Sitting of 1 February 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ASHRIDGE (BONAR LAW MEMORIAL) TRUST BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.

  GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.

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

  TOR BAY HARBOUR (TORQUAY MARINA ETC.) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Falklands Campaign (Argentine Weapons and Equipment)
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 16 November, Official Report, c. 136, whether the Exocets used by the Argentine contained British components.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): It may be of assistance to the House if, in answering this question, I explain that there are three types of Exocet currently in production: the ship-to-ship MM38, which is in service with the Royal Navy, the air-launched AM39, and the more recently developed, advanced ship-to-ship version known as MM40. The Royal Navy's purchase of MM38, negotiation of which began under the Labour Government, was arranged under a memorandum of understanding finally signed by the Conservative Government in June 1971. One object of this memorandum of understanding was to ensure that a significant package of work was placed with British firms as an offset. Because of their expertise, British firms have also obtained a number of contracts for the other two Exocet programmes that I have mentioned, in addition to the work on MM38.
    Although we are aware of the volume of components supplied by British subcontractors to the French prime contractor, SNIAS, we would not expect to have information on the ultimate destination of the large number of individual components concerned.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree, having given that answer, that, as 40 British companies are manufacturing parts for the Exocet, it is possible that British components could have been fitted to the Exocets that were used by the Argentines in the Falklands? Does he further agree that, as we have condemned the French for re-commencing supplies of the Exocet, if hostilities broke out we could find British components being used in the Exocets that were manufactured previously and sold to the Argentines? Does he agree that that would be indefensible, immoral and hypocritical?
    Mr. Pattie: The considerations that the hon. Gentleman raises must have been in the mind of the Labour Government in 1969 when they drew up the memorandum of understanding that applied to the acquisition of the Exocet system by the Royal Navy. As the Royal Navy will still be taking deliveries until next year, the hon. Gentleman's question does not apply.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is it not true that a number of companies in this country are involved in contracts covering a period much longer than that in which it would have been possible to make a decision on the Falklands conflict, and that decisions have been taken for them to participate in these contracts by Governments of both political parties over a period of years? Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we would not wish to be in any

    127
    way associated with weapons that kill British service men, the contractual periods are such that they could apply to Governments of all political parties?
    Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The contract period is well over 12 years so far, let alone any period in the future. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that the type of allegations being levelled from the Opposition Benches are nothing less than nauseating hypocrisy.
    Dr. McDonald: When will the Government stop the sale of all arms and components directly or indirectly to Argentina?
    Mr. Pattie: The Government's position has been made clear in relation to all completed systems and main systems. I made it clear in my main answer that the normal supply of end-user certificates, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is a way of determining where particular compondents will end up, is not appropriate. The components we are discussing are small and readily available elsewhere in the international market.

    Nuclear Warheads
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Warsaw Pact countries have increased the number of nuclear warheads targeted on western Europe in the last five years; and by how much the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries have responded similarly in the same period.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): Since 1977 the number of Soviet warheads on longer range intermediate nuclear missiles targeted on western Europe has increased by about 400 to a total of nearly 1,000 because of the deployment of SS20 missiles, each of which has three independently targetable warheads. NATO has no comparable intermediate missile systems and, moreover, has unilaterally withdrawn 1,000 nuclear warheads for shorter range systems from its inventory. The planned NATO modernisation programme will entail no increase in NATO's warhead numbers.
    Mr. Chapman: I hope that my hon. Friend's answer will be heard throughout the country. Does he agree that the figures underline yet again the fact that Russia is spending 50 per cent. more in real terms than the United States on its defence budget? Does he further agree that the imbalance in nuclear weaponry in Europe is the main cause of the sense of insecurity? Does he agree also that the best service that Mr. Andropov can do, if he is in good faith about reducing tension, is to enter into serious negotiations on President Reagan's zero option proposal?
    Mr. Blaker: I agree entirely that Russia is spending a much higher percentage of its GDP on defence than is the United States or any other Western country. I am sure that the zero option, meaning that there should be none of these missiles on either side, is the best proposal. I cannot understand why some people seem to have the idea that no Pershing and no cruise but some SS20s is better than the zero option.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not Mr. Bush's offer identical to the zero option?
    Mr. Mates: No. It is quite different.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not therefore a non-starter? Is it not correct that all the British and French submarine missiles would still remain, as would the British and American bombers at Lakenheath and throughout the country?
    Mr. Blaker: The United States has made it clear that it will be prepared to consider other proposals by the Soviet Union. The British and French strategic nuclear deterrents are not included in the INF negotiations. They are strategic missiles, as the Soviet Union recognised in the SALT I negotiations. What is more, if we were to exclude all American intermediate range land-based nuclear forces from Europe, we would frustrate the whole purpose of the 1979 twin track decision, which was to demonstrate American commitment to the defence of Europe in the face of the enormous Soviet intermediate build-up. We would leave the Soviet Union with a monopoly of land-based intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe.
    Mr. Trippier: On the nuclear arms issue, will my hon. Friend remind the House and the country that the campaign for unilateralism being fought by the CND and the Labour party is constantly weakening the West's negotiating position in Geneva?
    Mr. Blaker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Furthermore, the reason why the Soviet Union is at last prepared to put forward some proposals, even if they are not satisfactory, is that the West has shown itself resolute and united in pursuing a policy of bringing in the cruise and Pershing missiles in the absence of a satisfactory agreement.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister said that the British Polaris—the independent nuclear deterrent—was not included in the intermediate range talks because it is a strategic weapon. Does that mean that it will be included in the strategic arms reduction talks?
    Mr. Blaker: No, Sir. That has also been made clear.

