the Minister of State is not exactly a teetotaller and there is just a chance that he will be savouring some very fine malt when he gets up to Inverness. Let him consider the amendments that we have put down and let him see the error of his ways in respect of getting the balance right between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish

637
Tourist Board. We might help him on this, if we discover at Report stage that the amendments which he has put down are the same as the amendments that we put down. But I do not think that I would advise my noble friend to take us into the Division Lobby at this late hour of the night on this important matter. It is something to which we really must come back.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I wonder whether we may have from the Minister of State the information which he promised us. We are all concerned about how the Minister of State will consent after his consultation, which will be very quick indeed. We have the Secretary of State with his four-and-a-half men, and if you take account of holidays that means effectively two-and-a-half men on duty at any one time. One can imagine how they will do this, and do it quickly. But there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that they will be allowed only £200,000 for their direct share in overseas publicity. How will this be determined? Will it be determined annually? And will the figure of £200,000 be supplementary or complementary? The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, could tell us the difference between "supplementary" and "complementary". If it is supplementary, it supplements; it is additional. Is it going to be additional, or will the £200,000 to be spent directly by the Scottish Tourist Board be taken out of the sum which would have been spent by the British Tourist Authority? In other words, do we gain £200,000 of freedom and independence, or do we lose £200,000 from the £2 million? I should like to know exactly how this will be determined. Will it be determined by the Treasury or by the BTA?
Lord Gray of Contin: We have had a very interesting afternoon discussing these amendments. Now that we have reached the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill? I know that the Committee would not wish me to dwell for too long on the matter; but the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has asked me two specific questions and I shall try to answer them for him. Each year, with the approval of Parliament, the Secretary of State allocates funds to the Scottish Tourist Board. The £200,000 will be additional. This sum is no part of the funding already provided by the British Tourist Authority. In other words, it is extra money and it will be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide from time to time what the allocation of funds to the Scottish Tourist Board may be.
The noble Lord asked me how the consultations were to take place and for what purpose the £200,000 would be used. As I explained earlier, at the beginning of each year the British Tourist Authority will make known its proposals for overseas promotion. The chairmen of the various national tourist boards, being members of the board of the British Tourist Authority,
638
will have the opportunity to comment on those proposals. It is our belief that some of the proposals will be the better for a certain amount of supplementary support from the Scottish Tourist Board. In those cases, the Scottish Tourist Board will co-operate as closely as possible with the British Tourist Authority in order to ascertain how individual projects could the better be supplemented with their support. In certain cases the method of consultation can be quite wide-ranging. In other cases it may be fairly minor, depending on the type of project.
Clause 1 contains the two main operative provisions. Subsection (1) lifts the 1969 Act restriction on the Scottish Tourist Board's operating power, and in order to ensure that the board's activities outside the United Kingdom are properly co-ordinated, subsection (2) introduces a consent and consultation procedure. I believe that the Bill hinges on Clause 1. It is vitally important to the Bill, and the Committee should, I believe, give a warm welcome to it. At Second Reading nobody spoke against the Bill. It was welcomed by all sides of the House. I believe that the Committee stage has proved useful because it has given us an opportunity to probe and discuss in some depth a number of issues which have been causing concern to us all. Although I have not accepted any of the amendments, I have listened carefully to what has been said. I believe that the Government's proposals are still the best ones in the interests of Scotland and that this clause is vital to the Bill. Therefore I invite the Committee to agree it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Lord has suggested that during the Second Reading of the Bill nobody opposed Clause 1. That is quite true. We were happy in principle about the clause, despite the small amount of money which was entailed. The Minister must realise that although the helpful amendments which have been moved by me and by other noble Lords have been sympathetically dealt with, we have got nothing out of the Government. I hope the noble Lord has learned this evening that the Bill is not totally satisfactory and that the Committee has clearly expressed the view that the Scottish Tourist Board is not being given quite the independence, authority and opportunities that it should. We can only hope that when the Minister is in Scotland during the Recess he will absorb its atmosphere again and that he will come to the blinding realisation that we were correct. When, therefore, we reach the Report stage, or when the Bill returns here from another place, I hope the Minister will be willing to consider more seriously and sympathetically some of the points which have been made.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.8 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Powers and duties of local roads authorities]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("roads") and insert ("highway")
The noble Lord said: We are now embarking on a very important Scottish Bill. Originally, there were 147 clauses. Now there are more, as a result of the second thoughts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
I should like to make one or two preliminary observations about the Bill. It surprises me that a Bill which has been 10 years in the preparation should have been so imperfect three weeks ago that the Government have put down 60 or 70 amendments to it. If the Government had had their way, we should have taken the Committee stage about a week earlier. That would have denied the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate the opportunity of putting down his last 10 or so amendments, which are still starred amendments according to the Marshalled List. It shows a remarkable weakness somewhere.
I am very grateful to the Scottish Office for sending me the tome entitled Notes on Clauses. Mind you, if it had arrived a little earlier it may have helped me with the first 73 amendments which I have put down. But it arrived far too late for me to learn the inner thoughts of the Scottish Office in respect of this Bill and to help me when I was getting to the amendments. But I must say that as I read the Bill I found I had never come across such a mess before. I do not know what their thoughts were when they started out on this Bill. Perhaps they were, "It will be a great idea to codify the law in relation to roads in Scotland. Let us modernise it; let us bring it up to date". I do not know whether the draftsmen realised what a mess they were getting themselves into.
My first amendment gets right to the heart of the matter, when I suggest that we leave out the word "roads" and insert "highway". I do not know whether the Committee realises it, but if one goes to most of the councils in Scotland to find out anything about the roads one asks for the highway department. That is what they are—highways departments. But the draftsmen had the brilliant idea of changing "highways" to "roads". It means, of course, that every department will be painting for weeks to get rid of the word "highways" and putting in the word "roads" instead; getting rid of "highways department" and replacing it with "roads authority". People will see new empires springing up. It will be remembered that we used to have the old education authorities. They are no longer education authorities because they are just education departments of the regions. It may well be that the change to "roads authorities" will be out of date before we have finished with this Bill.
The Government have got into an awful state with this Bill, as can be seen if one looks at some of the
640
amendments. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163, which have been put down since the printing of the Bill, run to pages and pages of new discoveries of amendments that will need to be made because the Scottish Office want to change the word "highway" to "road", and because they want to change the word "street" to "road". As far as I know, we in Scotland were doing all right the way things were. This was not an aspect that troubled the Stodart Committee when they looked into local government and the responsibilities as between district and regional councils. I do not know whether anyone told the Scottish Office about the terrible mess that Scottish legislation was in with regard understanding the difference between "roads" and "highways". I am perfectly sure they did not. But having followed that through, we have got ourselves into a complete quagmire.
I do not believe that the law will be properly codified and properly modernised. By the time I had read through to the end of this Bill. I had come to the conclusion that it would have been far better to let things alone. I did not know that we had so many draftsmen doing nothing in Scotland that they could afford to spend so much time on this kind of work. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appreciates that I am talking reasonable sense—that there is an argument that we should have left matters alone.
This is not consolidation. If this had been consolidation, the Bill would have gone before a joint committee of the Lords and the Commons. They would have gone through every clause and would have ensured that there was no actual change in the law, and that it was proper consolidation. It could then have gone through your Lordships' House in about two minutes. But this is codifying and modernising. As if that were not enough, there are also innovatory provisions; new powers. The whole Bill finishes up as a proper mess.
I do not know how much time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has spent on this Bill and how much time his civil servants have spent on it. I do not have the backing of any civil servants when I am reading a Bill such as this, but I can tell him that I have not gone through all the sources yet—and I am perfectly sure the same applies in respect of every noble Lord here. It is obvious that before we are finished with this Bill there will probably be another handful if not tens of amendments from the Scottish Office again, they having discovered other legislation that has to be modernised because we have taken the decision in respect of the word "highway".
I am quite serious about this point. We could have had a Bill giving the new powers and have left the other thing alone. It is not an essential Bill. The only essential aspect is the 34 new powers which I listed at Second Reading. We would then have had a reasonable Bill which everyone could understand; which could be read and properly understood by everyone.
I have not yet mentioned the drafting of this particular Bill—but what drafting! I was speaking to one of my noble friends about it today. He said, "This is probably an inherited job. It was probably the father of the present draftsman who started it, and then the son

641
became a draftsman and finished it off". There have been so many draftsmen at it over the years that one can recognise the different hands in the different sections, and they do not all add up.
I should have liked it if we had had more time, but this work really should have been done by a committee. We did this with the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, which did the very same thing for civic government—getting rid of ancient statutes and deciding what we would keep and what would be carried on, so that we would have a new code of civic government. But that work was done by the inter-departmental committee. Then it went before yet another committee; and further work was done by the Scottish Office after that. I do not know how this Bill was dealt with and who was consulted, but by starting off in the first line by saying,
"a local roads authority shall manage and maintain all such roads in their area",
et cetera, and by thus getting rid of the word "highway", we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess. It just denotes the change that has taken place and the complexities which arise there from. Those are my first few thoughts on the subject. I beg to move.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made a number of general comments in relation to this particular amendment. My view of the position is that roads legislation in Scotland has been added to piecemeal over a long period. The difficulty for the practitioner in finding out the relevant law has been quite remarkable. The object of this Bill is to try to bring together in one Bill all the provisions which relate to roads, and to make them consistent and reasonably clear and part of a single structure.
So far as the drafting of the Bill is concerned, those arrangements have been under the responsibility of a single draftsman for the whole Bill. As far as I know, the draftsman's father was not engaged on this matter; but I do know that when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland a good deal of work was done in the Scottish Office in preparation for this Bill—as I believe he mentioned on Second Reading. I should like to say how grateful the present Government are to him for all the work that was done as part of his responsibilities at that time. If we have not made as excellent use of his work as he would like, we have done our best to be worthy successors to him in this particular operation. I can certainly see that there is room for improvement in a Bill of this sort, and I am extremely grateful for the amendments which noble Lords in all parts of the House have seen fit to put down to the Bill and which we shall be very happy to consider. I am glad to say that some of the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and his colleagues have made are acceptable to the Government, and I hope to be able to accept those in due course.
So far as this particular amendment is concerned, the word "highway" is one which has never had a very precise connotation. We are aiming to bring into the conception of "road" all the various types of public right of way that one can have, and the roads authority
642
seems the right authority for dealing with roads. It is for that reason that we have thought it right to change this particular name from the Highway Authority to the Roads Authority. In Scottish legislation one finds a great number of names—roads, highways, streets and other things. Usually in a particular field of law if a different word is used the intention is to strike a different meaning; but one cannot be confident, for example, that a "road" and a "highway" under present Scottish legislation mean different things; often they will mean the same. Accordingly, it seems right to try to reduce the concepts in number and use the word "roads" to describe the authority responsible for these consistently throughout the Bill. I hope in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this particular amendment.
Lord Hughes: In the light of what my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said about whether this Bill was necessary, and that a much more reasonable thing would have been to produce a simpler Bill giving the additional powers which are contained, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, will remember that at Second Reading the tome to which my noble friend referred arose as the result of an answer which Lord Gray of Contin gave to me: that he could not at that time say exactly whether, when it was said that this was just codifying, there was not in fact a change, and that he would circulate more information. I must agree with my noble friend; so far as I was concerned it certainly arrived, but it did not arrive at such a time that I could make much use of it. In case the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, has any fears on the matter for the next stage of this Bill, I will give him this assurance: that I have no intention of making any use of it to search for yet more amendments.
The bulk of the amendments which are being put forward really are seeking to conform to what the introduction says, to codify and modernise. I will come back to that later on. The noble and learned Lord has said that the reason for putting "roads" in as a single word which will cover any other description that existed in the past is to make absolutely certain that no difficulties arise. I should like to ask him, has there been any occasion in the past where legislation has referred to "roads" or "streets" or "highways" which has led to any difficulty with any of the authorities carrying out their powers? In conversation at the tea-table the other day with one of his noble friends, she said, "I always understood that in the cities you talked about streets and in the countryside you talked about roads". I think that was probably as good a summary of the situation as you can get. I was for many years a member of a local authority. I do not think anybody ever raised with us any legal problem as to whether a street was a road or a road was a street. So there is something really important in what my noble friend Lord Ross says about whether the Bill is really necessary.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hope we are going to get a better effort from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. What he is doing really is justifying this tome. I do not think there has been any justification in what he says. I have been looking again at his own amendment, which came after Second Reading, so they had forgotten all about it; they did not know

643
about it in the Scottish Office. It is Amendment No. 162. If noble Lords will open their "hymn books" at Amendment No. 162 they will see that it is a fairly long amendment. It consists of four full pages of the Marshalled List, and all it is doing is getting rid of the word "highway" and putting in "road". I am perfectly prepared to bet, here and now, that before we have finished the Third Reading of the Bill we shall have another amendment with another list of "highways" that have to be erased and "roads" put in.
My noble friend is quite right. I have asked the Lord Advocate again, when have we had difficulties with all this diversity of descriptions of streets, roads, pavements, alleys, which are now all going to be lumped together, quite unjustifiably in my mind, with the word "roads"? When we get to the definition of "roads", I wonder whether someone will justify having any houses on roads, because they have got numbers and they are related to the road, but the houses are no longer part of the road. I wonder whether we shall search the Local Government Bill to see whether we have made sense of the changes that need to be made there from "highways" to "roads", "roads" now comprehending everything you can think of. Well, of course they have not imagined them all yet, but they will get round to it. I do not think it was necessary at all.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, much of this stemmed from the reorganisation of local government. I did not do that. It was the Tory Government of'1973 that reorganised local government in Scotland and gave us the much loved regions we have, with one region comprehending half the population of Scotland. We will come to that as well in relation to one of the amendments. I do not know whether any Minister sat down and thought about this point or whether it is because a draftsman who had been dabbling at this at various times over the past 10 years said, "Ah!, we have got something here", and then started to make a 147-clause, eight-schedule, Bill. As somebody said, "Is your work really necessary; is it worth while and is it going to simplify?" I do not think it is going to simplify at all. That is a sincere and honest feeling after spending quite a lot of time, more than I can afford, over this particular Bill.
I am not going to divide the Committee on this amendment, but I warn the Government that they have not finished with this Bill. I see the Chief Whip of the Government in this place. He realises, of course, that 70 amendments are down in the name of the Government. The amendment I mentioned, No. 162, and then No. 163, are pages and pages long—single amendments! So please do not blame the Scots for being a bit stick-in-the-mud about this. I like to see statutes clear, I like them to be readily understood, I like to see them well drafted. I question whether this Bill was ever necessary, and if it was necessary it should have been far better drafted than it is. In view of the fact that the Government are not going to change their mind it means that they are not going to look at it for the first time as a whole. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("list") to ("prepared") in line 11.
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It leaves out the words:
"(in this Act referred to as their 'list of public roads')".
With all due respect, it has not been referred to as their "list of public roads". I consider that the words are absolutely unnecessary. It would be much simpler for the Bill to read:
"entered in a list prepared and kept by them under this section".
That gets rid of a line of prose which, in any case, no one understands.
I am very grateful for the help that I have had from my noble friend Lord Hughes. who is as appalled as I am at the language in this Bill. This is virtually a crusade we are joining to try to get the Scottish Office to simplify the language. It is not enough to codify, modernise and have a few innovations. We want the Bill simplified and made clear. I hope this is the first amendment that the Government will accept. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I join with the noble Lord in thinking that matters should be clear and plain. I shall do everything possible to achieve that result. The idea of the phrase in the brackets which the noble Lord wishes to leave out is that it will be easily referred to later in the Bill, because time and again this concept comes up. To set out the full description each time would make the Bill a great deal longer rather than shorter. This is a common technique and, I suggest, a simple, plain technique. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this is a reasonable way to go about it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is a technique that I am beginning to question. It is unnecessary, here or elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Hughes: I could have understood that explanation if it had cut down elsewhere. I would expect that thereafter all one would need to do is refer to the list. But right in the very first line of Section 2 the words "the list of public roads" are repeated again, so the words in brackets do not remove the need for reference to it. For that reason I agree with my noble friend that these words in brackets do not serve any useful purpose.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have to respectfully disagree about that. As regards Section 2, or Clause 2, that is a different list. That is the list kept by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that list is also referred to later. That is the reason why it is mentioned.
Lord Hughes: It is not. The noble and learned Lord has not picked me up correctly. I said Section 2, not Clause 2. I should have said subsection (2), and it is the very first line, line 17, of that subsection, which reads:
"Subject to subsection (8) below, the list of public roads prepared by the local roads authority".
That is not the Secretary of State's list.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sorry; I thought the noble Lord was referring to Clause 2. So far as this is concerned, it is the subject of an amendment. The purpose of expressing it in this way in subsection (2) is to make it clear that what this list is to be—because one must start with this list—and what subsection (2) is requiring, is that what is on the existing list at the date the Bill comes into force will become the first list under the Bill. One needs, therefore, to pick up the existing situation—the situation as it exists when this Bill comes into force—in order to put in, for the first time, the list which is required in the Bill under subsection (1).
Lord Hughes: Will the noble and learned Lord therefore go further and indicate to us what the harmful consequences would be if my noble friend's amendment was accepted?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The harmful consequences would be that one would have to repeat the description, in full, of this list of public roads every time it occurs in the Bill; and it occurs quite a number of times.
Lord Hughes: No; one could of course do what would seem to be the straightforward thing and define a list of public roads in the interpretation clause, which, after all, is the easiest place to find it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: That is certainly another possibility, but it is not a question of leaving it out altogether; it is putting it somewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicated on Second Reading, as I recall, that it seemed convenient to have interpretations at the beginning. This is a matter which is fundamental to the way the Bill is constructed. It seems very easy to slip in the reference point right at the beginning. I submit to your Lordships that it is a very convenient way, in this context, of achieving a fairly clear result.
Lord Hughes: I do not want to make this a duet between us, but the noble and learned Lord has misrepresented me. I said that in one of the Acts which are listed, and where the changes are taking place, the interpretation clause is at the beginning of the Bill, not that one found interpretations in other clauses at the beginning of a Bill. It seemed to me that the old way of having interpretation at the beginning of the Bill was easier to follow than having it right at the end of the Bill. It is much easier to turn back to, say, Clause 2 than to look for Clause 37, Clause 93 or, in the case of this Bill, Clause 143. That is what I said. I was not suggesting that we go back to the old method, although it seemed to be an advantage. I believe—and I have amendments down later on this issue of interpretation—that it will always make a Bill easier, if wording is used and people do not know exactly what it means, that they can turn to the interpretation clause to find the meaning. They should not have to search through different parts of the Bill to find different parts of the interpretation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he says that we should get it done here and not in the interpretation clause, Clause 143. I do
646
not know whether anyone has looked at that clause. I can tell your Lordships that it is a joke. It is the first interpretation clause that I have ever seen with powers in it. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has looked at the clause. Has he looked at the main interpretation clause? Is he satisfied with it? I can well understand why, if he has looked at it, he does not want to put anything else into it. It is such a mess. However, we shall come to that clause later.
Local authorities have been working with lists of roads for long enough. They already exist. But if there is a difficult way of doing it, the draftsmen have found it here. I do not commend it. I trust that the Lord Advocate will get someone to look at the drafting of this Bill between now and the next stage. I have never seen a worse Bill. However, the Lord Advocate is happy, and he is the man that counts. He is responsible for the draftsmen. They are employed by the Crown Office and he is the head of the Crown Office, so he accepts responsibility for everything that they do. He is satisfied: I am not. But who am I to quarrel with him on such a point? Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("for") to ("they") in line 14 and insert ("these").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment put down because there are more words in the Bill than are needed. I apologise to your Lordships for omitting a word. The amendment should read, "leave out from ('and')", and not, "leave out from ('for')". The clause at the moment reads:
"prepared and kept by them under this section; and"—
this is the part that I wish to leave out—
"for the purposes of such management and maintenance (and without prejudice to this subsection's generality)".
This is just jargon—words, words, words. With my amendment, the subsection would read:
"and they shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to",
and so on. That would be perfectly clear. Perhaps that is the trouble. However, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The structure of this clause is that the roads authority is given the responsibility of management and maintenace. The purpose of the provisions to which the noble Lord has drawn attention is to give an explanation by way of illustration—although not exhaustively— of what that management and maintenance is to consist of. In my judgment. the phraseology employed is of the type that is perfectly common in similar Acts of Parliament. To take out the words in the manner that the noble Lord suggests would restrict the powers of the roads authority to the particular examples given. That would be to narrow the powers from what they are at present. I hope that that clarification is sufficient for the noble Lord's purposes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: What the noble and learned Lord says is not sufficient. Indeed I do not accept what he says. The noble and learned Lord says that such words are common in similar Acts of Parliament. Is it