    Non-aggression Pact
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the effect on United Kingdom defence policy of the Russian proposal for a non-aggression pact.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): No changes are planned in the Government's defence policy, but we are carefully studying the Warsaw Pact proposals, including that for a treaty on the mutual non-use of force. NATO is already fully and publicly committed to the non-use of force except in self-defence. Any treaty could not, of course, be a substitute for real progress toward a general reduction in the level of armaments. We await a constructive response to the radical proposals that have been put forward by NATO.
    Mr. Adley: The soft words pouring out of the Kremlin make good propaganda, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deeds, not words, that count? In view of the ruthless extermination of freedom in the countries of eastern Europe—Hungary, East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia—and in Afghanistan, practised by the Soviet Union for the past 40 years, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is deeds not words that count when it comes to entering upon any of these negotiations?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. It explains a background that has

    129
    meant that, since the war, we in this country have been determined to maintain a credible deterrent in favour of peace and that all parties, up to and including this Government, have seen the ability of the Western world to deter the Soviet Union as the single most important guarantee of peace on offer.
    Mr. John Silkin: May I first wish the right hon. Gentleman an enjoyable, if abbreviated, tenure of office? How does he consider that the United Kingdom's possession of nuclear weapons enables it to take part in the peace negotiations for the general reduction in nuclear arms about which he spoke when our possession of those nuclear weapons does not allow us even into the negotiating chamber?
    Mr. Heseltine: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman, as a leading member of the previous Government, explored all these relative advantages and arguments and that he decided that the nature of the Western Alliance was such, and has been such since the 1940s, that Britain, under Labour or Conservative Governments, believed itself to be a fully integrated member of the Alliance and of the negotiating posture of the West.
    Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman believes, does he not, that the United Kingdom has no place in the negotiating chamber and wishes to leave the matter entirely to the United States?
    Mr. Heseltine: The position is the same as that which existed under the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported. If it was so profoundly unsatisfactory, why did he not change it?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nicholas Lyell.
    Mr. Silkin: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?
    Mr. Heseltine: The position is the same.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Front Benches be as self-restrained as the rest of the House?
    Mr. Lyell: I revert to the question of non-aggression. While one would welcome any genuine moves in that direction from the Soviet Union, might it not make a major start by reducing the 19,000 battle tanks that it seeks to keep on the borders between Western and Eastern Europe, which compares with 6,000 or 7,000 in NATO?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that question. He will be aware that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact enjoy a superiority not simply in tanks. That superiority exists in many of the conventional forces of eastern European countries. It is precisely because of that, and precisely because the eastern European countries did not reduce their conventional forces after 1945 whereas the West did that it was necessary for us to form the NATO Alliance in the first place.

    Nuclear Bases
    Miss Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the United States nuclear bases in Great Britain.
    Mr. Blaker: There is a facility for United States Poseidon submarines at Holy Loch, and United States
    130
    aircraft with a nuclear as well as a conventional capability are based at two RAF stations in the United Kingdom. It is not the practice either to confirm or deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any particular location.
    Miss Wright: Are the Government prepared to include a list of these bases in any advertisements that they may take relating to the nuclear disarmament debate? Does he not agree that the anxiety of members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, is understandable and that we cannot discover from the Government any information about where the nuclear arms are held or what sort of danger they represent to the nation?
    Mr. Blaker: It has been the policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence or absence of muclear weapons at any particular location. That was the policy of Labour Governments.
    There has been a great deal of misinformation about lists of United States bases. Some newspapers—the New Statesman, for example—alleged that there were over 100 United States bases in the United Kingdom. Upon investigation, one of them turned out to be a petrol pump in the Edgware Road. If hon. Gentlemen want to know where United States bases are in the United Kingdom they have only to look at the questions answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1980 and 1981, largely in answer to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that these bases are the ultimate guarantee of our security and that we would be much more vulnerable were the United States deterrent to be wielded on our behalf without there being such bases in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Blaker: I entirely agree that they are the guarantee of our liberty and have been ever since they have been here with the consent of Governments of both parties. I was interested to see that in a recent public opinion poll the majority of Labour voters supported the retention of United States bases in this country.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Minister agree that many of those bases, not just in Great Britain but in Europe, are the consequence of NATO's first use of nuclear weapons doctrine? Rather than trying to market the bomb, would it not be better for the Government to conduct a campaign within NATO to move away from first use to no first use of nuclear weapons? Many of those bases would not then be necessary.
    Mr. Blaker: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's premise. We have a better policy, which is no first use of any weapons. A doctrine or statement from the Soviet Union about no first us of nuclear weapons would be entirely unverifiable. It is not one upon which I should recommend we rely, since the Soviet Union has breached so many of its undertakings in the past.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set out in detail the arrangements regarding the use of cruise missiles referred to in the answer of 14 December, Official Report, c. 124; and whether, in the light of developments in the negotiations for multilateral disarmament, he will review these arrangements.
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the precise method of dual-key control for cruise missiles.
    Mr. Heseltine: The use by United States forces of bases in this country in an emergency—including those bases to which cruise missiles will be deployed in the absence of concrete results from the arms control negotiations in Geneva—would be a matter for joint decision between the two Governments in the light of circumstances at the time. The Government have satisfied themselves that these arrangements, which have existed for nearly 30 years and have been supported by successive Governments, remain fully effective.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his full answer, but does he agree that while the vast majority of British people want us to have an independent nuclear deterrent, they are anxious at the prospect of such a deterrent, based on British soil, not being under sovereign British control? Will he therefore make the public as fully aware of the facts as possible and deal with this anxiety throughout the year with all his usual diplomacy?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that the bases from which nuclear weapons could be deployed would not be used except by the joint decision of the American and British Governments. The decision would be taken in the light of circumstances—
    Mr. Cryer: "In the light of circumstances" can mean anything.
    Mr. Heseltine: —prevailing at the time.
    Mr. Cryer: What about consultation?
    Mr. Heseltine: There is no reference to consultation in the decision-taking process. Mr. Speaker, although the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) did not ask the original question, I accept, and everyone understands, that this is a matter of massive national interest. If it will help the House I shall read briefly from the arrangements that exist between this country and the United States. They were the arrangements that were discussed earlier between Mr. Attlee and Mr. Truman and later between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman. The communiqué was issued in January 1952 in the following terms:
    "Under arrangements made for the common defence, the United States has the use of certain bases in the United Kingdom. We reaffirm the understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of circumstances at the time."
    Mr. Penhaligon: Whatever the merits of the arrangements that the Secretary of State has just read to the House, why does he not believe that dual control would be better?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is not a matter of dogma or theology. The offer was discussed between the United States and the countries of Europe when the decisions to deploy cruise and Pershing misslies were taken. The offer of a dual key was available. The Governments of Europe took their respective views. I can speak specifically only for the way in which this Government took their decision. Our view was that in the light of the experience of the arrangements to which I have referred, over a significant period of time and under Governments of both parties, there was no case for the additional strain on the defence budget that would
    132
    have been imposed by buying the cruise platform systems when they would be fully protected under the arrangements that were on offer.
    The House will of course appreciate that the arrangements that I have read out are precisely the arrangements that apply to the use by the United States of bases for the Poseidon submarine and the F-111 bombers. The agreements are reviewed and reaffirmed when a British Prime Minister or a President of the United States first takes office. These agreements were last reaffirmed by President Reagan and previously by the Prime Minister when she was first elected to No. 10 three and a half years ago.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Are not the arrangements that were formulated some 30 years ago for sub-sonic aircraft and free-fall bombs wholly inappropriate for dispersed missiles with electronic triggers and targeting? The sooner my right hon. Friend starts making arrangements to return control of the missiles to Britons answerable to the Crown and the House, the better.
    Mr. Heseltine: I understand fully the depth of feeling that exists on this issue. It might help my hon. Friend to understand that the arrangements governing the use of the bases would come into effect much sooner than the decisions to use weapons in the context in which my hon. Friend describes the rather delicate electronic machinery for firing the weapons.
    The decisions to use the bases would be at a much earlier and therefore much more important stage of the process in that context.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Secretary of State not get the point that the agreement reached a long time ago was about bases and not about the cruise missile, which is wholly different from the original weapons? If this missile were fired, which God forbid, Britain could then expect massive nuclear retaliation. Does the Secretary of State not owe it to the British people to have proper physical control over the firing of the missile?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that there has always been an understanding that the Soviets could conceivably use Great Britain as a target. We are anxious about the number of Soviet weapons systems targeted on Western Europe today, and that is why we consider it necessary to have the deterrent effect of the dispersal of the cruise and Pershing missiles.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall return to this question later.