647
not time that the practice of putting in unnecessary words was stopped? I do not accept that the amendment would limit the powers of the local authority to exactly what is said in the clause. The noble and learned Lord should remember that we have the other clauses in the Bill to come, which considerably widen the provision far beyond what he says.
I think that the phrase,
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
is probably the dream answer of the draftsman. I do not know what the "subsection's generality" is. We shall return to this matter in clause after clause. I want to see Scottish legislation clear and not cluttered with jargon. I am not prepared to accept it when a Lord Advocate or any other Minister tells me that other Acts of Parliament of this kind have that wording. That is the trouble. They should not have. Acts of Parliament should be clear. Ordinary people and ordinary lawyers—not just Lords Advocate—have to read Acts of Parliament. That explanation is not good enough. We should start modernising the wording now. I had hoped that the Government could have done better, but I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("reconstruct, alter, widen,")
The noble Lord said: I shall get the same answer on this amendment as on the previous one. We have two versions for this alteration, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The Lord Advocate can have his choice. I shall leave my noble friend Lord Hughes to speak to Amendment No. 5.
The Government turned down the previous amendment and we are left with this term "generality". It should cover everything, so we do not need anything more. But we have this list:
"they shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to reconstruct, alter, widen, improve or renew any such road".
Do we need the words "reconstruct", "alter", and "widen"? Would it not be sufficient merely to say,
"improve or renew any such road"?
I am perfectly sure that a local authority would not reconstruct, widen or alter a road unless it was improving it. I whisper to the Lord Advocate that in later provisions of the Bill we have the word "improve" without details of widening, reconstructing and the rest. He could quite safely take the words out and the whole aspect of roads legislation would not collapse before our eyes. People might even think that there was a lot of sense in saying merely "improve" without detailing the various kinds of improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I hope that my noble and learned friend will forgive me if I say that I support the amendment. I remember when I had to look at Bills after they had been drafted. One looked at one or two words and wondered whether to put in a few more words to cover every possible exigency. The advice
648
that I was given was that however many words one puts in there will almost certainly be one that is forgotten and then the whole piece of legislation may be worthless. With great respect, there is just the possibility that a road authority might want to narrow a road, and that provision does not appear. That is why, quite frankly, as a perfectly simple citizen, I cannot think that an authority could wish to do anything to a road that is not covered by the simple word "alter".
Lord Hughes: Did the noble Lord conclude his remarks by mentioning the simple word "alter"? That is my amendment and I shall come back to it.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate can reconcile the phrase:
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
with then going into a whole lot of detail which covers almost everything that there could he. I think that one or other provision must come out. I cannot follow why the two are necessary.
Lord Hughes: My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock referred to Amendment No. 5. He has also said that he has down 73 amendments. We have worked on the Bill quite independently. I produced some 30 amendments. When we got together, to my astonishment at least, we found that we had produced alternative versions of the same amendment only in one case, and that was Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
If I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate correctly. the reason for putting in the words,
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
is that the more one specifies the more one endangers the generality and very often that provision was put in to make it perfectly clear that where items were specified they were illustrative and not exhaustive of all that might be done. Having accepted that the Government wished to keep to the hallowed phrase.
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
I looked at the clause to see how otherwise to improve the provision. I looked at the words in line 15:
"to reconstruct, alter, widen, improve or renew".
I made my amendment to leave out all those details apart from "alter" because I question whether a road can be reconstructed, widened, improved or renewed without altering it. Indeed can anything else be done to a road without altering it. The simple solution is for the Government in due course to accept my Amendment No. 5. If it should conceivably emerge at some distant time in the future, through the magic of science, that something can be done to a road which does not alter it, one can fall back on the phrase,
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: At the moment, we are, strictly speaking, on Amendment No. 4, although we shall perhaps have the great pleasure of considering Amendment No. 5 in a little while. It may be wise to have Amendment No. 5 in mind when considering suggestions on Amendment No. 4. The principle obligation is to manage and maintain the road. The

649
great thing about maintaining a road is that you keep it as it is. That is the primary object. The main job of roads authorities is to keep roads as they are, in a good state of repair without any alteration and without any of these other operations which are described. That is the ordinary job of the roads authorities. However, we want to give them power, when circumstances require, to make changes in the roads.
I think that many people would say that every change was an improvement. Then, of course, the only word that you would need is "improvement". But these are matters to some extent of opinion. This is supposed to be a Bill that will become an Act for the use of practical people. The idea is to make it clear that the obligations of management and maintenance, keeping the roads as they are, is not the whole story. There is more to it than that. It is that the roads authorities have power to do operations on the roads to change the roads.
It would be perhaps a matter of individual choice as to which of these words we should pick out as the one that is most comprehensive, but there is a certain amount of difference in each of them. It would be possible to improve or renew a road without reconstructing, altering or widening it in the sense of altering that piece of ground over which the road goes. Some alteration of the surface might be involved in that situation. So we have tried not to approach this matter in as confined a way as would be done if it was purely consolidation. We have tried to take account of developments since the legislation was originally passed. Some of the Scottish roads legislation is extremely old. A good deal has happened since it was originally enacted. We have tried to follow the structure of the legislation that we are putting into this code, but we are trying to take account of putting it into a single consistent structure.
I would suggest to your Lordships that it is valuable for practical people to have the examples given of what the roads authority may do. My noble friend Lord Stodart is right: there are dangers in particularisation, which is the reason for the phrase "without prejudice to this subsection's generality". In other words, we are giving illustrations so that people may be absolutely clear, when they are within a particular illustration, that they are all right, but that they need not be too anxious if they are not within one of the particular illustrations—if the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, turns out to be actuality—so long as they come within the general words of the provision. I am prepared to look at this matter, as at every matter that is raised during the course of the evening, from any of your Lordships, but that is my view at the moment. I would advise your Lordships that the clause would be better if these words were left in.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Frankly, I do not see it. If you are going to widen a road, you are only going to widen it to improve it. If you are going to do any of these things, you are only going to do it to improve the road. So "improvement" covers the whole lot. The Lord Advocate, in his explanation, used one other word. That word is not in the clause. We had better put it in. He used the word "change". You would not change it unless you were going to improve it, would you? So it is comprehended within "improvement". The Lord Advocate has virtually approved my case. I
650
am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart. That is exactly the point I am making.
We are going back over 100 years in respect of some of this legislation. It will be another 100 years before we get to it again. Why not do it right this time? It can be simplified without taking away any of the powers that the new roads authorities, be they local or the Secretary of State, will have at their elbows. Later on, the Bill actually uses the word "improve" without mentioning "widening". If we are to have these three here, we shall have to have them elsewhere, on the basis of the argument of the Lord Advocate for consistency in all things. However, I shall bow to him at the moment. I shall jog his memory when we come to the others. If I have no amendment down—I probably have not—it is because that would be doing his work for him. I take these words out but I do not put them back in where he has forgotten to put them in. I hope, however, that the civil servants will examine the matter, probably during the hour when the Scots, who are not interested in the next piece of legislation, will be having some relaxation. I trust that the civil servants will see some of the inconsistencies which do not support the argument produced by the Lord Advocate in respect of this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("to") to ("any") and insert ("alter")
The noble Lord said: If it were not for the time of evening, I should be seriously tempted to divide the Committee on the amendment because I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has given a proper answer. I can understand putting in alternative meanings if any one of them can be doubtful, but the Lord Advocate did not answer the question that I put to him. Can you reconstruct a road without altering it? Can you widen a road without altering it? Can you improve a road without altering it? Can you renew a road without altering it? Can you think of any other thing than these that you would do to a road? The Lord Advocate, unwittingly, I think, gave one answer: he said that you can change the road. As my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock has said, the word "change" does not appear. The reason is that change is just another word for alter. Presumably, the Lord Advocate did not want to go part of the way towards me by saying that the local authority, in its maintenance and management, should have power to alter a road, so he said "change", which has exactly the same meaning.
On Second Reading, my wish was to take out the wording "without prejudice to this subsection's generality" because I think that this goes in automatically, and, in so many cases, it is meaningless. When you go into all these things that can be done, there is no need for the words "without prejudice to this subsection's generality". I am prepared to bow to the fact that the amendment to take out the words has been rejected, but I think that we accomplish everything that is necessary in giving the powers to the local authority if we just say that
"they shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to alter any such road".
I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have given such explanation as I think is appropriate for this. The most doubtful question, I think, that the noble Lord has asked me is in relation to the word "renew". If you are renewing a road, is that an alteration of the road? It would certainly be open to argument whether that was so, because. in effect, if you are renewing it, all that you are doing is putting down what was there before but it is new, and that may be regarded as the same road new.
Lord Hughes: Perhaps I might interrupt the noble and learned Lord. Is he suggesting that, when a local authority renews a road, takes off the surface, lays it aside and goes to all that expense, it then puts it back and tries to make it exactly the same as it was previously? "Renewal" must mean "alteration". It must mean using different materials and so the road must be altered.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord is anxious to tell me the answer. I am trying to give him my answer but I know that he sees the situation perhaps a little differently from the way in which I do. However, I think he will take it from me that I have had occasion from time to time to involve myself with the detailed consideration of Acts of Parliament in relation to particular cases. I am saying—and this is all I said at the time that he asked me to make way for him—that the most doubtful question that he asked me was whether "renew" would be included in "alter". Of course, I perfectly understand that if one repairs a road one uses new materials to fill in the holes and so on. But it might be very questionable whether a repair of a road was an alteration of a road. So the mere fact. as he said, that one is using new materials necessarily involves one in making an alteration of the road.
"Repair" and "renewal" might not involve what would be properly alteration in the sense that the road, to a person using it, would appear to be different from the road that he used before the repair was made. So I would certainly advise the Committee against restricting the phrase to the word "alter" alone, although I am certainly prepared to consider what has been said on this particular matter.
Lord Hughes: I must come back to this matter again. Once again the noble and learned Lord has brought in a word that does not appear in the Bill. He is saying that "repair" or "renew" would not be covered by "alter". But the Government have not found it necessary to give the authority power to repair a road. I take it that one reason for that is that "repair" could be comprehended in "altering" or "improving". But in dealing with these two amendments he has twice used words which do not find their way into the Bill. He used "change" and he has now used "repair". It seems to me that the more he speaks, the more he justifies the rejection of the earlier amendment to keep in "without prejudice to [the]… generality" and, having accepted that wording, the simpler we keep the later stages the better.
The only point on which the noble and learned Lord impressed me was as regards what he said about "renew". He raised some doubt in my mind as to whether "renewal", in the hands of a skilful lawyer like
652
himself, could be regarded in an argument of court as being the same thing as "altering". Therefore, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment if the noble and learned Lord will give me an assurance that he will look at this form of wording, because it seemed to me that it might meet entirely what he said if, instead of having all these words, he brought it down to "alter" or "renew". If he is prepared to give an undertaking to commit himself not necessarily to these words, but to looking at the words again to see if he cannot satisfy himself that less verbiage is necessary to accomplish the object, then I would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am extremely happy to give an undertaking of that type. I will examine all that has been said on this matter to see whether we can improve the provisions. I think that I said that before, and if it helps the noble Lord I am perfectly happy to say it again. It would be my intention in any case in a matter of this type and with a Bill of this type to take account of everything that your Lordships say and to see whether we can make use of it to improve the wording of the Bill. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has had to say about it. I shall also take his advice about the more I speak the less it seems to do me good, and so I shall now be silent.
Lord Gray: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, withdraws his amendment. I should like to make two comments. First, the question regarding "repair" is surely covered by "maintenance" at the very beginning of the clause. Secondly, I would say to my noble and learned friend that perhaps when considering this matter he could look at whether the words used adequately cover the powers in Clause 12 concerning the closing and stopping up of roads in so far as they are, in part, apparently vested in local authorities.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Yes, certainly I will be happy to do that in the circumstances.
Lord Hughes: I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1 line 16, at end insert ("or to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and I would like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22, 69, 70, 126, 145 and 153:
Amendment No. 22: Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("or to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised").
Amendment No. 69: Page 20, line 37, leave out ("or fences") and insert (", fences or barriers").
Amendment No. 70: Page 20, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

(a) between any of the following and any other of the following—

(i) a footway;

(ii) a footpath;

(iii) a cycle track;

(iv) a carriageway,

(aa) along a cycle track so as to segregate classes of users thereof,").
Amendment No. 126: Page 77, line 26, at end insert—
("(4A) A person who parks a motor vehicle ("motor vehicle" having the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1972) wholly or partly on a cycle track commits an offence.").
Amendment No. 145: Page 93, line 18, at end insert—
("(5) The power conferred on a roads authority by section 1(1) or 2(1) of this Act to determine the means of exercise of a public right of passage includes the power to redetermine by order under this subsection such means of exercise.
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 69 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (5) above as they apply to an order under section 66 or 67 of this Act.
(7) A local roads authority shall have power to carry out any works necessary for giving effect to an order by them under subsection (5) above; and in so far as the carrying out of any such works, or any change in the use of land resulting from any such order, constitutes development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, permission for that development shall be deemed granted under Part III of that Act.
Amendment No. 153: Page 107, line 46, at end insert—
(" . Section 120(4A) (parking motor | Level 2. | £50."). vehicle on cycle track).
These are amendments which I think are of particular interest to the cycling fraternity, but which also have the support of the police, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Scottish Rights of Way Society. They have three main aspects: first, to provide a simple means of altering the type of use of a public road; secondly, to enable a roads authority to erect fences or barriers between one type of road and another; and thirdly, to make it an offence to park on a cycle track—all of these being intended to facilitate the creation of special facilities for cyclists.
At the present it is possible to change the use of one type of road to another—for example, a footpath to a cycle track, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. But this can be, as those of your Lordships who may have been involved in it will know, a complicated procedure which might require more than one order under that Act and may also require planning permission. The amendments provide for the change of use to be effected by a single order under the Bill which will carry deemed planning permission. The proposed order will have to be publicised and, if objections are made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State will determine whether the order should be confirmed.
Provision is already made in Clause 27 of the Bill to enable road authorities to erect fences at certain dangerous parts of roads but this, as it stands, is not sufficient to allow for the erection of barriers which might be necessary in the interest of safety to separate, for example, cyclists on a cycle track from pedestrians on an adjoining footpath. The amendments now before you Lordships will make provision for that. Anyone who suffers damage through the execution of such works will be entitled to compensation under Clause 112.
Under Clause 120 it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle on a cycle track, and it is a logical extension of that control to make it an offence to park vehicles on such a track. The less serious nature of the parking offence is recognised in the maximum fine which is set at Level 2, which is currently £50. The exemption in Clause 62 for the use of certain vehicles on cycle tracks
654
will apply in this case also. I beg to move the amendments and I hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships.
Lord Ross of Marnock: So far as I understand the Rules of Order, even in this House one can only move one amendment—one cannot move the whole lot.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Yes, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not accept that we have discussed the amendments that are serialised here by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. We had no notice of this and I do not agree that they all follow each other. For example, Amendment No. 69, which deals with leaving out "or fences" or something of that nature, has nothing to do with this subject. I do not think that it is in sequence with this amendment at all.
For 10 years we have been preparing for this Bill, and it was only when it was given its Second Reading that we discovered that this important power was not included. Is this necessary? If we did not have this power in Clause 1, would the whole thing fall, so that the Government would not be able to take the powers which have already been taken? They are already in the Bill, quite apart from some of the changes made by the amendments that may add to them. If this amendment had not suddenly appeared, would certain clauses of the Bill have been quite illegal?
Is this a power that someone forgot about that the Government needed?—because it is very different from the road authority having the power to construct roads. It is a different power altogether. Quite frankly, I do not think that it is needed here and it should not be here. If it had been necessary, the civil servants and those who have been looking at the Bill would have included it a long time ago. Is this another case of covering up just in case? So we clutter up the Bill with a few more afterthoughts. As it is an amendment, and a Government amendment, it must be an afterthought. But is it necessary?
I am not entirely happy that it covers Amendments Nos. 22, 69, 70, 126, 145 and 153 concerning parking and erecting barriers. All these are covered in later clauses of the Bill. Indeed, the amendments which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned that he wishes to take together do not depend at all upon these words going in there. They would still be quite proper and in order. They were in the statute before they were further amended after Second Reading.
I am not happy about this or about what the Government are doing. If the noble and learned Lord has another long list of amendments that are to be discussed together, perhaps he would be good enough to let me have them.
Lord Drumalbyn: I can quite understand the rational attempt to draw together a number of means by which the:
"public right of passage over any road"
and "any road" seems to me to be rather curous—
"or over any part of it may be exercised"