    Nuclear Tests (Radiation Compensation)
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards widows of ex-service men whose husbands died after service where they could have suffered from the consequences of the testing of nuclear weapons.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): Were the Department of Health and Social Security to accept that death arose from causes related to service, it would award a war widow's pension; and if the Ministry of Defence also accepted that death arose from such causes, provided the husband served on or after 31 March 1973, an attributable widow's pension would be awarded.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that there are cases in which the DHSS has accepted that death was caused by contact with nuclear weapons when they were tested, but that the Ministry of Defence has refused to accept that? Now that we have a new Secretary of State for Defence, will he show some compassion towards widows of ex-service men who died because they were in an area where nuclear weapons were tested? Is he aware that many of those widows fear that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to accept its responsibilities because it does not wish the British people to know about the horrific consequences of nuclear weapons, even when they are being tested in a controlled manner.
    Mr. Wiggin: In one case there is a disparity of view between the two Departments. The reasons for the success of the lady's appeal was purely legal. As to medical evidence, my Department does not accept that the death of the person was due in any way to the causes suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ashley: As the Ministry of Defence has said categorically that safety precautions at the time were more than adequate to preclude health risks, is it not the case that Ministers have prejudged the issue and that what we need now is an independent assessment of the entire position?
    Mr. Wiggin: In the case that has been mentioned, we must, as must all Ministers, bow to the advice given to us by our medical advisers. In this case the medical advisers were in no doubt. On the more general question, the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is another question to be answered soon by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, mine. No. 15.

    Space Programme
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's independent military space programme.
    Mr. Pattie: The United Kingdom's military space requirements are primarily for communications and navigation technology. They are formulated wherever possible in co-ordination with our NATO allies, with whom we assess the military implications of developments in space technology.
    Mr. Palmer: Is it intended to replace the independent military satellite Skynet 2B, which turned out to be unreliable during the Falklands operation, with another independent British satellite, or is it intended to rely on the United States or NATO?
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that the British Aerospace Dynamics Group in his constituency, and Marconi Space and Defence Systems Ltd., are co-operating on Skynet 4, which is expected to provide the satellite communications that we need between 1985 and 1990.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider consulting much more with the French on space matters, especially on the possibility of adopting an Anglo-French reconnaissance capability and, secondly, to support a booster beyond Ariane 4?
    Mr. Pattie: We are always prepared to consult the French on such matters.

    Trident
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the fall in the value of the £ sterling, what is the current estimate of the foreign exchange cost of Trident.
    Mr. Blaker: It is still about 45 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Eastham: I find the figure rather breathtaking. When one considers the Serpell report, one realises that with that sum of money the railway lines from Manchester to London could be coated in gold plate. Is it now safe enough to presume that, by the time Trident is delivered, it will probably cost about £10 billion? As we have thousands of homeless, could we not build 500,000 houses instead of having this terrible, wicked waste on an unnecessary weapon?
    Mr. Blaker: I understood the hon. Gentleman to forecast a serious escalation in the estimated cost of the system. It is noteworthy that the first change to be announced in the cost of £7,500 million was a significant decrease resulting from the plans for servicing in the United State of America. I see no reason to expect the estimates to be seriously exceeded. The original Polaris programme did not exceed its budget. The Trident D5 missile is a fourth generation missile, and the others have kept to their budgets.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the present cost of Trident, during its lifetime it will be the most inexpensive piece of equipment that the military will have, because it can inflict damage that no other equipment could at that price and, therefore, will be a deterrent?
    Mr. Blaker: I agree with my hon. Friend that Trident will be very good value for money. When the Polaris system ceases to be effective at some time in the 1990s, if we are to continue to have a nuclear deterrent, Trident is without doubt the best value. Its full-life cost will be about 12p per head of the population per week, which is slightly less than the cost of a second-class postage stamp.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recent fall in sterling has added £750 million to the cost of Trident, which is a 7 per cent. increase in real terms? Does that not show that the cost of Trident is completely outside the Government's control, and does it not put a further squeeze on the budget for conventional weapons? Does not such a squeeze weaken the nation's defences?
    Mr. Blaker: I said in my original answer that I estimated the foreign exchange costs of Trident to be still about 45 per cent. of the total. The increase resulting from the fall in sterling is offset by other changes in the detailed make-up of the Trident costing.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, during dispersals of cruise missile launchers, for practices or during an alert, they will use sites under public or private ownership; and if under private ownership, whether permission of the private owners will be negotiated.
    Mr. Blaker: Practice peace time dispersals of cruise missile launchers will use public roads and Ministry of Defence land. It is not in the interests of security to comment on dispersals in times of tension or war.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister appreciate that the vast majority of people in Britain do not want cruise missiles anywhere and that they will be especially alarmed at the thought that the missiles will be moved along public roads and deployed on small corners of land up and down the country? When that takes place there will be many demonstrations around those sites, which will cause much difficulty to the programme. Would it not be a good idea to cancel the whole system here and now?
    Mr. Blaker: I have learnt from recent public opinion polls that a large majority of British people support our independent strategic nuclear deterrent and oppose a policy of one-sided disarmament by the Government. Those figures include a majority of Labour voters in each case. As I said, in peace time the deployments will be on Ministry of Defence land.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be as reassuring to the populace of Britain to see cruise missile launchers being moved around the countryside as it is now to see ships at sea or aeroplanes in the air or ordinary military convoys? Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is just as important to have those missiles to defend our freedom as it is to have an independent nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cruise missiles will be brought here, in the absence of agreement to reduce them at the negotiations in Geneva, at the request of the European countries. They are not being imposed on us by the Americans. There is much misinformation about cruise missiles, which accounts for some of the anxiety to which my right hon. Friend referred. It is our purpose to put right the information. It has been alleged, for example, by the CND that the missiles would be used for a first strike. That is totally untrue. It is impossible to use them for that purpose.
    Mr. John Silkin: Does not the Minister of State's first reply show how irrelevant was the reply of the Secretary of State for Defence to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? As we are talking about roads, what relevance do the bases have? The fact of the matter is that Britain has no control over the cruise missiles, whatever the truth may be about the bases.
    Mr. Blaker: My right hon. Friend has dealt carefully, fairly and explicitly with the question of control and I have nothing to add.

    Nuclear Tests (Radiation Compensation)
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the survey that he intends to carry out of those British service men who were involved in the Christmas Island nuclear weapon tests in the 1950s.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will appoint an independent body to investigate fully the number of deaths from cancer resulting from the A-bomb and H-bomb tests on Christmas Island in the 1950s.
    Mr. Pattie: The Ministry of Defence announced on 12 January 1983 that it would commission a health survey of British personnel who took part in the Australian and Christmas Island atmospheric test programmes in the 1950s. Independent radiological protection authorities will
    136
    participate fully in this survey. The survey is being designed to establish whether the incidence of radiation-associated diseases amongst those who participated in the tests is significantly different from that for a comparable body of men not involved in nuclear testing. It will be conducted on the basis of information already accessible to the Government. It is intended that the results of the survey will be published.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Peter de Ionno of the Western Daily Press, whose highly successful investigative journalism has stimulated public debate on this issue? Does he agree that this investigation should take place under the auspices of the Department of Health and Social Security in order to maintain strict impartiality and that, perhaps, a special team from one of our leading universities should be appointed to look into the medical records of those who took part in the tests and those who have died since?
    Mr. Pattie: I do not think that this is a matter for the DHSS, although it will obviously be closely involved in the study as it develops. We have a nominal list of all service and civilian test personnel, but we must make a considerable analysis of that first to be able to provide the full data to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is the body that will conduct the preliminary investigation.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister ensure that that independent inquiry will not take too long in view of the dire circumstances in which many of the people affected are living, in particular those widows whose husbands have lost their lives through cancer as a result, they would argue—I agree with them—of being present on Christmas Island during the tests? Is the Minister aware that one of the most important factors in deciding industrial benefits of any kind—disablement benefit, war pensions, and industrial death benefits for widows—is whether the person concerned was there as a result of his or her employment and in this case they were there acting on behalf of the state—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was proceding to an argument in support of his question.
    Mr. Skinner: No.
    Mr. Speaker: That was my judgment.
    Mr. Pattie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understood his point, despite the length at which it was made. There will be no unnecessary prolongation of this, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that although he supports the fact that the presence of those people in the South Pacific at the time the tests took place must have been the cause of their cancer, we must see whether we can establish that that was the case.