655
I can understand the merit of trying to do that. I do not think it would follow that every single item in the Bill would have to be covered other than what is already in Clause 1. There may be "incidental", "miscellaneous", and all the rest, for which it can be quite legitimate to legislate. But the worry is that there may be quite a number of groups of things that are not covered, and it may be necessary to diversify still further subsection (1). That is the worry that occurs to me on this matter.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have sought to explain that the idea of putting this power in Clause 1 is to facilitate the alteration of the type of use of a public road with cyclists and the alterations in order to provide for them, very much in mind. It seems an appropriate place in which this particular power should be given. The mechanisms under which the power can be exercised, of course, are subject to later controls. I mentioned Amendment No. 145, which deals with that in particular.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to raise a very small point. I was under the impression that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had the power to classify roads—special roads, side roads or local roads—and that that power was already contained in legislation. Why is additional power required if that power already exists, or is this an attempt to specify a number of certain types of operations which can be performed on roads, such as cycle tracks? Therefore, is he not in danger of omitting something which we tried to discuss earlier on the question of generalities? If the noble and learned Lord has listed so many items, would he not be inclined to miss out some other things? Would it not be better merely to retain to himself and local authorities the power to classify roads?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: On the particular matter of Amendment No. 6, the specific point I want to add by way of this amendment is:
"to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it"—
that is, the road—
"or over any part of it, may be exercised".
The idea behind that is to make it possible to construct a road and to maintain a road for a particular type of public right of passage and, after the road is possibly in use, for example, to restrict a footpath so that under these powers it becomes a cycle track.
We have to try to envisage what will be required and we have endeavoured to provide what is required. I do not think anyone can claim that nothing will ever happen that we have not foreseen, but we have done our best to foresee what will be required in order to give the cycling community the kind of facilities that I believe noble Lords think they should have.
Lord Ross of Marnock:As the President of the Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire Cycling Association, I have every sympathy with anything that will assist cyclists in getting around Scotland, and in particular around Ayrshire and Galloway. However, to return to the point: am I to understand that, in this monumental
656
piece of legislation that has taken over 10 years to prepare, the Government suddenly discovered, after they had published the Bill and after its Second Reading, that they did not have this power?—because that is what is meant by this amendment. We are adding this to Clause 1.
Alternatively, am I right in thinking that it is already in the Bill somewhere, but that perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has had a belated look at it and is beginning to wonder whether it is legal to put it elsewhere without having this power in Clause 1. It comes back to the point I made originally. It is an awful mess of a Bill which gives people power to execise the legs, be it by walking, on cycles, by car or by invalid chair. This is the generality of all this. It does not just say "cycle tracks" here; it does not mention cycles. I am perfectly sure that it is not for that particular purpose anyway.
I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should come clean with the Committee and tell us whether this is something they forgot to include, that it is something they have put in, and that it is something which, if it is not included, robs certain provisions which are already in the Bill of any legal standing. The power has not been put into the general powers in Clause 1, which relates to the making of roads, the constructing of roads, the reconstructing, the widening and the altering of roads, but which has nothing to do with the actual use of roads. It is a very fundamental change that is being made.
I cannot conceive that the Scottish Office produced this Bill and did not have this fundamentally necessary power right away in Clause 1 until someone came along and said "Let us have it now". We have not been given that explanation. If it was left out, let the noble and learned Lord say that it was left out. We are a very forgiving Committee in respect of the weaknesses, in particular, of lawyers.
In the old Scottish Grand Committee, of which every Scottish Member of Parliament was automatically a member—and from 1946 until about 1962 every Scottish Bill went to that Committee—we used to call for the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General, if he was in the House, when we were in difficulties. As often as not an hour after we had called for him we wished he had not been there, because not until they got going were we really confused. I think that this is really a matter for a lay Minister, not for a Lord Advocate or a Solicitor-General.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:I am grateful to the noble Lord for his frankness. It has not been my experience generally that when I have been invited to give my views I have confused the people who have asked me to give them; but one is always learning as one goes on, and of course it may depend to some extent on the person to whom the views are being communicated.
Lord Ross of Marnock: And who is the Lord Advocate.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:Indeed, but I am talking about myself on this particular occasion. So far as the occasions to which the noble Lord's history relates, of

657
course I am not in a position to throw any light upon them, because I did not have the privilege of being present to hear what was going on. Anyhow, I hope that the experience will not he repeated tonight that he had then.
So far as the question is concerned, I thought that I had explained orginally, in speaking to this amendment along with others, that there is a power in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to change the use of roads, but that it is a complicated power. When we were considering what we should do to make provision for cycle tracks, which was a matter for cyclists generally and one which was under consideration but which had not been brought to full fruition at the time the Bill was prepared, we thought that this was a power which would be suitable to be put in the Bill and which would facilitate the creation, for example, of cycle tracks. For that reason this power is here as a simpler way of achieving the result than would be possible under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. I thought I had explained that.
So far as I am concerned I am not hiding anything, or failing to disclose anything. I am not conscious of anything of that kind, and the idea that I am not coming clean with the Committee is one which I do not find particularly attractive. It is the last thing, or certainly one of the last things, I should like to be guilty of.
Lord Ross of Marnock:If this has only to do with cycle tracks, then why not limit it to cycle tracks? Why not say that? Or have there been other complications about changing the use of other roads in some way? We have clause after clause to come in respect of change of use of roads. So far as I could gather, they did not require this particular power here, which is a new power. We take new powers all through this Bill, or the Secretary of State does, and we are going to accord them to him. In relation to cycle tracks, could it not be done elsewhere much more simply, without raising it as a major point of principle in Clause 1? That is the most important part of the clause where all the other powers would seem to come. That is why I ask him why it is not limited to cycle tracks, and is it necessary in respect of things other than cycle tracks? Or do they not know? Is it "just in case", so that they take a generalised power, which they can justify only in relation to some experience where it has not stopped in relation to cycle tracks?
It has not stopped local authorities or, for that matter, the Secretary of State, from creating cycle tracks along trunk roads. They are there. I am not entirely satisfied about this matter and I do not like the list of amendments to which the Lord Advocate applies it. However, we shall come to them in turn. I hope it will be noted that we have not had a full discussion on these various amendments which are mentioned. We have had only the one moved, and the one to which I am certainly prepared to agree. I would he the last to deny the Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire Cycling Association of the Scottish Cycling Union some benefits which they might get from the Roads (Scotland) Bill 1983.
Lord Hughes: I have no connection with any cycling clubs or any vested interest to declare. I ask a question
658
here. I am not seeking to pick holes in the language of the amendment on this occasion but seeking to get information. The amendment reads:
"or to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised."
When the Lord Advocate was talking about cycle tracks, he indicated that it related not only to what could be used on the road but what could not be used. It was to be restricted to that particular way. Does this wording give the authority the necessary power to restrict as well as use? Because when you tell somebody that he cannot do something, he is not exercising anything. It is a genuine query. If the amendment gives a power to restrict, could it by any stretch of imagination—and my own feeling is that it would be a wide stretch of imagination—be used by a local authority to say, "We will not allow public processions in this street. This is not the type of right of passage that we would allow."?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The wording of the amendment is:
"to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised.".
The idea in mind there is that one exercises a public right of passage on foot, by cycle, by motor vehicle, or possibly by horse-drawn vehicle, or something of that kind; the means by which the right of passage is exercised may be determined. In other words, the roads authority may say that the only means by which the public may have a right of passage along this particular stretch of road is by cycle, or by foot, or by vehicle, or by vehicle and cycle, or something like that, or by invalid carriage, or whatever particular means they want to determine. The determination would say what the means were, and that could be exhaustive of the means. In other words, it could say "only by cycle" for example.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee stage of this particular Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that we do not return to this particular Committee stage before half past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Somerset House Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Leasing of Somerset House for artistic, cultural or other purposes]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("may") insert ("by statutory instrument")
The noble Lord said: Before I move this amendment, may I suggest that the usual channels should consider a different arrangement for business which is taken, as on this occasion, in the middle of the consideration of other business and when noble Lords repair to the dining room for supper. This is now being treated as second-class business, because it does not call for any great attendance by noble Lords in the Chamber, or it is not contentious, or it does not matter.
I have protested previously about this, and I shall go on doing it whenever business with which I am concerned is relegated to this position in our affairs. Moreover, if it is expected that your Lordships' Committee is going to adjourn some business for supper, it should do so at the appointed hour and not drag on, as it has done tonight. As for coming back at half past eight—
The Earl of Swinton:With due respect to the noble Lord, he can complain to the usual channels about this, but we could not have been much nearer half past seven than we are at present. Dinner on Tuesdays is at half past seven.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I may have misunderstood the time we arrived at this stage in our proceedings, but it is usually seven o'clock.
The Earl of Swinton: Not on Tuesdays.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Then I hope those who are having supper will not hurry back, because we have business to do.
I think it would be better if I spoke to both Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 at once, because one is consequential upon the other.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 7, leave out ("he thinks fit") and insert ("may be determined").
These amendments require the Secretary of State to submit to Parliament his judgment and proposals for any lease to be granted under this Bill. It maybe contemplated that a lease granted by the Secretary of State for any period that he thinks fit may be a long one. It may be a lease which would last for a whole generation. To lease a public building, or any part of it, of the importance of Somerset House for a period of a whole generation is no minor decision. The Secretary of State should be asked to come to Parliament for approval, otherwise this is an excess of delegated authority.
I know the noble Lord the Minister has said that anyone who rises to the dizzy heights of being Secretary of State for the Environment is unlikely to do anything wrong or foolish. But Ministers do not rise at all. At best they emerge, and usually they are put
660
there in the complex process of finding horses for courses and room for a balance of wets and drys, of the Left and the Right, not to mention the Scots and the Welsh "Taffia". That is how Ministers get where they are. One cannot rely completely on their judgment. For example, I ask what blind faith one can put in a Minister when one looks across the river at the building erected in the 1930s on the south side of Lambeth Bridge by the Minister of Works for his own headquarters. It has been a blot on the landscape for years and years. That was doing something that some Minister "thought fit".
I ask again; are we to have an extension of the ugly facade of King's College that we have on the Strand now for as long as the Secretary of State "thinks fit"? The trouble with buildings today is that they are not designed by architects but by chartered accountants. That is why we have so much ugliness about all our cities at present.
Another reason given by the Minister for this delegated authority was that it would save valuable parliamentary time. I do not want to be cynical about wasting parliamentary time, but I have just been sitting in. I think that any Minister who studies the record will see that the value of parliamentary time is that which Members themselves put upon it. No subjective judgment about valuable parliamentary time is worth anything at all. In fact, I would say that one should never try to save parliamentary time on the ground that it may be wasted. That is not democracy. To use as much parliamentary time as possible, even though it may be wasted, is the foundation of our democratic system.
I do not think that this delegated authority can be justified on the ground that it will save valuable parliamentary time. If Parliament wants to save parliamentary time, it has means at its disposal so to do. I do not think it should do it by delegating authority to Ministers. It can do it by restraining its own enthusiasm and excitement on occasions; and in another place devices were created years ago known as "the closure", "the guillotine", "the kangaroo", and all the rest of it, all of which are devices to save wasting parliamentary time.
This is the end of what I want to say in moving this amendment. The words "he thinks fit"—there is always a note of arrogance in the use of the phrase, "as one thinks fit"—I want to remove it from the Bill anyway. It may be what a Minister thinks is appropriate, reasonable or within his discretion, but "as he thinks fit" is a peremptory notice of what the Minister may reply if one questions what he has done. He says, "I have thought fit", and that is the end of it.
The amendment is designed to bring the Minister to the House of Commons or to the House of Lords on the negative procedure for statutory instrument authority to do what he wants to do. I hope that the Government will feel that this is a reasonable thing to do, and that it will be some safeguard against the possibility of an outbreak of public opposition to what he does without a satisfactory parliamentary means of checking the plans that the Minister has it in mind to carry out. I beg to move.
Lord Mancroft:I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on a splendid

661
achievement with which I totally disagree. Only he could use the dinner interval, about which he has quite improperly complained, to deliver, on a very minor amendment on a very minor Bill, a major essay on constitutional behaviour and delegated legislation.
On the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to address a few words to your Lordships on the difficulty we had had over the years in the arts, in our national museums and in the municipal and private museums, in lending and exchanging pictures owing to the tight way in which the trust deeds had been drawn. Now I am glad to find that there has been a considerable relaxation in these rules, and we can do it in a very much more liberal way.
I yield to none—certainly not the noble Lord—in my respect for Somerset House and my hope that it will be properly and decently administered. I am sure it will be. But what we are doing here, if we accept the noble Lord's amendment, is to go back to exactly what I was complaining about on Second Reading. We shall fetter the power of the curator, the executors and trustees of the museum, when it is constitutionally set up, and tie them down to a lot of pettifogging regulations which I am certain will creep in if we are not very careful.
If they are thinking of setting up a three-ring circus in Somerset House, I shall he the first to join the noble Lord in complaining. But if we are going to restrict the powers of the authorities who run the place by a large number of regulations which are bound to creep in under the amendment, he is doing what he does not want to do. He will make the place unusable for what we all want to use it. It will then become a draftsman's nightmare or a draftsman's dream of pleasure by restricting it to its improper use. I see that several other amendments do the same thing. They tie the Secretary of State's hands quite unnecessarily. He is going to go mad, when we have the means of putting him sane again. I do not think this is the right way to do it. I hope that the Government will not give a very kindly reception to the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I agree with my noble friend and I disagree with what the noble Lord opposite has just said. It seems to me that the Secretary of State's hands ought to be tied, considering the things they get up to when they are untied. So far as my noble friend's amendment is concerned, all that it seeks to do is something which is very customary; that is, give a general authority in the legislation and to seek that when a specific proposal is carried out it has to have the approval of Parliament before any detailed action is taken. That is a very customary and reasonable thing, I should have thought. It is applied in many Bills and I see no reason why it should not apply in this one.
However, the reason I rise to support my noble friend is not only for that alone but because the next amendment is mine and I wanted to tell the noble Lord the Minister that, if he felt able to accept my noble friend's amendment, then, so far as my amendment is concerned, I should be happy with an assurance from him and would not wish to press my amendment any further. To an extent, at any rate, all that I seek to do under this amendment I think could be achieved at the stage when the statutory instrument is brought forward. I thought it would be as well for me
662
to give the noble Lord the Minister that assurance before he replies to my noble friend.
Lord Skelmersdale:I am always grateful for offers as beautifully presented as the offer just made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. Unfortunately, I cannot concede his wish because I do not intend to accept this amendment, for very good reasons. Before I start on what I want to say about this amendment, I am already confused. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his eloquent although somewhat lengthy speech introducing his amendment, did not speak to Amendment No. 1 at all. I did not hear a single word fall from his lips on the subject of statutory instruments, whatever that might mean. We can hardly go backwards. If the noble Lord would be good enough to speak briefly to his first amendment, I will answer both of them together, if that is his wish.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:I thought that this was almost common form. There are various ways whereby Ministers can lay proposals before Parliament. It can be done by regulation, it can be done by statutory instrument, in certain circumstances it can be done by orders-in-council. I did not think there was any difficulty about this. It was just that the Bill allows the Minister to do what he likes and this amendment asks the Minister to lay his proposals before the House in suitable parliamentary form. Perhaps I may now comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. It was not my intention that one should produce a schedule with his main proposals something like the charter of the BBC. Not at all. I had in mind that what would be laid before Parliament was the broad framework of what it was proposed to do with the whole, or part, or that part it was wanted to lease, of Somerset House; to whom it would go; what sort of lease was in mind, and what the general covenants would be regarding the purposes for which the building should be used. That seems to me to be the way of doing it. Of course, it may be that the Minister will adopt another alternative; perhaps a statement to the House when something could be commented upon.
I am merely seeking to get rid of these peremptory few words, "as he thinks fit". I do not think that any Minister should be allowed to do what "he thinks fit" with Somerset House, subject only to the very general restraints put on him later in the Bill, which are to have regard to the architectural importance of the building and the desirability of maintaining the right of access of the public to the quadrangle. That is all to which the Minister is required to pay regard in discharging his authority "as he thinks fit". Surely the Minister can put this in suitable parliamentary form. A statutory instrument, I understood, was a statutory instrument—especially if one has capital letters in it. The noble Lord may know better. He may have some alternative suggestion. Or he may say that there is no such thing. I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale:At least I know where I stand. I fully understand the basic purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his two amendments, which is to