    Falkland Islands (Fishing Tackle)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Defence how he compiled the list of firms which were invited to tender for the provision of fishing tackle to Her Majesty's forces in the Falkland Islands.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Stewart): Since the purchase of the fishing tackle was made from non-public welfare funds the Ministry of Defence has no involvement with the transaction. I understand, however, that the military staff in the Falklands selected the range of firms they approached from their own knowledge and from specialist publications.
    Mr. Beith: Why does not the Ministry of Defence buy British? Why was one of the best-known British manufacturing firms—Hardy' s of Alnwick—not included in the list?
    Mr. Stewart: The answer to that is in the reply that I have already given. The equipment was bought with welfare funds because that procedure could be followed more quickly in order to get fishing tackle to the troops in the Falklands for recreation purposes.
    Mr. Ogden: Was any of this fishing equipment made available to the unofficial president's fund of the Queen's Own Highlanders, then commanded by Lieutenant Col. Ridley at Goose Green, East Falklands? If so, at what price was it made available to the fund and at what price was it made available to the non-commissioned ranks? There is a great deal of information to the effect that that fund was grossly overcharging non-commissioned troops stationed there for airmail letters, beer and cigarettes, in some cases more than 250 per cent. above local charges. Will the hon. Gentleman now issue proper guidelines for the composition—[Interruption.]—management, and prices and profit margins of such regimental funds—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.
    Mr. Ogden: The Minister has as well.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman shouts at me like that again I shall ask him to leave the Chamber.
    Mr. Ogden rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister reply.
    Mr. Stewart: As I have already explained, the funds with which this equipment was bought were provided out of welfare funds and are, therefore, not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The welfare funds were at the discretion of the commander of the British Forces on the Falkland Islands, and if the hon. Gentleman wants more information I suggest he communicates with him.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 February.
    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.
    Mr. Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend today urge the water workers, when they come to consider whether to call off their strike, to remember that their present action is putting at risk the jobs of many other workers who have accepted pay settlements well below that currently on offer?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many people with less secure jobs who would envy the offer that has already been made to the water workers and there are many, many, unemployed people who would like to have similar pay to that which has been offered to the water workers—£145 to £146 a week. As that offer was made as a result of mediation, I hope that the water workers will soon take wiser counsel than they have previously, and return to work. I notice that a MORI poll has just come out which shows that 75 per cent. of the population believe that the water workers should accept the offer that has been made.
    Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister studied the CBI industrial trends survey, which was published this morning? If so, has she noted that investment in manufacturing industries is expected to decline next year as well? Therefore, will she gear her Budget strategy to investment in industry?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there were many years when the rising standard of living through wages was at the expense of money that should have gone into investment. That is one of the problems that we now have. There will be a substantial increase in investment in, for example, consumer goods industries, only when there is an increase in consumer expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed from that survey that there are signs of increased demand and activity among some industries producing consumer goods. There is also considerable optimism about exports. There are excellent figures for exports and some good figures that augur well for low inflation in future.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the reported remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury last week, to the effect that it would never be just to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack? Does she agree that if a potential enemy is told that weapons will never be used in retaliation, the enemy will never be convinced of one's determination to resist?
    The Prime Minister: Without making any comment on the remarks of His Grace, for which I am not responsible, I agree with my hon. Friend that the point of having nuclear weapons is to deter a war of any kind. They have succeeded in doing so for the past 37 years. To be an effective deterrent a potential aggressor must believe that under certain circumstances such weapons will be used.
    Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady thinks that she has a good case, why is she not content to put it to the country instead of suggesting that public money should be used to support it? It has been suggested in the newspapers that the right hon. Lady supports the idea of spending £1 million to support Conservative party propaganda. Will she take this opportunity to repudiate that? If sums of that kind are available for propaganda, why have the Government refused to spend a single penny in supporting the world disarmament campaign, agreed on in the special session of the United Nations—a campaign which she alleged she would support?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the reports about an advertising campaign, no decision has been made, but I note that there is a very effective precedent, which was followed in 1969, when the NATO policy, which involved nuclear deterrents and Polaris, was put across. People

    139
    were urged with full-length advertisements in the papers to write for booklets that would give them full details about NATO and Polaris. That campaign in 1969 cost the equivalent of £1 million today.
    The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying two things at the same time with his other point. First, he criticised us for thinking of using advertisements, and then for not spending money on disarmament when we are the party of multilateral disarmament. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman seems to agree that that would be a fit and proper subject for advertisement.
    Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady is to embark on these campaigns, will she make some effort to see that she tells the truth? [HON MEMBERS: "Oh".] She gave the House, and perhaps the country, the impression that her Government had been backing proposals for multilateral disarmament. Will she put in one of the advertisements, or in Hansard, a list of the occasions, at the end of last year, when she voted at the United Nations against proposals for multilateral disarmament and when this Government were in a minority of one, two or three in voting against proposals for disarmament? If she wishes to tell the truth to the country she should tell it that.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation that we should put out certain information in advertisements. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will have taken his advice into account on that matter. I shall make certain that if any record is published about votes in the United Nations, the full resolution is published, together with the reason for voting. We are a party that believes in multilateral disarmament as being the only disarmament that has to be on a balanced and verifiable basis.
    Mr. Foot: In direct response to that point, if the right hon. Lady is to use public money to put her case, we shall demand public money to put our case, as we have not the slightest confidence that the right hon. Lady will tell the truth to the country on this subject.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's Government in 1969 used public money to put the NATO case to the country.
    Mr. Mates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some water workers in my constituency came to see me on Saturday—[HON. MEMBERS: "What a drip".]—to complain about the so-called democratic process within their union? Is she further aware that they told me that they were prevented from taking part in the second ballot because they could not get to their places of work due to the pickets? The only workers who voted in the second ballot were those who were on the pickets, who are, by definition, against the offer. As this makes nonsense of the water workers' claim to have a 4:1 majority in favour of continuing the strike, will she take urgent steps to introduce proper, democratic processes?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment put out a discussion document on these matters. I hope that the water workers will consider the offer that has been made through mediation. In May 1979 the average pay of the water worker was £88·70. Before the dispute started, the average was £136·90. They have
    140
    now been offered £146 on average. That is an increase of 64 per cent. since May 1979, when the retail price index has gone up by only 52 per cent.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the talks that are taking place between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Irish Foreign Minister, will the Prime Minister confirm that nothing will be said on the British side that is inconsistent with her principle that the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland are exclusively a matter for this House and the people of the Province?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that constitutional changes, if such there be, in Northern Ireland are for the people of Northern Ireland and for the House of Commons and the other part of Parliament.
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister explain the difference between the zero option, from which she is apparently moving, and President Reagan's latest offer to Mr. Andropov?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the latest offer reaffirms the zero option which, let us be clear, is the best possible option, because it does away with all nuclear weapons of a particular class. Before that offer was made there was the NATO double track decision, which, in the absence of the zero option, is based on equal numbers and proper counting.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend, within the nuclear debate, make it clear that if cruise missiles are to be based in this country they will be fired only after joint consultations between this Government and the American Government, thus making it clear that it is a decision for both Governments?
    The Prime Minister: The phrase goes further than "joint consultations." The phrase on the use of those bases refers to a "joint decision", which means a decision of both Governments after consultation.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister accept that the 1969 advertisements, apart from the broad consensus on the issue that then existed, were almost entirely factual reports, not a propaganda campaign of the type that appeared to be envisaged in the reports yesterday? In view of the spate of adverse editorial and political comment, does she accept that those who wish to contravert unilateral disarmament, which I do as strongly as she, could do it better by political arguments than by spending taxpayers' money subsidising advertisements?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when money was spent on those advertisements. The policy in support of NATO was won. The vast majority of people at the moment are in support of NATO and of multilateral disarmament. We stand by both. I am somewhat amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should say that all members of the party to which he then belonged were in favour of Polaris. If that is so, I cannot think why it later held up any publicity on the modernisation of Polaris with Chevaline.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does the right hon. Lady understand that her remarks in this Chamber on the water industry dispute have been exceedingly unhelpful? Taking examples of average earnings is always dodgy, especially if related to the Members of the House. With regard to the right hon. Lady's remarks last Thursday, may I point out that the report of a mediator connected with ACAS is not holy writ, as evidenced by the recent decision of the Department of Defence, when the Government turned down a mediator's proposal in the dispute with the Transport and General Workers Union?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the facts get in the hon. Gentleman's way, as that is virtually all that I have given him in connection with this dispute.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that the agreement between the employers and the employees is that the dispute, if such there be, should go to arbitration before there is industrial action. With regard to this dispute, the water workers wanted mediation and the employers agreed to it. The water workers agreed the name of the mediator, as did the employers. The mediator pronounced, and the employers accepted his decision. We are now awaiting the decision of the water workers.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am correct in saying that on occasions you,
    142
    with the Leader of the House and what are known as the usual channels, discuss the procedure of the House. Next time that happens, will you consider the possibility that Privy Councillors should have their own time to put questions to the Prime Minister, and not keep muscling in by taking up two-thirds, if not 90 per cent., of the time that should be for Back Benchers, who take the trouble to table questions? Privy Councillors enter the Chanber just before the Prime Minister gets to her feet.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I always listen with the utmost respect to what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) says. I have no doubt that Privy Councillors will do the same.
    Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could hon. Members be selected to ask questions during Prime Minister's Question Time on the basis of those whose questions are among the first 10 or 12 on the Order Paper by virtue of random selection? It would work out perfectly fairly and would prevent the invidious accusations that Privy Councillors receive more opportunities than other Members, as we are all elected on an absolutely fair and equal basis.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This gives me an opportunity to say that I shall call a conference of the various parties to consider the outrageous way in which Prime Minister's Question Time is being ruined. I honestly believe that the open question has changed the character of Question Time. I welcome a conference. I shall now call the respective parties to my House to discuss how to get over this.