663
express real concern behind the fears that he has expressed of what might happen to a somewhat mythical, I assume, Secretary of State in the future. But I do not believe that there is sufficient justification for the Bill to be amended in the way that he suggests. I say this for two reasons. First, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the architectural importance of the building and I believe that any Secretary of State, whether he comes from a dizzy height or whether he comes from the "Taffia", as the noble Lord suggested, will weigh this consideration most carefully when considering a lease.
Secondly, I believe that the practical problems will prevent any letting to an undesirable tenant. The remainder of Somerset House, other than the North Wing. is occupied by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Inland Revenue. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has already assured Ministers of those two departments that no lettings other than that now proposed to the University of London will be granted in Somerset House without prior consultation with them. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have something to say about a proposed letting which was not in accordance with the spirit of the Bill.
Looked at from a legal point of view, the proposal to grant a lease by statutory instrument—which is the effect of the noble Lord's first amendment—is, to say the least, a curious one. First of all, a lease and a statutory instrument are mutually incompatible. A lease depends on agreement and has to be made in a particular form, a deed, and executed by the parties that enter into that lease. A statutory instrument, on the other hand, in the present case would have to be a unilateral act of the Secretary of State for the Environment. A statutory instrument could not be made jointly with the lessee: and. although the lessee might agree to the making of the instrument, the lessee's agreement would be irrelevant because nothing would depend upon it.
In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is actually promoting the opposite effect to what he intends. The statutory instrument, if it were made, would give more power to the Secretary of State, rather than less. Moreover, a statutory instrument could not, I think, be made in the form of a deed. Thus, the notion of a lease granted by statutory instrument involves incompatible concepts and the proposed amendment is, if I may with great respect say so, rather pointless since it only provides for the form in which a lease is granted—that is, by statutory instrument—and is silent about the application of the instrument to any parliamentary procedure. No advantage can be gained from merely making a lease in the form of a statutory instrument which, at the end of the day, is a piece of paper which "gets laid on the Table".
So far as the second amendment goes, the Committee will realise that the incompatible natures of a lease and a statutory instrument, of which I have just spoken—the one requiring agreement between the parties and the other a unilateral act by the Secretary of State—do not make this amendment a necessary
664
consequence of a change in line 6 of the Bill. The existing words, "as he thinks fit", to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, takes such exception, merely empower the Secretary of State to grant a lease for such a period as, as we know, he thinks fit. They do not enable him to impose, for example, a particular period, a particular potential lessee, any more than he is enabled to impose a lease at the moment.
Given that what is involved is a mere power—and I am not being derogatory to the noble Lord, I assure him—the period of any lease must necessarily be such period as is determined between the parties. Thus, on the assumption that the proposed amendment implies determination between the parties. although this does not necessarily appear from the wording of the noble Lord's amendment, the amendment achieves nothing that is not already achieved by the existing wording of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned the calling to account of Secretaries of State. With his long experience of the parliamentary process—much longer than mine—he knows full well how he can do this in the form of questions or debates or, if necessary. by real condemnation, which can be expressed slightly more lightly, I agree, in this House but much more strongly in another place. I should have thought that was a much more effective way of seeking to achieve what the noble Lord intends rather than what is suggested in these two amendments. In this connection I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who put the point rather more briefly than I have been able to do.
Baroness Birk:I think it is quite clear what my noble friend Lord Houghton was trying to do, although, as the Minister has said, it may well be that the draftsmanship is not perfect. But what I am concerned about here, as I believe my noble friend is too, is the question of how the lease will be finally worked out. I can see the problems that have been raised by the Minister; but listening to what has been said, I was struck by the fact that we have a unique situation with Somerset House. It is quite different, for example, from the British Museum, the National Gallery or the Tate. Here the Secretary of State will grant a lease and it is under the guardianship of the Department of the Environment, although in fact it is a public building which really belongs to the nation.
I am concerned about this. I do not say necessarily that the wording is correct, but what my noble friend and I have in common is that we should like to know that there is a procedure which, without jeopardising a lease which would be good for Somerset House, would enable it to be used in the way that we want it to be, which is the idea put forward at the moment by the Courtauld Institute—thatis, the idea behind this enabling Bill. At the same time, we do not want the Bill to become the means of allowing some other form of lease which we might find incompatible with the building, and the terms of which might be worrying. I am afraid I shall be repeating all this when I move my own amendment: namely, the question of what rent will be asked. It is not really a commercial proposition at all, and I am rather worried on that point. I see the Minister's argument about asking questions; but at what point do you know it is right to ask the question?

665
Unless some statement is made that the lease has been negotiated, no one will be able to ask a question. I think we are in new territory here.
As to the second amendment, I think this may well be more a matter of semantics. I confess that I find the words "he thinks fit" rather a harsh and abrasive phrase, and although it may be argued that the words "as appropriate" may not have the same meaning, they come over as being rather better than the wording that is there.
Lord Skelmersdale:I am grateful to the noble Baroness. So far as the drafting goes. I am perfectly prepared to take this matter back and look at it again, because I can see that if the two sets of words do not mean anything different to the draftsman or—heaven forbid!—in future to a court, then perhaps the rather softer wording might be appropriate. I am prepared to look at that.
Regarding the noble Baroness's substantive point, I would say that it is not really appropriate for Parliament to get involved in the details of a lease. But I agree that it is absolutely appropriate for the Secretary of State, having entered into a lease on one side, to be questioned about what he has done. I do not think it is an appropriate way, as I said, for the Secretary of State to announce that he has entered into a lease by means of a statutory instrument: but I have absolutely no doubt that when a lease is arranged it will be quite possible, if that were to be the pressing desire of Parliament at the time, to have a debate or, as I said earlier, to address some pretty searching questions to Ministers in the Department. The noble Baroness—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley:I think the point is: how is Parliament to know that this lease is going to be entered into?
Lord Skelmersdale: I was just coming to that: I saw the frown on the noble Baroness's face and I interpreted the signs. How is Parliament to know that this is going to happen? Quite honestly, I am not in a position to answer that at the moment, but I should have thought it was perfectly proper for a Secretary of State—as he does all the time—to announce such a decision to Parliament by means of Written Answer. I will certainly investigate that possibility.
Baroness Birk: How will one know when to ask the Question?
A noble Lord: You get tipped off.
Lord Skelmersdale:I do not think I am supposed to refer to that; but the noble Baroness, I am sure, knows perfectly well how the Secretary of State would deal with such a situation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:I hope noble Lords do not think that I am being unnecessarily concerned about this matter, but may I be permitted to read to the noble Lord the announcement that the Board of Inland Revenue have made to the staff? Then I think we shall see the full significance of it from their point of view. I read:
"Somerset House: Members of staff may be interested to know that the Government have introduced a Bill to enable any part of
666
Somerset House to be leased for purposes other than that of Government offices. The Minister (Lord Skelmersdale) explained that the primary purpose of the Bill was to allow the Fine Rooms (formerly occupied by the Registrar General) to be leased to the Courtauld Institute. He also said that a proposal that King's College should expand into all or part of the areas currently occupied by Government departments was being discussed, that this raised major practical and financial difficulty, and that the Bill should not be seen as prejudging in any way the outcome of that study.".
That is not of course different from the way in which the noble Lord the Minister explained it to the House on Second Reading, but it is a potted version of the whole proposition: and when you consider that it is clear that under the cover of this Bill what is being discussed with the university authorities—that is, to lease the whole of Somerset House at present occupied by Government offices to King's College—is no minor transfer of the occupation of one of the primary historic buildings of London. This is what I am after. I know that Sir Norman Price, in his history of Somerset House, says "There is everything wrong with Somerset House, but we would be very sorry to leave it". I am not really wedded to that sentimental view, but I am certainly concerned about who may occupy all or part of the considerable accommodation which is now occupied by Government offices, and I am trying to find some way of requiring the Minister to notice the importance of this in his relations with Parliament.
If he is given this authority under an Act of Parliament on a matter of this interest and concern to people, I suggest that some way should be found whereby he has to report to Parliament what he is doing or has done. The Order Paper contains a whole schedule of documents which are laid before Parliament in accordance with statutory requirements, and I should have thought that, at the very least, the Act, as it will be, could require the Minister to report to Parliament and to lay before Parliament a copy of the lease or any suitable summary of its conditions for parliamentary information.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, raised a vital point. How are we to know? Indeed, in sonic circumstances the Minister might say "It is confidential. I do not disclose the contents of leases, because the rent and other things are in them which might be a hit explosive and should not be disclosed." Anyhow, in view of what the Minister has said, and in view of the difficulty that we have in dealing with this matter further on our feet, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I express the hope that at a later stage of the Bill further thoughts on both sides might lead us to a suitable accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
8.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 3:
Page line 7, at end insert ("but no lease shall be granted which would permit the Fine Rooms to be used as a Theatre Museum or for a permanent exhibition of the works of a single artist").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord the Minister may well tell me that there is no intention at all of providing that such a use as I seek to prevent shall take place, in which case he will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment, because, if there is no intention to do what I seek to prevent, it does not

667
matter whether it goes into the Bill. If, on the other hand, he feels that there is a possibility that at some stage the Fine Rooms may be used for one of these two purposes, then I should want to press my amendment, because I have some history in this matter which, if your Lordships will permit me, I shall recount, not in enormous detail but to explain to your Lordships why it is that I seek to prevent these two purposes from taking place.
When I became Minister for the Arts in the spring of 1974, I found that plans to use the Fine Rooms of Somerset House as a theatre museum were far advanced. As I have said in a book which I wrote, called The Culture Gap, a copy of which maybe found in the Library—I am not suggesting that your Lordships should buy it—I found the rooms truly splendid but quite unsuitable for any museum, and there was no accommodation for the proposed theatre museum or any other educational or academic development.
I therefore decided that, if I could do so and if the scheme was not too far advanced, I would prevent the use of Somerset House as a theatre museum. But, of course, I first had to find alternative accommodation for the theatre museum, because I was even more anxious that the theatre museum should be built. For that reason, I eventually discovered the possibility of Covent Garden, discussed that with the GLC, got an agreement on those lines and with tremendous co-operation from Tony Crosland, who was Secretary of State for the Environment at that time, and who was himself opposed to the idea of there being a theatre museum in Somerset House, the proposal was knocked on the head. The Covent Garden proposal, which, even when I wrote this book several years ago, I said was taking an unconscionable time in bringing forward a development, is still taking an unconscionable time. But the proposal for using Somerset House for the quite unsuitable purpose of a theatre museum was avoided.
The full story is rather like "Yes, Minister", because my own civil servants were passionately wanting to use it for a theatre museum, whereas the civil servants in the Department of the Environment were passionately against it. On that occasion, the comedy of the situation was in the fact that two groups of civil servants warred against one another. The only quarrel I have with "Yes, Minister" is that the differences of opinion are usually said to arise from personal advantage—the personal advantage of the Minister or the personal advantage of the civil servants. In fact, they usually arise from passionately held differences of opinion on how the public interest is best served. Those are the differences which arise and they are the result of quarrels between civil servants or quarrels between Ministers. This is the real nub and a series along those lines might be equally interesting, more accurate and possibly quite as funny. However, I must not allow myself to stray too far along that path in moving this amendment.
I have tried to make it clear to the noble Lord that, as I think he is already fully aware, there was at one time a proposal to use Somerset House as a theatre museum—a purpose for which the Fine Rooms are totally unsuited. The Fine Rooms are a work of art in
668
themselves, and the purpose for which they would be best used is to display fine furniture appropriate to the rooms, and they should not be converted for a purpose for which they are entirely unsuited. Neither do I think, as was also proposed at one time, that it would be a good idea for these rooms to be used as a permanent exhibition of the works of any single artist, even if it be one as splendid as Turner. To my mind, this would again be an unsuitable use for the Fine Rooms.
For these resons, I seek in this amendment to prevent either of these two uses coming about. I am quite sure that there is no such immediate intention, and it may be that the noble Lord in replying will be able to give me such a firm assurance that it will not be necessary for me to press the matter further. Nevertheless, I think it is desirable that the subject should be aired, because there have been proposals at various times to use these great rooms for purposes which, as I have said, would not be suitable for them and it is my hope that the lease which is now currently proposed will have the effect of making sure that the rooms are used for a purpose which matches their own splendour. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: May I say—?
Lord Mancroft: Will the noble Baroness allow someone on this side to get in a word for a brief moment? When I first saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was getting dangerously near to a good point when he referred to an exhibition of the works of a single artist. I happen to share his point of view, though for a different reason. If you look at the Piper exhibition today, you find that after a while you become glutted, you become sated, with the works of one artist. So it was with the Constable exhibition and so it was with the Crome exhibition at the Tate a few years ago. I say that against my own interests, because three of my own pictures were on exhibition there.
When I saw those words on the Marshalled List, I thought that that was what the noble Lord was getting at, but now I do not think he is. What he is getting at is the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was getting at earlier. They are trying to put into this Bill minor details of administrative restriction on the Minister, which I believe are quite unsuitable for this Bill. The noble Lord may well be right; I am not arguing with him. All I am saying is that this Bill is not the right place to impose tiny administrative restrictions on the Minister, which would be quite unsuitable. I am not arguing about the merits of his points, only with what he is trying to do. I hope that the Minister will see fit to agree with me.
Baroness Birk:Again I imagine that the Minister will tell us that this amendment is unnecessary: that there is no question of the Fine Rooms being used as a theatre museum at any time in the foreseeable or even the unforeseeable future. That point was settled many years ago. To go down the road of nostalgia, perhaps I could remind my noble friend that in October 1974 I was the Minister at the Department of the Environment who was responsible for Somerset House. When it was suggested that Somerset House

669
should house the Theatre Museum, it became clear immediately that it was totally unsuitable for such a project. All the Minister needs to do is to say that Somerset House could not be used for this purpose. In any case, we have found another site for the Theatre Museum.
Turning to the use of the Fine Rooms for the permanent exhibition of works by a single artist, that is a matter of subjective judgment. I did everything I could to get the Turner Bequest housed there. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, (although this is water under the bridge now) that the range of Turner's paintings is so wide that I do not believe he would have the same objection to the Turner Bequest being housed in Somerset House as he would to Piper's paintings.
Lord Mancroft: I agree with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk:I was deeply disappointed that the Turner Bequest did not go to Somerset House but, as I say, that is water under the bridge. There is now no possibility of either of those two things happening.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to apologise to the noble Baroness for the fact that in the interests of brevity I failed to pay tribute to the notable part she played in these proceedings a few years ago.
Lord Skelmersdale: For once, I am well briefed on this amendment. I am very well aware of the roles which both Members of the Committee played in this very lengthy but absorbing subject over a considerable period of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and other Members of the Committee spoke about the satiation of the viewing public. I agree. But is that the only purpose for which people will go in the future, if the Bill becomes an Act, to Somerset House? I would suggest that people go many times to all kinds of important buildings in this country. For example, noble Lords may be members of the National Trust. They may have been to Chatsworthon many occasions. I can assure noble Lords that, although no great changes take place in most country houses, people visit them more than once.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked for two assurances, which I am delighted to give. The future location of the Theatre Museum, at present housed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, has until recently been subject to uncertainty. It is now to be housed in the Old Flower Market beneath the London Transport Museum at Covent Garden. This area has been leased by the department from the Greater London Council for 42 years, with an agreed use as a theatre museum for the first 20 years and, during the remainder of the term, as a theatre museum or any other museum or art gallery. Before I am interrupted and asked what will be the effect if Parliament, in its wisdom, decides to pass the Bill on the restructuring of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties, let me say that that will make absolutely no difference to what I have just stated.
The Fine Rooms were, as we have heard, once suggested as a possible home for the Turner Collection. This is now to be housed in an additional
670
wing of the Tate Gallery which is already under construction.
While I applaud the wish of noble Lords to ensure that the number of people who see Somerset House does not decline, I am not convinced that their fears are well founded. I do not believe that there is any firm evidence to show that a permanent exhibition causes the number of visitors to dwindle. If the noble Lord has any firm, scientific evidence, I should be delighted to look at it and probably to revise my opinion. But surely those whose prime interest is in the building rather than in the exhibition would come anyway.
The Government are not convinced that there are reasonable grounds for concern on either of these counts. Furthermore, any steps which would, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft suggested, restrict the options open to the Government at the end of a lease elsewhere could well have adverse consequential effects financially.
For these reasons, again I regret that I do not believe that these amendments are appropriate to this Bill.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord the Minister is not saying that he does not like the amendment because it seeks to prevent something happening which is going to happen. He does not like the amendment because it seeks to prevent something happening which is not going to happen anyway. Would I be correct in reading the Minister's view along those lines? If I am—and the Minister has nodded vigorously—I can take it as sufficient assurance to enable me to withdraw the amendment, which, without further ado, I now seek the leave of your Lordships to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that the lease for that part of Somerset House known as the North Block shall not be less than 125 years.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that the lease for that part of Somerset House known as the North Block shall not be less than 99 years.").
During the Second Reading of the Bill we had a quite lengthy discussion about the terms of the lease. At that time we understood that the lease was going to be for a maximum of 50 or 60 years. The lease is being negotiated by the University of London and the Department of the Environment. I emphasised very strongly during Second Reading that it would be extremely difficult for the Courtauld Institute to raise the funds for which it is appealing if it had to go to potential benefactors, most of whom would be asked to give very large sums of money, if there could be no certainty about the future. Noble Lords will remember that about £1 million are needed for the Fine Rooms in order to make them viable and safe. An additional sum of £4 million is needed to deal with the rest of the North Block, if the institute is to use it as its school and for office and other purposes. At Second Reading the Minister acknowledged that to go with a prospectus

671
like this to potential benefactors in order to raise this sum of money would be extremely difficult.
I am aware that this is an enabling Bill and that therefore the way in which the amendments are drafted would not fit very happily into it. However, I should like the Minister to confirm that a very much longer lease will receive the approval of the department. I put down the two amendments as alternatives—a lease of 125 years or a lease of 99 years. The 125 years lease is taken from the National Gallery's Hampton's site. A lease of 99 years is usually given. I wanted the lease to be for about that period. However, I have received a letter from the Minister, for which I am very grateful, which resolves that point. The suggestion is that there could be a lease of 100 years, with a mutual break point at mid-term. It would mean that either side could break the lease at mid term. This may be in the interests at that time of the Courtauld Institute, or in the interests of the department. It is essential that we should at this stage have confirmation well spelt out by the noble Lord, so that it is on record that there will be a lease given to the University of London, which will then go to the Courtauld Institute, for that length of time.
We have to remember that we are dealing with something that is not a commercial proposition. Somerset House really belongs to the state and it is within the guardianship of the Department of the Environment. When negotiating the lease and the rent for the lease—which I understand is being done at this time—that is a point which should be carefully remembered. Somerset House is part of our national heritage. It is an outrage that it has remained unused for so long. Not only is it visually and artistically an outrage, but there is the matter of expense: when places are left in that way, so the cost of repairs, alterations and decoration increases all the time. It will be very expensive for the Courtauld Institute to carry out the work that is needed, first in the Fine Rooms and then in the North Block.
There are two points I should like to make here. First, on the question of rent, I understand that only a peppercorn rent is to be charged for the first 20 years, with a reduced rent thereafter up to 50 years. We do not know what the market rent is meant to be and we do not know what the reduced rent is likely to be. If the noble Lord can help us with that aspect tonight, it will be extremely useful. I certainly hope that it will be a nominal rent, because the place will be used as a gallery. Like any of the museums, the Courtauld Institute will be putting in costly work and therefore the value of the property will be increased. There is no point in fixing a rent which makes it impossible for the institute to operate there or to carry out the work it has to do.
If all this falls through, we shall be back to the awful stage about which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and myself feel so strongly; that Somerset House—a beautiful place in a prime position—will not be used for the purposes for which it could so happily be used, as a gallery for furniture and pictures. If the institute was not able to put the Seilern Collection in there, as well as its own impressionists and post impressionists, it would be a terrible waste for everyone.
Secondly, I believe that the institute will find it very hard in these times to raise even the first £ I million for the Fine Rooms. That will require help from the Government. We are all aware of the problems in public expenditure and of the squeeze that is going on with the economic situation, but I would press the noble Lord to take up with his honourable and right honourable friends the suggestion that the Government should help on a £1 for £1 basis.
When, some years ago, the British Museum wanted to open the Egyptian sculpture gallery, it was at the time when I was the Minister responsible at the Department of the Environment. I was able to arrange a £1 for £1 scheme, which worked extremely well. For every £1 that was put in by private donors or public benefactors, the Government put in £1. So for many years we have had a beautiful gallery which either would not be there or which could have taken so much longer to build and refurbish that the cost would have increased enormously. I do not see how this project can come to fruition unless there is some input of Government money. It seems to me that the fairest, best and most productive way is through a £1 for £1 scheme.
I hope that when the noble Lord replies, he will confirm that which I have quoted him as saying about the lease, and that he will also undertake to put forward the views I have expressed about the rent for parts of the building. I hope he will undertake also to press very hard indeed for a Government contribution; either in the form of a straight contribution or what I think is a better arrangement—something on the lines of £1 for £1 basis. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness spoke eloquently at Second Reading about the need for a longer lease to the University of London of the North Block of Somerset House for use by the Courtauld Institute. The answer I gave at the time—and I do not want to repeat it now—bore almost immediate fruit. A letter came whistling into the department from the University of London taking up my suggestion that if they wanted it we could, of course, have discussions about the matter. I confirm that readily this evening. But it should be remembered, when considering leases for parts of Somerset House, that we are dealing with a building that is already old. It cannot be considered in the same light as, say, the Hampton's site to which the noble Baroness referred, where a lease of 125 years has been agreed—but for the erection of a new building. That is quite a different kettle of fish from Somerset House which, as we all know, is a building that is already venerable.
In the case of such a building, many factors have to be weighed in the balance, based on the professional advice that is available to both sides. It would be wrong, therefore, to transfer those negotiations to the Chamber or to prejudice them in any way. Further to the negotiations which have now started on the possibility of a longer lease, I have absolutely no doubt that agreement will be reached—but not, I regret, before the Bill leaves this House. If for no other reason, that is because until we have the Bill on the statute book, my right honourable friend will not be able to sign any lease at all for any part of the building—let alone the North Block.

673
As far as rents are concerned, I can confirm that the rent in the lease will reflect the original state of the building as it stands today before any money is spent upon it. As far as a £1 for £1 scheme goes—and, as the noble Baroness knows, life has moved on since the heady days when she was speaking from this Dispatch Box for the Department for which I now speak—I am afraid that such a scheme would not be possible in the current climate. However, I should be somewhat surprised if pump priming money was not readily forthcoming from the Government; although, as I expect I said on Second Reading—although I cannot recall it immediately—I do not see that as being an enormous sum of money.
As the Committee will acknowledge, I have taken note of the view so forcibly expressed by the noble Baroness, and of others to which I have just referred. Negotiations on this point will continue and I am quite confident that agreement not only can be reached but will be reached on a longer term which will satisfy the requirements of both parties and the potential donors with which I know the noble Baroness is concerned. I hope that in view of the assurances I have been able to give, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—who, so far, has been silent on this point—will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Birk: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his reply. I have just two points. The noble Lord kept repeating that it would all work out and that everybody will be happy all round. But he was very careful not to mention any figure at all. I wanted to hear him confirm—and I do not see why he should not, because it is written down—that a lease in the region of 100 years will be acceptable. I think that is what I needed and I wanted to have that on record because this is what the whole discussion was about on Second Reading and what the noble Lord took back; he has been extremely helpful about the whole matter and done a great deal of work behind the scenes since then. I think it is important for the institute, certainly so far as its appeal is concerned, because it feels very strongly that a lease of 100 years or over is going to be of great benefit. If that is what is in mind, as I understand it is, I cannot see any reason why the noble Lord should not say that.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Yes, 100 years is in mind, but I cannot say at this point in time what will be actually incorporated in the lease. One thing we cannot do across the Dispatch Box is to negotiate a lease which is still only at heads of agreement stage.
Baroness Birk: That is perfectly acceptable. I under stand, of course, that we cannot negotiate across Dispatch Boxes. The noble Lord has said, as I hoped he would, that in the region of 100 years would be acceptable.
On the point of £1 for £1, the noble Lord said it is not the heady days. Let me assure him, as he is younger and much newer to this, that he does not realise that the days are never heady when you are fighting for money for the arts; it does not matter which Government are in power, you are always
674
fighting very hard all the time. It was not an easy thing, as my noble friend and I both know from our different experiences, to get this through, and times were hard then. Times are always hard when you want money for the arts—always, always.
I hope the noble Lord is not going to give up as readily as he unfortunately appears to be doing. The £1 for £l is a very good incentive and a way of getting the sort of money the Government are always preaching about and proposing, getting private and business sponsorship. It is one of the best ways of doing it. I can recall The Times through Sir Denis Hamilton playing such a big part in helping to promote this on the British Museum side when I was doing it from the Government side. So I do not think it should be dismissed in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
8.33 p.m.
Lord Houghton Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(" ( ) Any lease granted under this section of any part of Somerset House shall be restricted to bodies or institutions not engaged in commercial enterprise for profit, and shall have regard to

(i) the architectural and historical importance of the building;

(ii) the need to preserve public access to its courtyard; and

(iii) the retention on its present site in the courtyard of the War Memorial to Officers and other ranks of the Civil Service Rifles (15 London Regiment). ").

The noble Lord said: I do not think that in a matter of this importance it is reasonable for the Minister to go from having his hands completely tied to a completely free hand. I think that some conditions should be laid down so that he can be guided in what he does by the wish of Parliament. The Bill itself stipulates that the Minister must have regard to the architectural importance of the building and the desirability of preserving public access to its courtyard. Amendment No. 6 proposes to tighten those conditions up a little.
The first thing I propose to do is to exclude the possibility of leasing any part of Somerset House on a commercial lease, or (shall I say?) a lease to commercial enterprises run for profit. On the Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister and I had a few exchanges about the possible partnerships which might find their way into Somerset House if the Minister had a free hand to let all comers seek accommodation there, at no doubt a suitable rent.
As a matter of fact, the Inland Revenue itself has had some curious partnerships in its time without going outside for them. We had for example, the Canny and Spry partnership, the chairman of the board, Sir Gerald Canny, and the deputy, Mr. Gordon Spry. That was a constant source of amusement in Punch for a very long time. Then we had Gregg and Grigg, Sir James Grigg and Sir Cornelius Gregg, another partnership which excited considerable amusement. I do not want to see commercial or professional partnerships in Somerset House.
In paragraph (i) we still have to have regard to the architectural importance of the building but I suggest the Minister should have regard to the historical importance too. It may be somewhat redundant to talk about the historical importance when you have to have regard to the architectural importance, but there is a history to Somerset House quite apart from its architecture.
The second thing is the need to preserve—not the desirability: the need to preserve—public access to its courtyard. Thirdly, I come to the war memorial. The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, as honorary colonel of the Royal Greenjackets took over responsibility for the Civil Service Rifles, and he has expressed agreement with what I was proposing and sadness that he was not here to support me. If there is to he freedom to move the war memorial, that means that something very drastic and dramatic is to be done with the courtyard; and that. I think, would raise considerations of considerable public interest.
As a member of the Civil Service Rifles myself in the First World War and a colleague of many young men of my generation who died and whose names are there, I feel deeply that nobody within the period of future memory and recollection should move that war memorial from its present site. It is an annual pilgrimage for those who remember and those who share the sorrow of those who cannot forget. So I hope that this condition will be agreed to.
If the Minister feels unable to do it. then I shall beg leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, and reintroduce it and test the feeling of the whole House on another occasion, when I hope we shall not be inhibited by the conditions under which we are discussing this Bill in Committee at this moment. I am quite adamant about this, and I propose, if need be, on a more suitable occasion to make an issue of it. I think I am being reasonable about this. I think also that I am right in saying that Somerset House is not just another Government office; it never has been. It has produced in its time a special and exceptional breed of civil servants known as "the Revenue men", and many of our notable figures in politics and in public life served there.
It may be thought that this is sentiment in modern times where one can bulldoze buildings and put up an iron framework building that is filled with glass in its place, or anything that you like. But I think there is still room in the rat race for some regard to the history and the sentiment in our lives and experience. What else is there to live for, unless some respect can be paid to those who have come through life and endured much for the nation, not only in war but in peace?
Therefore, I feel that it is not tying the hands of the Minister unnecessarily. He is not being tied down to detail by what I propose. He is asked to "have regard to". If he is answerable at any time to Parliament on what he does he must satisfy Parliament that he has had "regard to". If he is emphatic about that, it is very difficult for Parliament to say that he has not had "regard to". It is difficult for Parliament to call a Minister liar and one must accept it in good faith if he says so. But at least he must "have regard" to certain considerations. If any Minister is to tell me that these
676
considerations are unreasonable. I must strongly deny it. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept these additions to the conditions already in the Bill and leave the Secretary of State, in exercising his discretion, to have due regard to the items included in my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mancroft: I am a little worried about the noble Lord's strictures against commercial enterprise. Of course we do not want Somerset House used for any length of time for unsuitable commercial enterprises. I mentioned the three-ring circus a few moments ago. Obviously, that would be totally obnoxious to all of us. However, the Venetian exhibition at Burlington House which we are all now admiring so much is commercially sponsored. The Banqueting Hall is one of the finest and the first Palladian buildings built in this country. It is used for social and, occasionally, for commercial purposes. So are the City Halls, and I believe, the Guildhall and even the Mansion House. With proper control and for proper commercial purposes, and very well looked after, I do not see any harm in this at all. I am not certain whether the noble Lord is restricting the use of Somerset House to exclude long leases or whether he is objecting to Somerset House being used from time to time for commercial purposes. In the case of the latter, I should be unhappy.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I was dealing with long leases, not the use of the building on occasions, of the kind the noble Lord just mentioned with other buildings. I am concerned with long leases and, as I said earlier, a lease that would run for a generation.
Lord Mancroft: I am glad to have the noble Lord's reassurance. That was my point.
Lord Skelmersdale: I believe there is a Noel Coward song in which there is the line:
"He opened up the caviar and said, 'Good God, Alice is at it again.' "
The speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby reminded me of that.
He seeks to limit prospective lessees to non commercial bodies. However, the line between non commercial and commercial is very fine. As drafted. his amendment would prohibit a lease to a body or institution that engaged in any kind of commercial activity for profit, regardless of whether that body or institution is, as a whole, commercial in character and conducted with a view to profit. This restriction could therefore, exclude leasing the North Wing to the Courtauld Institute if it sells, for example, guidebooks at a price which ensures a profit on the cost of the books, I am sure that is not the noble Lord's intention.
Only last month, your Lordships debated the subject of the arts. That debate illustrated the many and various ways in which our major artistic institutions are funded. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft just said, there is an increasing rôle in which commercial activity is involved in the search for funds for our various artistic organisations.
The noble Lord also wants the Secretary of State to have regard to the historical importance of the building. While the building clearly is historic, and no

677
one doubts that, many of the connections which he mentioned on Second Reading—for example, Cromwell's lying in state—relate to the site and the previous building on it rather than to the present building. In my view, the historic interest of the present building is identical to its architectural interest: it is an example of a late 18th century public building, and more especially of the work of Sir William Chambers, its architect. It follows that the insertion of the word "historical" is unnecessary.
Moreover, this word could cause trouble in the future. Indeed, had it been there in the past it would also have caused trouble. Would the noble Lord have us do nothing to the building because of its historical importance? I am sure that in his capacity of representative of the staff who worked there in days past he was active in seeking improvements to the physical conditions in which they worked. Would he stop the clock now, leaving many of the staff in the old-fashioned quarters that I have recently seen for myself? Surely not.
Finally, the noble Lord seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State should pay specific regard to the war memorial to the Civil Service Rifles. This regiment had a distinguished record of service in the Great War and it is entirely fitting that the memorial should be situated in the courtyard of the first purpose-built Government office building. I can assure the House that there has been no thought of moving it, nor will there be. It is now a well-established feature of the courtyard. Since the Government are committed to the preservation of Somerset House, including its courtyards, in its entirety, it seems unnecessary to single out this or any other feature for special mention in the Bill. In my view, and in the view of the department, the war memorial is as much a part of Somerset House as are the Fine Rooms.
The noble Lord started his speech with the most amazing suggestion that 1, as a part of the usual channels and as a representative from time to time of my noble friend the Leader of the House, was treating the House discourteously in the way that I have been conducting the Bill and the way that the usual channels have arranged for its insertion in the Parliamentary timetable. I can assure the noble Lord that if he is unhappy with the remarks I have just made on his amendment he is at perfect liberty to divide the Committee, if that is his intention.
Baroness Birk:May I say a word before we come to dividing the Committee and other drastic steps? It seems to me that my noble friend has some points in his amendment. He has made it quite clear in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that he is referring to long leases for commercial purpose. I feel that he is right about that, unless it got to the point where it was impossible to find another lessee. For example, the Government Bill does protect the Fine Rooms and requires their use for artistic or cultural purposes. But when it goes on:
"In determining whether, and on what terms, to lease any part of Somerset House",
that seems much more open and I should not like to feel that the Courtauld Institute, which is itself far from being a commercial organisation and is trying its hardest to raise money to move into the place, even
678
when it has the lease, was in competition with commercial bodies which would find it much easier to pay a higher rent. That is a worry.
Moreover, I like the addition of the words "and historical importance". I can see no reason why those words should not go in if we all feel happier. I prefer the word "need" to the "desirability" of preserving public access. The word "need" is much more positive and leaves the Bill less open to query than the word "desirability".
The Minister said that it was quite clear that there will be a further stage on this Bill. He has already said that he will take back the words "he thinks fit" to see whether he can deal with those. If he can take back these other points to see what can be done, probably my noble friend and the rest of us will be satisfied for the moment.
Lord Skelmersdale: There was a sting in the tail of that remark. The noble Baroness refers to desirability. What is desirable at the present time—in other words, concerning the lease that we are discussing; or, rather, that we are trying hard not to discuss but have ended up discussing—may very well not be desirable in 50 or 100 years' time. As the noble Baroness knows full well, this is an enabling Bill. I remind her that on another Bill we discussed recently she became fairly irate, practically thumped the Dispatch Box—it was certainly in her mind, even if the action did not flow from her hand—and said, "My Lords, we are discussing the Bill that is before us tonight". Noble Lords will remember that that was the Bill of my noble friend Lord Vaizey.
Even the Courtauld Institute has commercial aspects. For example, very naturally it would want to sell catalogues of a particular exhibition that it was putting on, or perhaps a coffee-table book on one of the artists in the collection that it was exhibiting. In that case it would automatically be competing with a neighbouring bookshop which may be selling the same thing. The argument seems to run that we cannot have a commercial organisation obtaining a long lease. If an organisation, however desirable and worthy, has commercial adjuncts, whether currently or possibly in the future, I do not see that that is any good reason to restrict the lease in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Baroness Birk: It is not a question of a commercial adjunct. I think we cleared that point. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, raised it, and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby answered the point. We are concerned about the whole thing being handed over as a commercial enterprise. That was the point. My noble friend never suggested for one moment that the organisation should not be able to sell catalogues or anything else. That goes without saying for any type of museum or gallery. The proposal is really a safeguard.
There was no sting in my tail. I was trying to save the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, from himself. I thought that he was pressing my noble friend into calling a Division. I was merely trying to save him from that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:I apologise for being in such ill temper. I had better draw my contributions to

679
the discussion to a close. I think that it would be better to postpone consideration of this amendment until a later stage of the Bill. We can then probably consider some of the semantics of the situation a little more pleasantly than at present. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.54 p.m.
Committee stage resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("prepared by the local roads authority")
The noble Lord said: I am sure that this amendment will commend itself to the Government and that they will be prepared to accept it without any further explanation from me. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the words which this amendment seeks to remove distinguish between one local roads authority's list and another's as well as between the list prepared by a local roads authority and that prepared, under Clause 2, by the Secretary of State. In my view—and I commend this view to the Committee—the words are necessary to the interpretation of the clause and should remain. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept that point of view.
Lord Ross of Marnock:No, I am afraid that I cannot accept that point of view. When we dealt with other amendments to Clause 1 we were told that if the list of public roads was mentioned there would be no need to keep mentioning it again. It is being mentioned here for the first time; "the list of public roads". It could be prepared only by the local roads authority; it could not be prepared by anybody else. The words that I wish to leave out are unnecessary. I do not think that the confusion which the Lord Advocate says would arise if they were left out does arise, so I stick to my point. The words are unnecessary.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment no. 8:
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("control") to end of sub section (2).
The noble Lord said: I am really asking for information. The amendment is to,
"leave out from ('control') to end of subsection (2)".
The subsection reads:
"in a list of the roads, highways and bridges under their management and control under section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878".
Do we really need the latter words? After all, we are to repeal that Act. It is interesting that an Act is referred to in Clause 1 when, as far as I can understand from
680
the following clauses, that Act is to be repealed. It is not to be reprinted. It will become a matter of history, and not a matter for reference. What is the point of those words? It is not my idea of modernising and codifying the law, to refer in a Bill to an Act when that Act is to be wiped out by the very same Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:When this Bill comes into effect the provisions of Clause 1(1) will come into effect, and there is a provision there for a list to be prepared. Clause 1(2) is stating what is to be in the first list, and what is to be in the first list is what is in the existing lists. The existing lists are prepared under the statutes which are to be repealed on this statute coming into operation. There are more of them than just the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act. Your Lordships will see that the register of streets under Section 5 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act is also taken in.
Basically, this part of the clause is joining the new administration to the old. One has to say what is to be in the first list under the new system. One takes the existing lists, which are prepared of necessity under statutes which no longer will apply but which exist at the present moment and are the authority for the lists which the local roads authority will have at the beginning. Of course, it is the local highway authority at the time of the changeover.
Lord Ross of Marnock:The local roads authority will still be there. It will still have its lists, and the lists will be legal. Clause 1(1) states:
"all such roads in their area as are for the time being entered in a list".
We admit the other list is there. It is not mentioned there as to how that list is to be drawn up. Frankly, I do not think that references to,
"under section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act",
which is to be repealed, or,
"section 5 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act … or any corresponding local enactment",
which will probably also be wiped out, are relevant. We are starting afresh. We start with lists that are there. Local authorities have them—highway authorities, as we may no longer be allowed to call them. We say so in subsection (1). It is a pointless exercise referring to Section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 when, later in the same Bill, we repeal what is left of it. Frankly, I do not agree with the reasoning of the Lord Advocate.
Lord Hughes:I wonder how many of the officials responsible in regional authorities for the maintenance of this list realise that it has been kept in conformity with the conditions of an Act of 1878, or how many of them, none of whom could have been born at the time, even know that there was such an Act of Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is, with respect, doing something of an injustice to those officials, because the statutory authority under which they keep the list is the Act of 1878 so far as roads and bridges are concerned and the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act so far as streets are concerned. That is the authority under which they

681
keep the list. I should expect that the officials, who are familiar with the work, would know exactly what the statutory authority was for that particular function.
Lord Hughes: I am afraid that my experience of local authority officials over the years is closer than that of the noble and learned Lord. I am certain that they know what their duty is. However, I doubt whether they know the Act of Parliament that requires them to do it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Not only that, but may I say to my noble friend Lord Hughes that many roads are kept under the authority, not of Section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878, but other Acts of Parliament. They may have been added to it over quite a long time. I can remember one or two myself when I served on distinguished committees relating to Scottish legislation. I can remember the committee on private roads that enabled private roads to become public roads and thereafter to be entered on the list as public roads. This is not comprehensive. I say again that it has no real value when we accept them under the first part of Clause 1, saying that these lists of public roads are there, and we give them a new authority under Clause 1(1). We do not require this ancient authority of 1878, imperfect as it is, to give it further authority. The Lord Advocate should make up his mind whether the Government are going to modernise the law or not. One does not modernise the law by cluttering it with statutes that will not be printed or available to anyone.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("free of charge").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment to leave out the words "free of charge". If we do not put in a charge there is no authority to charge, so the lists are free of charge. If, however, you put in "free of charge", one day, no doubt, the Prime Minister will see it and say that this must come out and that you must charge for all these things or at least pay a nominal fee to examine and inspect the list. I ask the Lord Advocate what would be the effect of leaving out "free of charge". An inspection would still be free of charge because there is no authority here for a charge to be made. Indeed, if a charge was to be made it would require legislation to give effect to it, as is done in many other Acts, including the Civic Government (Scotland) Act under which we allow people to inspect certain things and put in a charge for it. If we do not put in a charge, inspection is free of charge. Let us therefore leave out the unnecessary words "free of charge". I hope that my reasoning for the amendment will be accepted by the Lord Advocate.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The reason for putting in the words "free of charge" is to make it absolutely plain on the face of the Act that this is the position. If the words were left out, the result might well be that there would be no authority to charge, but one would have to reach that conclusion by that reasoning, whereas when the face of the Bill says "free of charge" the ordinary person, not familiar with all the principles of statutory construction, will see plainly that this is the position. That is why the words are there.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I suggest that the Lord Advocate looks up other Scottish statutes—those, for instance, in relation to voters' rolls being made available for inspection. They do not say "free of charge". Yet inspection is free of charge. Unless a charge is there, it is free of charge. There is no point in putting in the words "free of charge". And it may alert someone to suggest that we are going to draw up this list and have it made available and if someone is getting them for the person who is inquiring we are entitled to make a charge. It would be far better to leave the words out. They are not necessary and they put ideas into people's minds.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport):The Question is that Amendment No. 9 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?… To the contrary, Not-Content?… The Contents have it.
Amendment No. 10—Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Lord Drumalbyn: May we go back to the Question again? I think I heard the Lord Chairman determine that the Contents had it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If I did so, it was an error of judgment on my part. The Not-Contents have it. Thank you very much.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 6, after ("may") insert (", subject to the provisions of this Act,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that a local roads authority could only enter in its list of public roads a road for which it would be rightly responsible. It would be inconsistent with the rest of the Bill if a local roads authority were even by accident to assume management of, say, a trunk road merely by entering it in their lists of public roads. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that the words are unnecessary. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is falling into the trap of accepting everything that the draftsmen say. There was never any difficulty about this. The list of public roads are those for which the local authority have responsibility—it goes without saying. Therefore, we do not need to reinsert it. This is the type of thing that we have all through the Bill, which to my mind is an absolute nonsense.
I am surprised that a man—I am not going to call him reasonable because we have had too much reasonability about somebody else tonight, and it was unjustified because he proved to be very unreasonable indeed—a sensible man, and a man who prides himself on his knowledge of the law, has accepted this. If we start with the words, "The list of public roads" they in themselves, by the definition we already have, are the roads for which the local authority are responsible. We do not need those words again.
Who talked the Lord Advocate into this one? He is slipping in my estimation. I used to have a very, very high regard for the noble and learned Lord, Lord

683
Mackay of Clashfern. He is not as good as he was. He has been far too long away from Scottish legislation. He is not as sharp as he was. He is swallowing all the bait that is handed out by these draftsmen who want to be so sure of everything that they make the legislation almost unintelligible. I hope that he will think about this again. He has plenty of time now. We are not going to take the Report stage on the day after we come back from the recess. He has time to think about it long before we get to the Report stage. I am perfectly sure that he will come hack and say that on second thoughts or even third thoughts, "You are quite right about this. It is quite unnecessary". Why clutter up the Scottish statute book when we are seeking to modernise it?
Viscount Hanworth:I am really rather surprised. Normally in this House we say that Acts are not clear because they do not say precisely what they mean in terms which are intelligible to the layman. We are always told that to do so means redundancy. Having listened to the arguments, at last it seems to me that here we have a Bill that does say what it means. It may be redundant, but should we not applaud this just for once instead of carping from the Opposition Benches on this particular point?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I renew my Motion that this amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("or abutting")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11 and I would also like to direct your Lordships' attention to Amendments Nos. 53 and 134:
Amendment No. 53: Page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (8).
Amendment No. 134: Page 90, line 7, at end insert—
(" " frontager" in relation to a road means the owner of any lands and heritages fronting or abutting or comprehended in that road;").
All of these amendments bear broadly on the same aspect. The words that I propose to delete in Amendment No. 11 appear on page 2, line 11. I shall read the beginning of the paragraph which says:
"give notice thereof to the owners of all lands and heritages fronting or abutting the road".
Anyone in the building profession or anybody who has bought or sold a house, or indeed any lawyer who has acted for them, will be familiar with the term "frontager". That is a term which appears later in the Bill. In fact, Amendment No. 53 is to leave out a subsection in Clause 13 which defines "frontager". The interesting point is that the definition of "frontager" is somebody who owns:
"any lands and heritages fronting or abutting that road".
As I have said, the term "frontager" is well known to people in Scotland and therefore "fronting" is quite natural. But one has certainly never heard of an "abuttager" because when we are dealing with property which abuts it is covered by the term "frontager".
So it seems to me that, in this first reference, it would be perfectly satisfactory just to talk about "fronting". As "fronting" is at present not defined anywhere in the Bill whereas "frontager" is defined but just says that it is one whose lands and heritages front or abut the property, it really does not take us very much further. Later in the Bill there is reference to "fronting" or "abutting" or "being comprehended in". I had the advantage of an informal discussion with the Lord Advocate before we went to dinner, and he said that "being comprehended in" covered a different subject—it was dealing not with an exisitng road but with a road which was yet to be built or constructed and. therefore, one does not know just exactly what is going to be covered by it. So this wider term was used there.
In the village in which I live there are quite a number of houses which neither front nor abut a road but which have entry to a property behind, perhaps from a narrow close or from a wider pend, so that their only contact with the road is this small entry. They neither front not abut. I am quite certain that in this village the roads have been taken over; and it happens that the pavements are also made, so no liability is likely to fall on any of these people because it is now the local authority's responsibility.
However, there are many cases where a road has been made and taken over by the authority but where the pavement (or, as we now have to call it, the footway) has not been constructed, and at some time the local authority can call on the frontagers to make it good. Generally what happens is that the local authority does the work itself and then levies the charge on the frontagers, but it can only levy on those who actually front the road. In these circumstances I think it is quite wrong that the people behind, who have the use of the road and who have the use of the pavement in the same way as those who actually front it, should not have any liability.
In a more modern context, we all know in how many of our communities houses with very large gardens have disposed of part of their garden on which another house has been built. In one case I can think of in Broughty Ferry, a family sold the large mansion in which they had lived for many years and built a smaller house at the end of the garden for their occupation. The access to that is only by right of way through the grounds of the original house. Although I admit that almost certainly the disposition of the land will include an obligation to pay a share of any charges which might fall on the frontager, that suffers from the drawback that if the second party declines to pay the frontager can only get his money back by going to court.
It seems to me that if, in fact we are seeking to modernise the legislation in relation to roads, we ought to take account of the fact that there will be much more of this, that there will be many people who realise that, because of the increased values of land, half of their garden is probably worth more than the whole house and garden was ever contemplated to be worth. So we shall have more of it. I do not think it is right that, when we have the opportunity to legislate to take care of a situation like this, we should neglect it on the basis that people have a remedy by litigating, if that should prove to be necessary.
The three amendments to which I speak have the effect of referring to "frontaging" and "frontagers", and they seek to define what "fronting" and "frontager" mean. I mentioned earlier that "frontager" is defined in the Bill in Clause 13. At the botton of page 14 of the Bill, in Clause 13, it says:
"(8) In this section 'frontager', in relation to a road, means the owner of any lands and heritages fronting or abutting that road."
Then we go on to Clause 15. These are the only references that I have found in the time, but there may be others. Clause 15(2) says:
"In subsection (1) 'above—frontager'was the same meaning as in section 13 of this Act".
My amendments take out these two definitions of "frontager" in Clauses 13 and 15 and, instead, substitute the most wide-ranging definition of "frontager" in the interpretation clause, which seems to me to be the right place to have it and the easiest place to look for it if you want a definition of "frontager". In the time available I have not been able to come up with what would be a reasonable definition of "fronting". However, I think it would also be reasonable to define that to make certain that it took care of abutting or any other way in which there could be a possible liability for any part of road charges.
When we were discussing in the corridor—and I am not quite certain how legitimate it is to mention this here—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said something to me which I thought was very reasonable. He said that in a Bill of this kind it is very difficult to draft across the Floor in Committee. I have made a number of suggestions here which I put forward as no more than a basis for consideration. I do not ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to agree to these amendments tonight, but in better time than perhaps has been available since I tabled these amendments, because it was only a few days ago—and I accept the difficulty of doing this in Committee—I ask him to undertake to have a look at them and perhaps contact me before the next stage of the Bill so that he can let me know whether he proposes to take any further action on the Bill, or whether it is necessary for me to put down amendments again at Report stage. I hope that in this at least conciliatory way of approaching the matter at this hour that my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael will go with me in practically withdrawing the amendments before I have finished moving them. I beg to move.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the way in which he has approached this matter. I certainly accept that the problems of drafting and how best to express matters as complicated as the fundamental concepts we are dealing with here are matters that require time, and it is useful to have the kind of exchange that we have just had. So far as the Amendment No. 11 is concerned the reason for having the word "abutting" in is that it takes account of situations in which a property could not be said to have its front on a street because it is a much shorter boundary that is to the street than perhaps the other boundaries of the property. You might say that it is end on to the road or street. That is the reason for abutting, and fronting
686
or abutting in that form has been in our legislation for quite a long time. The frontagers are those whose property fronts or abuts in this sense. That is all I have to say about Amendment No. 11.
In view of the fact that the noble Lord mentioned the other problems may I say a word about them. The existence of the word "abut" in this kind of clause takes account of a good number of the problems that the noble Lord raised where somebody has the ownership of a lane, say, that goes down to the street or road, because such a lane would cause his property, if he owns that lane, to abut on the road. Therefore, he would be caught.
The situation is perhaps a bit more difficult where someone is set far back from the road and all he has is a right of way to the road with no property fronting, or abutting, on the road at all. That is the problem that the noble Lord mentioned to me earlier, and it is difficult to see where you draw the line in that. Does a person who has only a right of way to a road have responsibility? So far the legislation, and this Bill also, draws the line at owning property to any extent with a common boundary with the road. However short the boundary is, so long as it is a boundary on the road that would be good enough. The noble Lord wishes to have me consider whether we could go further, and I am certainly content to do that. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock:There are many properties that both abut and front a road. If the road winds right around it both abuts and fronts. Of course, it is expensive if it happens to be a private road which is going to be made up. They have a double charge because they both abut and front a road. I am prepared to go along with my noble friend who has studied this deeply, and he has now got the Lord Advocate embroiled in a further study in depth of this important subject.
Lord Hughes: When I was seeking to take "abutting" out it was not because I did not realise that there were circumstances when you could not properly say that a property fronted. The place which immediately springs to mind from my local knowledge is Arbroath, where it is common for the gable end to be that which is on the street and the front of the house, sensibly, faces not a fairly uninteresting road but looks into the home garden. The way I looked at it was that if "frontager" could be defined as meaning one whose property either fronted or abutted, it seemed to me that it would be quite reasonable in the same sort of light to talk about fronting and then define it as including fronting, abutting, or, I would hope, the other. It has not been done in the past. But the dividing up of large gardens has become fairly common, and as land becomes more and more expensive, will almost certainly continue to be a feature for a number of years ahead. As we are seeking to modernise the circumstances, it would be better to have equity.
Later I have an amendment in connection with the apportionment of charges. In another part, the Bill contemplates different ways of apportioning by a local authority; perhaps by the length of frontage or by

687
reference to the rateable value. On that basis, if the others were brought in and there were no definition of "apportionment", somebody might find that his share was related to 35 feet of frontage, yet the man who had an equally good house behind him and had all the same benefits of the use of the road once it was constructed, had only 3 feet to pay for because that was the width of his entry. There is no equity in that.
When, as in this case, we are bringing the law up to date as well as consolidating it, we should try to take account of these circumstances, if it is possible. If at the end of the day the Lord Advocate says that, with the combined wit of himself and the draftsmen, they cannot find any way of putting it in to words, I should have to submit to that. But I should be very disappointed at such a confession of failure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("their") and insert ("the")
The noble Lord said: I hate to say it, but we might be on the verge of a momentous occasion where the Government have to accept an amendment. It is my purpose and my hope that I shall be able to present that to them.
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("their") and insert ("the")—t-h-e—let us not quarrel about spelling. I can always remember the Scotsman who came down to plead to a commission about a water scheme, and in Scotland they pronounce it "watter". The English man who was in charge said "How do you spell water?". He said, "With two t's and we spell 'mainners' with twa n's".
The fact is that if the local authority are to add a private road to a list of public roads or delete a public
688
road from the list, they have to do certain things. One is to advertise their intentions in at least one newspaper circulating in their area. I suggest that "their area" is far too wide. It should be "the area"; in other words, the area where the road is.
This takes us back to what the local road authority may be. There is one local road authority that stretches from Oban to Ballantrae and skirts round to Beattock. I will not mention all the other islands comprehended within Strathclyde. There are many newspapers in "their area", but if one wants to apprise the people of the district about what is happening to a public road which will be deleted from the list, or a private road that will be added, surely the people most concerned are the people in that area.
It is because the regions are the road authorities and they stretch so far that this obligation could be legally met without a single person in the area concerned knowing anything at all about it. One meets that point by scrubbing "t-h-e-i-r" and putting in "t-h-e—whether it is pronounced "ther" or "thee".
Lord Stodart of Leaston:I should like to support this in connection with an smaller area; namely, Lothian. Under this drafting, it would be perfectly proper for the road authority for the region to advertise in the Scotsman a road which is out in the Dunbar area of the East Lothian District. I am sure it would be right to see that it was advertised in the local paper, the East Lothian Courier, and, if it is so wished, in the Scotsman as well. I certainly see all the town and country planning matters that interest me in the local paper rather than in the Scotsman. I support the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am prepared to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 15, after ("which") insert ("is made").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I am giving the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, with Amendments Nos. 13 and 15, the opportunity of showing the same degree of magnanimity as he has just displayed. On page 2, lines 15, 16 and 17 read:
"and shall consider any representation which, within 28 days after the requirements of paragraphs (a) and(b) above have been fulfilled, is made".
If that is a translation from the German, it would be perfectly satisfactory to finish with the verb. But who, when either writing a letter or making conversation, would finish three such lines by putting the words "is made" at the end? The effect of my amendment is to make the lines read:
"and shall consider any representation which is made within 28 days after the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) above have been fulfilled".
It does not alter the decision in any way, but I think it puts it in, if not necessarily better English, more modern, everyday English. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I certainly accept that the words "is made" come in what might be regarded as an unusual place. But the problem is that if one puts them in the more usual place, which is the place the noble Lord suggests in his amendment, it is difficult to he certain that the "within 28 days" affects the "is made" rather than the consideration. As amended, it says that they
"shall consider any representation which is made within 28 days".
The way that the noble Lord has put the words "is made" in that position leaves it open to a good deal of doubt whether the "within 28 days" refers to the consideration or to the time within which representation has to be made. It is to make certain that the time, the 28 days, applies to the making of the representation rather than to the consideration of it that has led us to put it in this way.
I accept that the wording is a little unusual, but I have explained the purpose of it. I think that the amendment which the noble Lord has suggested does not quite deal with that point. I am happy to consider whether there is some better way of coping with the matter, but so far the amendment which has been proposed does not appear to me, with respect, to meet the point exactly.
Lord Hughes: I must say that my first reaction is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has accepted this stretching of "draftsmanese" to the very limit. Quite honestly, I do not see how anybody could possibly take the view that the "is made" in the position I have put it has any reference other than to the representation. However, the noble and learned Lord has said that he will consider it. I do not think that we should legislate in a type of English which nobody would dream of using in everyday life, if it is possible to do otherwise. I think that what the noble and learned Lord has said is very thin indeed, but, as he has said he is prepared to consider the matter further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 15, after ("28") insert ("full").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment: page 2, line 15, after ("28") insert ("full"). Why do I suggest that? Because we have an interpretation clause, and that defines "day", and a day is a clear day. I can appreciate many uses of the phrase "clear day", whether it he in a popular song or a rhyme that we used to learn to know how many days there are in the various months, for instance:
"…which has but 28 days clear and 29 in each Leap Year."
I think most people talk about a clear day as being a rather fine day in which you can see fairly well ahead.
If we leave this clause as it is, we have to take the definition of "day" as it is in Clause 143. By the way, I have an amendment down to wipe that whole thing out. What I am suggesting, however, is that it is really worrying the Lord Advocate; and if it is worrying him and also the whole legal fraternity in Scotland and if it is worrying the draftsmen, as it certainly seems to be, the one thing we do not want is to put in a word as vague as "clear". The provision does not apply if it is raining. I suppose, or if it is misty or snowing: it has to be a clear day. "A day clear" might have a different meaning, but that is not what the interpretation says. So I suggest that we have "a full day", and that would get the Scottish Office out of a difficulty that they have got themselves into by feeling that they had to define "day" and defining it as "a clear day". It is most unsatisfactory as it is, and once again I am helping out the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He accepted my reasoning the last time. He can now do the same thing: make it two in a row. I challenge him. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord quite so early hut there may be other times yet. The situation really, so far as I am concerned, is this. I should think it unlikely that anyone coming to this Bill would think that "clear", used in the interpretation clause, had the meaning which the noble Lord has assigned to it. I think such a person would understand it in some other way—as sunny, or not raining, or whatever. The phrase "clear days" has been used in statutory definitions to have the same sense as full days, whole days, for some considerable time: as long ago as 1809, to go back, and as modern as 1975, to come forward. So I think that the phrase "clear days" is one which has stood the test of time. The meaning, in my submission, is reasonably clear. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I will not carry the argument on, but the fact of the matter is that there is more than one meaning and it may be clear to some people but it is not clear to others. It was once again interesting to note that the Lord Advocate, in his explanation, said "complete day" or "whole day". If that is what it means, why not put it in? If that is the way you talk when you want to explain this as a "whole day", then put in in like that and do not put in "clear day", which for many people will have an entirely different

691
meaning. However, I will not continue the argument now because the noble and learned Lord has got plenty of nice clear days and maybe some thick nights coming along over the next day, or fortnight or so, and I know he will be contemplating nothing but the future of this Bill. Therefore I am prepared to withdraw the amendment for the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I must advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 16 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 17.
Lord Ross of Marnock moved Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, though there is not much danger of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accepting it. It is far too complicated for a simple Scottish lawyer. Subsection (5) begins with the words, "The requisite number of persons". It almost presupposes that we knew something about the number of persons before, but this is the first mention of it. Then we read on and discover that, eventually, we have to go to subsection (9) to find out what it is all about. With all due respect, if we are modernising and clarifying the statute, let us have something much more clear.
What the Government want to do is to give a right of appeal to certain people. This is something which is already in a celebrated Act which I have already mentioned. I was involved in the Committee stage, although I was not responsible for it. I am not sure whether it started life as a Private Member's Bill. It is the one on which Emrys Hughes spoke for at least two days, because he was slightly troubled about the Marquess of Bute getting some advantage from that Bill. But I had better not say any more, because the noble Marquess is a friend of mine and he is my chairman on the Scottish National Trust.
But the point is that the Government want to give a right of appeal to certain people when a road is to be taken over or deleted. They do not want to give it to any single person; they want to give it to a number of people. Would it not be better to state, first, the right and, then, what is the requisite number? Do not just mention the requisite number so that you are wondering what it is all about, and so that even when you have read the whole subsection you still do not know what the requisite number is. You must go to subsection (9), which defines the requisite number.
Whatever else is wrong with this Bill, subsections (5) and (9) should be together, and I do not think it is well drafted to begin with mention of a requisite number when it is a completely new subject which nobody knows anything about. It is simple English to say what is the requisite number. We have never heard of a number before. The Bill should state what is the right of appeal, and should then state that it can be exercised only when there is a certain number of people. The people should then be defined in one subsection and they are the majority of the people concerned, or the
692
people who are in a majority in relation to the payment of rates—the frontagers, the abutters and so on. That would certainly be understood.
But there is no justification—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not defend this subsection too determinedly—for having subsections (5) and (6), then going on to something entirely different in subsections (6), (7) and (8) and, finally, coming back to the requisite number in subsection (9). That is not good drafting, it is not good legislation and I earnestly appeal to the Lord Advocate—although we have had some fun and some lightness—to believe me when I say that I am not feeling light about this amendment. This is extremely bad drafting and it should not be allowed to remain. If the noble and learned Lord does not like making up his mind across the Committee in a question and answer session, I can only ask: how else can we do it? We saw this Bill for the first time only a fortnight or so ago. We have been given no opportunity to contribute anything to the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will surely agree with me that this ought to have been dealt with by a committee. It ought not to have been brought to us "cold", like this, without anybody having looked at it. It has lain about for so long that even the civil servants do not seem to have looked at it until after its Second Reading. That is one of the reasons why so many amendments have been put down by the Government to this ancient Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:I understand that the noble Lord does not wish to delete the right of appeal?
Lord Ross of Marnock: No.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:He wishes to change the way in which it is expressed. Clause 5 sets out the right. It cannot be explained all at once; therefore we have to put in something which refers to the number. However, I concede that it might be an improvement to put subsection (9) after subsection (5), which would necessitate the renumbering of the subsections. I am happy to consider that suggestion. It is not covered exactly by either of the two amendments, but I am happy to consider it for the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I do not wish to deny the right of appeal which is contained in the present statute. This is a bad compilation and bringing together of what is contained in the statute. I believe that one should state the right of appeal and thereafter the requisite number of owners of the heritages and the limitation which, under subsection (9), should follow. Subsections (5) and (9) should be together. They should not be separated in this way. It does not make sense.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for what he has said. We are trying to be helpful and to make some sense out of the Bill, but there is a limit to what we can do. If the Lord Advocate believes that it is unfair on him to have to do it across the Floor of the Committee, all I can say is that we are using the only avenue which is available to us to approach him. I am grateful to him, as I have already indicated, for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("to") to end of line 32 and insert ("give effect to his decision")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 would not have been possible, as the Deputy Chairman of Committees said, if the previous amendment had been agreed to. The second part of the subsection as drafted reads:
"His decision thereon shall, subject to subsection (6) below, be final and may require the local roads authority to delete from their list of public roads the added entry or, as the case may be, to reinstate in their list the deleted entry".
The effect of my amendment would be to make it read:
"His decision thereon shall, subject to subsection (6) below, be final and may require the local roads authority to give effect to his decision".
That covers exactly the same point as the much more cumbersome wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:The necessity for the words which the noble Lord seeks to delete is to indicate what the powers of the sheriff are on an application. If this provision is not included, there is no clear specification of the powers of the sheriff on a reference being made to him. This, therefore, serves the dual purpose of the phrase which the noble Lord seeks to put in its place. It also serves to define what decision the sheriff is empowered to take. In the light of that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hughes: No, I do not. Further up the subsection we read:
"The requisite number of persons to whom notice of a proposed addition or deletion is given under subsection (4)(a)above may, if that addition or deletion is subsequently made, refer the matter by summary application to the sheriff'.
The first four lines of the subsection make perfectly clear what it is that the sheriff is considering. He is considering whether the addition to the list or the deletion from the list should be made. That is the matter he has to decide. Therefore I do not believe it to be necessary to repeat at the end of the subsection what appears at the beginning. That is why I feel it is sufficient to say:
"give effect to his decision".
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Speaking as the simplest of farmers and as the most elementary of laymen, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is talking extremely good sense. If his amendment were accepted I could read no other meaning into what was required. But, needless to say, if my noble and learned friend says that his wording is essential for the proper interpretation of law, who am I to argue? But I am bound to say that I should have thought the shorter wording made sense.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:In my view, it is wise to have these words in the Bill in order to define the powers of the sheriff on the reference of this matter to him.
Lord Ross of Marnock: But, with all due respect, we do not. What we use is the word "may". It is not what
694
the Sheriff may do; it is what the local authority may do. The local authority
"may require the local roads authority to delete from their list"—
or add to their list. Is the noble and learned Lord honestly telling us that when a matter comes before the sheriff as to whether he has to add it or delete it—because that is what will be before the sheriff—he will not know what he has to do, without those words being in the Bill? I become more disappointed with every amendment we get. Are we saying that we are to give an order to the local roads authority, but if the sheriff did not know of and read those words he would not know what to do? He does not have to do it—he only "may" do it, because those are the words which are there. It is not very good advice to a sheriff—but, quite frankly, the sheriff does not need the advice. He knows what he is doing. He gets an application before him, on which people are appealing against the road being added or being deleted, and he knows what he has to do.
It may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is tired. In that case, it is time that he retired for the night. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, is absolutely right: it can have no other meaning. All that the local authorities have to do and must do is give effect to the decision of the sheriff on the appeal to him. The noble and learned Lord has said enough. Unless he can respond with something more satisfactory he would do better to retain some of his reputation by saying nothing at all and by letting the amendment be defeated.
Lord Hughes: On the front page of the Bill, after the words "Explanatory and Financial Memorandum", it states: "The Bill codifies and modernises"—but surely, if we are to take the word "modernises" literally, we ought to try as far as possible to put legislation into terms which ordinary people can readily understand. It may well be that for 50 years or 100 years or 150 years it has been done in a particular way. But it is not so many years ago since this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, took the decision that it did not need to be bound by decisions which the House had previously taken. If the House could do that in relation to giving decisions on law, surely we do not necessarily need to stick to the form of words which has been hallowed by use over decades—or, as in the case of this legislation, for more than a century.
I suggest that the noble and learned Lord, as my noble friend said earlier, is falling into the trap of feeling bound to defend everything that is in the Bill. That is a good quality in somebody who seeks to be loyal to the staff of his department, but it can be carried to ridiculous extremes. This is an example of that. If any sheriff or any lawyer misinterpreted the wording I have suggested in the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate implied is a possibility, then I would say one of two things; either the sheriff is not fit to be on the Bench or the lawyer is not fit to have a client.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("(as distinct from any road carried by it)").
The noble Lord said: This is merely a probing amendment. The clause as it stands reads:
"and without prejudice to sections 76 to 78 of this Act, until such acquisition the authority shall not manage and maintain the bridge (as distinct from any road carried by it)".
My amendment is to leave out the words
"as distinct from any road carried by it".
Quite frankly, I find it difficult to understand how anybody can maintain the road, which in any commonsense point of view is part of the bridge, without having responsibility for the bridge. What struck my mind immediately was bridges like the Tay Road Bridge and the Forth Road Bridge, which of course are not covered by this clause because both the road and the bridge belong to the bridge authority. But imagine a situation where it was not the bridge authority which owned both the road and the bridge. Imagine somebody coming along and saying, "The road is getting in to a terrible state of disrepair; it is full of potholes", and somebody else saying, "Well, it is not my road; I own the bridge but not the road". Where does the road end and the bridge begin?
I do not know what the answer is. I started off by saying it was a probing amendment to find out exactly what this clause means and how it can be given effect to. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can enlighten me. I may say I am not the only member of the Committee who has doubts as to what this clause means. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The situation is that the road includes the bridge, generally speaking. but there may be situations in which the maintenance of the bridge and of the road are not in the same responsibility. Let me give one illustration. The bridges which cross the Caledonian Canal are required to be maintained by the Caledonian Canal Authority, whereas the road which crosses the bridge is maintained by the roads authority. Of course, what happens is that they apportion the responsibility for the whole thing between them. But one has to distinguish between these and one has to be careful not to put on the roads authority the whole responsibility for maintaining a bridge just because the road goes across the bridge. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hughes:I have one further question. If the bridge authority fails in its responsibility and the bridge falls, taking the road with it, does the road authority have a claim against the bridge authority for negligence?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It would depend upon the circumstances, but one would think there would certainly be a very good case.
Lord Hughes: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Lord Ross of Marnock:There is a very great danger of it. The noble Lord the Lord Advocate has already said that he would look at the drafting of subsections (5) and (9) together. I have no intention of moving Amendment No. 19.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("half or more") and insert ("not less")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 go together.
Amendment No 21: Page 3, line 26, leave out ("half or more") and insert ("not less").
The Bill as it stands says in line 20 "include half or more than half of the boundary". My amendment is to make the words "not less", so that it would read "include not less than half of the boundary". It has the advantage of being slightly fewer words, and I suggest it is the way in which we would talk about it. If you wanted to make certain that it was at least half that was being considered as the minimum, you would normally say "not less than half", which has exactly the same meaning, I think, from a common sense point of view. But I shall not be at all surprised if I am told that, legally, "half" or "more than half" have a different meaning than "not less than half". I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:I am going to surprise the noble Lord. I am very happy to accept this amendment. I am grateful to him for moving it. It is an improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 21:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:Equally, I accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Amusement Machines Bill [H.L.]
10.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
Clause 1: [Conditions and Operations of Amusement Machines.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, ("licence") insert ("for the premises").
The noble Lord said: This is a clarifying amendment. It marries with Amendment No. 25. This amendment, No. 1, is self-explanatory. It was spoken to on Second Reading at column 770. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("a") to end of line 10 and insert ("reasonable fee determined by the licensing authority in accordance with subsection (1A) below.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move this amendment and at the same time move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1,line 10, at end insert—
("(1A) In determining the amount of the fee under subsection (1) above the local authority shall seek to ensure that from time to time the total amount of fees receivable by the local authority is sufficient to meet the expenses of the authority in exercising its functions under this Act.").
As is self-evident, the purpose of these amendments is to allow for flexibility and to allow for the fee to be fixed in accordance with the particular circumstances which prevail at the time, according to the level of inflation, and so on. This is an amendment which meets the requirements of the local authorities and I have the assurance of the AMA that it is a necessary amendment. Moreover, I have discussed it with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is equally in agreement with the spirit behind it. However, I am aware that the wording is open to criticism. Therefore, I should like to present this amendment as something that is required, but to look again at the wording and to bring it back on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The amendment is wholly acceptable. It seeks to reflect, in principle, paragraph 18of the Second Schedule of the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but the drafting went adrift and it will be returned to on Report. I support the amendment.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, after second ("money") insert ("of the value in aggregate of 5 new pence or more for a single operation of the machine")
The noble Lord said: This is a qualifying amendment. It was spoken to on Second Reading at columns 769 and 786. It is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("either affords") and insert ("may afford either")
The noble Lord said: The next three amendments are little more than drafting amendments. I think that it will be agreed that the words "either" and "affords" should be transposed and that the word "may" should be added. While the machine "may afford either the
698
freedom of further operation", it also certainly may not. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, after ("operation") insert ("of the machine")
The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting amendment. It is a clarifying matter to insert the words "of the machine" after the word "operation" in line 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("value") and insert ("cost")
The noble Lord said: I need not remind your Lordships of the definition by Oscar Wilde of a cynic. I think that it will be agreed that even a cynic will see that in this case when we speak about the money put into a machine we are talking not about "value" but about the "cost". I therefore beg to move that the substitution be made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("sections 32 and") and insert ("section")
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. It was spoken to on Second Reading. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("regards") to end of line 6 and insert ("amusement machines")
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the interests of brevity. We have already defined in Clause 1(2) the meaning of "amusement machine". Therefore, as the meaning of the phrase has already been defined, the words "amusement machines" can be substituted for the four lines which I intend to delete. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 11:
Page, 2 line 10, leave out from ("any") to ("the") in line 11 and insert ("permit granted under")
The noble Lord said: Again this amendment is in the interests of brevity. In lines 10 and 11 there is a reference to:
"any licence, direction or permit granted pursuant to such provisions of the Gaming Act 1968".
The existing premises function under a permit granted under that Act and not under any direction or licence. Therefore it is unnecessary to include those words. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
(" (5) If within the period of 3 months from the commencement of this Act an application in writing is received by the local authority for the grant of a licence pursuant to the provisions of

699
subsection (1) above the provisions as to number and lay-out of machines under section 2(1)(b), and the provisions of section 2(2)(a) and (b) shall not apply unless at the time of such application, or at the hearing thereof, the number of machines mentioned in subsection (2) above situate on the premises exceeds the number so situate at the commencement of this Act.
(6) Such licences as may be granted pursuant to the provisions of subsection (5) above shall, if the applicant has carried on business on the premises within the meaning of subsection (1) above far a period of at least 2 years prior to the commencement of this Act, be granted for a minimum period of 2 years with effect from the date of application.")
The noble Lord said: These are transitional provisions. They were spoken to at some length on Second Reading. They are self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): I am sorry to check this marvellous career through legislation. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on the extreme swiftness with which he is conducting his business. I am sure that the Government can take lessons from him both in that and in the ready acceptance of clarifying amendments. But I think that it is a moment to pause. It is the traditional occasion for the Government to make clear their position. I do not wish to detain your Lordships long on this clause or indeed on any other.
In the course of the Second Reading of this Bill I made it clear that the Government recognised the concern over this subject and explained the consultation and consideration that was being undertaken. I also said that legislation ahead of consultation was perhaps not the best way to proceed and suggested to my noble friend that he might consider withdrawing his Bill while consultation took place. He decided not to do so and we did not obstruct him on Second Reading. Nor would we wish to obstruct him now, but we cannot support the Bill or, more important, devote resources to any attempt to correct what amount to a number of severe and, I fear, in some cases, irredeemable defects in it.
Since Second Reading, there have been some developments of which I should inform your Lordships. Arrangements are now in hand for my right honourable friend the Minister of State to meet representatives of the Amusement Arcades Action Group in the new year. I also understand that the Department of the Environment will shortly circulate for comment a draft revision of the development control policy note on amusement centres. Until the need for legislation is firmly established—and even those pressing for controls recognise that this is necessary—we cannot consider the form that such legislation might take. I know that my noble friend disagrees with me on this, and I think that we shall have simply to recognise our differences.
Although there was general support for the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, there were noble Lords who differed from my noble freind on the detail of what was proposed. This illustrates the need for consultation. Our view is that this ought to be carried
700
out without the constraints imposed by my noble friend's Bill and without diverting resources away from consideration of the subject and towards the Bill. As at Second Reading, I shall note the points made in debate and take account of them in our further consideration.
I do not wish to comment on every defect in the Bill, but Clause 1 is now before the Committee and there is a major defect in Clause 1(4) to which, as I am speaking, I feel I should draw attention. The clear intention is to disapply the provisions of Section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968 to machines located in premises licensed under this Bill. The effect of such a change would be that the monetary limits prescribed by Section 34 of the Gaming Act would also be disapplied. This would mean that machines licensed under this Bill could offer far larger prizes than machines which complied with Section 34 of the Gaming Act.
Coupled with amendments to be moved to Clause 2, this would permit the local authority to set the maximum charges of playing machines and the maximum prizes the machines may offer. This could lead to different authorities following totally different approaches. At one extreme, it could lead to an unreasonable restriction on what is, after all, a legitimate commercial activity: at the other, we might end up with a British Las Vegas. Even if the disparity was not as wide as that, the position of the Gaming Board would be undermined and central control would be lost. The desirability of this as opposed to the existing uniform system whereby the Gaming Board makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and any changes in stakes or prizes are made by regulation is something I leave for the Committee to consider. It would certainly open the way to potential abuse. Local authorities could be pressed to boost prizes, while machine manufacturers would have to have different equipment for different areas. Other premises, such as pubs and bingo clubs, in which similar machines might be located, would inevitably press for comparable payouts on machines located there.
There is another effect of Clause 1(4). By removing certain machines in premises licensed under the Bill from the restrictions in Section 34 of the Gaming Act, the effect of the provision is to make them wholly illegal. That is because Section 35 of the Gaming Act has a blanket prohibition on the use of these machines except in certain circumstances. These do not include the circumstances set out in this Bill.
As for the rest, I shall be brief. On Second Reading, I mentioned the difficulties over definition, including the definition of "amusement machine", which is at the heart of the Bill. Although my noble friend sought to clarify, at col. 777, the type of machine he had in mind, the definition in the Bill seems to be simultaneously too vague and too wide. The main problem is that the Bill seeks to tighten controls over machines which are already subject to control and at the same time to bring within its scope machines which do not come within the ambit of the gambling laws. I am also doubtful of the soundness of my noble friend's drafting as it relates to licensed premises. For example, off-licences would be exempt from the licensing provisions of the Bill as would other premises on which drinks were sold.

701
I do not wish to say any more but I hope that what I have said has served to illustrate that the whole question is a great deal more complex perhaps than this Bill is at present equipped to deal with. That complexity is what we believe time should still be spent on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Let me say in answer to my noble friend the Minister that of course every consideration will be given to every point of criticism, as it will be to the defects which he has just mentioned. But I have given thought to his criticisms about the legal analysis. I have been wrong on many occasions, but I think that my noble friend and his department are wrong, misconceived and totally in error in their legal analysis on this occasion. If only my noble friend had had the time or the courtesy to afford an opportunity for leisurely and objective discussion, instead of coming to your Lordships' Committee to criticise the drafting in this way, we could no doubt have gone along the road a little further. Perhaps the less that I say the better. Time is short. I do not expect support from my own Front Bench, and I am seldom disappointed.
Lord Kilbracken: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I should like to add that I feel that the definition of "amusement machine" is not as good as it might be, and that the simple way out is to use the same definition as that which appears at the beginning of Part III of the Gaming Act 1968.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs:I should like very briefly to say that I accept the criticisms of the noble Lord the Minister, but I would ask him to remember the expressions of concern that came from many speakers on Second Reading and which had already been voiced in the debates on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year. I hope that the noble Lord will bring on with a certain amount of urgency the research work that is now going to be carried out into this very worrying aspect about which teachers and people in the youth service are genuinely very concerned.
Lord Elton:I do not want to be put into a false position. I welcome what the noble Baroness has said because, indeed, we are bringing this work on and I have already announced two stages this evening. Nor do I wish unnecessarily to offend my noble friend. Nothing could be further from my intentions. I had hoped that the conversations we had already had with him at the department would have eased his way to seeing our point of view, and that the criticisms which I made would be regarded as a helpful indication of what might be done at Report stage. If that is not the case there is no point, of course, in my giving further criticism at the other stages of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down I should like to say that he referred to conversations in the department, and I can do so, too. None of the criticisms which he has mentioned from the Front Bench was made to me at the short interview at his department on the eve of the Second Reading. Had they been made they would have been considered. That is my complaint.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:I follow the point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter between now and Report stage. It is the general view of many in the Committee that this is a worthwhile Bill, and we want to see some progress made on it. We all know perfectly well, if I may say so, having occupied a job not dissimilar to that held by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that when one hears words like "full and detailed consultation", or words to that effect, in many cases it means a great deal of inactivity for a very substantial period of time.
The Government have to recognise that there is widespread concern as regards this particular problem, and we do expect and hope to make some progress on it. What the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said a few moments ago indicated some slight shaft of hope; namely, that if a number of amendments are put down between now and the Report stage of the Bill the Government may (if I understood him correctly) change their attitude towards the Bill. I very much hope that that is, indeed, the position, because I think many of us would deeply regret it if the Government took an entirely negative view of what is, in fact, an entirely worthwhile measure.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: From these Benches I was encouraged that the Minister used the phrases "recognises the concern of Her Majesty's Government", "did not obstruct on Second Reading", and "does not intend to obstruct in the future"; these are all generous and encouraging statements. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government realise that there is very widespread concern about the moral issues behind what is apparently a rather straightforward and even mechanical Bill, because there are grave moral dangers lying behind this.
Those of us who have done some research into it would like to urge the Government very strongly to look with some sympathy on this Bill and to help with the work on Report, so that the very criticisms of Clause I which the Minister has so trenchantly put before us can be ironed out with the help of the Government. In that way a Bill of fairly widespread importance throughout the country may not be killed and then left for a long time. This is an issue on which I believe time is not our friend, and therefore I hope that the Government will feel strongly urged to act and to improve what is before us in preparation for the Report stage.
Lord Elton: I made the Government's position pretty clear on Second Reading and I shall not repeat the arguments now. I shall refer noble Lords to Hansard. We recognise the great concern that there is; we also recognise the conflicting views about what needs to be done and we think that there should be a degree of agreement about this before we launch on legislation. This cannot be achieved in the span of time or, indeed, under the constraints of the proceedings of this Bill. Equally, we do not wish to oppose the Bill. I had hoped that by pointing out defects as they occurred to us it would be possible to be of some assistance to my noble friend. I cannot devote the full

703
resources of the department to producing an effective instrument and, therefore, neither can I promise time for this Bill in another House. I made that absolutely clear on Second Reading, and anything else I did was intended to be constructive. But it is taking time and I do not think my noble friend wants to take advantage of that, so I shall merely sit here and not obstruct further.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Licences]:
10.23 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 15, which in turn should be considered in conjunction with Amendment No. 14, which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and is intended as an alternative to it.
Amendment No. 14: Page, 2 line 24, at end insert ("including maximum monetary values of means of single operation of such machines.")
Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("and
( ) to limit the maximum cost, and the maximum return payable, in respect of an operation of the machine.").
When I tabled this amendment, No. 13, it appeared that the local authorities would be given just about all the duties of regulating the conduct of business in general upon these premises, and, as I said on Second Reading, I felt that it should be specified, particularly that they should lay down both the maximum stake for which one plays and the maximum that one can win.
Amendment No. 14 states that the:
"maximum monetary values of means of single operation of such machines"
should be decided by the local authorities. My amendment puts it in rather simpler language—that both:
"the maximum cost and the maximum return payable, in respect of an operation of the machine",
should be decided. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, I see the strength of his argument that both the maximum stakes and the maximum payout should be the same throughout the country. If that is the case, it would require a completely new clause which would have to be drafted at a later stage. However, in the meantime, as it has to be laid down in the Bill that both stakes and winnings are subject to control, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 as a paving amendment to Amendment No. 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 15:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("and
( ) to ensure that the licensed premises and persons there are adequately supervised at all times when the premises are open to the public;").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 16 and speak to Amendment No. 17.
Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("and
( ) to regulate the numbers of persons on licensed premises at any one time and to ensure that adequate means of escape are provided in case of fire.").
Again, the purpose behind these amendments is self-evident. It is clear that they are to provide safeguards which will help to combat the dangers which we discussed at Second Reading. The dangers are prostitution, the incidence of pickpocketing, and any kind of criminal activity generally that could go on in these places of entertainment. Again, Amendment No. 17 is to facilitate the means of escape in case of fire. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there will be orderly conduct in these places of entertainment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 17:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("( )the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason;").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to render the present wording in the Bill more explicit. However I realise, and it has been pointed out to me, that the drafting of this amendment is not acceptable. I should like to take advice on it and return to it at Report when, as the Minister has already said, there will be a great deal new that will go into it. I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("previously").
The noble Lord said: This is drafting. I suggest that the word "previously" in line 33 is unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("unless it be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such breach").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to insert at the end of line 34,
"unless it be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such breach".
I feel that it is fair that these words should be inserted in view of the great difficulty in ascertaining in many cases whether a child is, or is not, under the age

705
of 16, and it should be a sufficient defence to show that all possible steps have been taken to prevent such persons from entering premises. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am not going to delay the Committee, but I should like to register the point that I am not clear what the effect of this amendment would in reality be. If one is going to create some form of defence of this kind, I am not sure how the term "reasonable precautions" would be interpreted in the courts. I make the point today, but I may conceivably want to come back to this on Report, because if this Bill is, as I hope, going to proceed further we must be clear that it is undesirable to put in forms of words of this kind which could drive a coach and horses through the meaning of this particular Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:I agree in the main with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this is a matter with many other matters, which requires leisurely consideration on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Financial Provisions.
—

(1) All expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Act as approved with the consent of the Treasury shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(2) The prescribed maximum fee mentioned in section 1(1) above may be varied from time to time by order of the Secretary of State.

(3) The power to make an order under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) All fees charged under this Act shall he paid into the Exchequer.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this formally because I am accepting Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved, as amendments to Amendment No. 21, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to the new clause, which will now take effect with the insertion of my amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 21, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 24:
Insert the following new Clause:
Interpretation
(" . "Local authority" in this Act means the Council of a district, a London borough, or the Common Council of the City of London.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is simply to give the exact definition of a type of authority, either county, district or London borough. It represents the normal interpretation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I assure my noble friend that I merely want to he helpful in drawing to his attention something that was brought to my attention this morning. I am not certain whether he is aware—it would seem not—that the whole subject is a transferred matter for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As such it would normally be dealt with by a Northern Ireland enactment. Northern Ireland has its own legislation on the control of gambling. I do not think that that has been taken into consideration in the drafting of this Bill. As it appears under Clause 4(3) that the Act is intended to apply to Northern Ireland, I should be less than helpful to my noble friend if I did not point this out.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:May I express my unreserved gratitude to my noble friend the Minister. I had not considered that and I am indeed grateful.
Clause 4 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 25:
Line 1, leave out ("amusement machines") and insert ("premises upon which certain amusement machines are situate.").
The noble Lord said: This is little more than a drafting amendment; I seek to change the wording of the Title to read:
"An Act to provide for the licensing of premises upon which certain amusement machines are situate".
It is the premises that are licensed, not the amusement machines. But if this amendment is accepted it will not. I suggest, be necessary to amend the Short Title which can still remain the "Amusement Machines Bill" since it is concerned almost entirely with amusement machines. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Milford Haven Conservancy Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Mr. IAN BRADY
  Mr. IAN BRADY
  PRIVATELY EMPLOYED SECURITY PERSONNEL
  PRIVATELY EMPLOYED SECURITY PERSONNEL
  ENTRY CERTIFICATE REFUSAL
  ENTRY CERTIFICATE REFUSAL
  ELECTION EXPENDITURE BY POLITICAL PARTIES
  ELECTION EXPENDITURE BY POLITICAL PARTIES
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: SECURITY
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: SECURITY
  POLICE RECRUITS: INITIAL TRAINING
  POLICE RECRUITS: INITIAL TRAINING
  PRISONERS: CONSENT TO MEDICATION
  PRISONERS: CONSENT TO MEDICATION
  LIFE PRISONERS: TRANSFER FROM OPEN PRISON
  LIFE PRISONERS: TRANSFER FROM OPEN PRISON
  LIFE PRISONERS: RELEASE DATES
  LIFE PRISONERS: RELEASE DATES
  HAZARDOUS WASTES: LICENSING COSTS
  HAZARDOUS WASTES: LICENSING COSTS
  ZOO ANIMALS: TEMPORARY REMOVAL
  ZOO ANIMALS: TEMPORARY REMOVAL
  "AGRICULTURE AND POLLUTION": ROYAL COMMISSION SEVENTH REPORT
  "AGRICULTURE AND POLLUTION": ROYAL COMMISSION SEVENTH REPORT
  "OIL POLLUTION OF THE SEA": ROYAL COMMISSION EIGHTH REPORT
  "OIL POLLUTION OF THE SEA": ROYAL COMMISSION EIGHTH REPORT
  HARES DOWN AND KNOWSTONE MOORS SSSI
  HARES DOWN AND KNOWSTONE MOORS SSSI
  EASTER 1984: PARLIAMENTARY RECESS
  EASTER 1984: PARLIAMENTARY RECESS
  BELIZE AND GUATEMALA
  BELIZE AND GUATEMALA
  DRUGS MISUSE: ADVISORY FACILITIES
  DRUGS MISUSE: ADVISORY FACILITIES
  "PUBLIC BODIES 1983"
  "PUBLIC BODIES 1983"
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE AND ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE AND ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY
  ARTS AND LIBRARIES: ALLOCATIONS
  ARTS AND LIBRARIES: ALLOCATIONS
  ORIGINAL 1983–84 ALLOCATIONS AND PROPOSED 1984–85 ALLOCATIONS
  ORIGINAL 1983–84 ALLOCATIONS AND PROPOSED 1984–85 ALLOCATIONS
  JOINT BOARDS AND JOINT COMMITTEES: Cmnd. 9063
  JOINT BOARDS AND JOINT COMMITTEES: Cmnd. 9063
  HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
  HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
  DOMESTIC WASTE
  DOMESTIC WASTE
  WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES
  WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES
  GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN
  GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN
  RATE BILLS
  RATE BILLS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: CAPITAL DEBT
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: CAPITAL DEBT
  BRUE BASIN, SOMERSET: DRAINAGE PROPOSALS
  BRUE BASIN, SOMERSET: DRAINAGE PROPOSALS