Water Industry (Dispute)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the industrial action in the water industry.
Since my statement last Monday there has been some increase in the number of people advised to boil water, as a precaution. This figure is now approximately 5·5 million. About 20,000 properties are without their mains water supply, but arrangements have been or are being made to provide supplies from standpipes or tankers. Some properties that had lost supplies have been reconnected.
The quality of effluent from some sewage treatment works has deteriorated, but so far without serious effect on rivers. No significant pollution incidents have been reported. I am glad to tell the House that so far it has been possible to avoid or avert risks to public health.
In my previous statement, I expressed the hope that agreement would be reached that day at a meeting of the Water Industry National Joint Industrial Council.
I remind the House that both parties to the dispute had already agreed a procedure with ACAS for reaching a settlement, involving negotiations under an independent chairman, mediation by the chairman and, in the last resort, arbitration. An independent mediator was appointed by ACAS. He made a number of specific recommendations, which were subsequently accepted by the employers. They, therefore, made a further offer, reflecting his recommendations.
The employers offered an increase of 7·3 per cent. to run for 16 months from 5 December 1982 together with an increase in the service supplement for manual employees with more than five years service. The mediator, in paragraph 8 of his report, suggested further talks about increased earnings opportunities through bonus schemes and greater efficiency.
I have placed in the Library copies of the agreed procedure, together with the mediator's report.
Although the unions specifically requested mediation and agreed the mediator's terms of reference, they rejected the employers' offer based on his recommendations. On Saturday they announced the continuation of strike action, without any reference to the agreed procedure for the resolution of this dispute, which, as a last resort, provides for arbitration.
ACAS met the employers' side yesterday. There have been further discussions today. I understand that ACAS is seeing the unions this evening.
The House will hope that the efforts of ACAS will enable this damaging dispute to be brought to the earliest possible conclusion. In the meantime, I know that the House will be anxious to see that the emergency cover continues to be provided and that hardship and distress are not caused. Whatever the dispute, there cannot be any justification for actions which hurt those least able to help themselves.
There are clearly two main options to achieve an end to the dispute and an immediate return to work. Either the mediator's recommendation of urgent discussions on the various ways in which the earnings opportunities of water workers can be improved is pursued further or, if this
144
course is unacceptable, the terms of the national agreement regarding arbitration should be followed. The way is there. It must be taken.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I agree with the Secretary of State about the potential exceptional gravity of this dispute and the potential hardship to many millions of our fellow citizens. I agree with him about hardly anything else.
It is not true, as the Secretary of State has claimed, that the employers' offer is based on the mediator's recommendation. It is based on one of the two recommendations in paragraph 9. No offer has been made by the employers on the basis of paragraph 8, which calls for an understanding, positive and determined response to the workers' grievance on comparability. The mediator says in that paragraph:
"I recommend that they now do so as a matter of great urgency."
The unions sent a telex to the employers on Saturday asking for negotiations on the mediator's report. They have had no reply to that urgent communication. Meanwhile, the House has a right to a full report from the Secretary of State on the part that he has been playing in this dispute.
Will the Secretary of State report to the House on his reported secret meeting last Thursday evening with three water council chairmen, including Sir William Dugdale, all of them members of the Conservative party? Will he give the House the facts on his reported attempt to pressure Sir William Dugdale into changing the composition of the negotiating group, including removing the chairman, Mr. Len Hill? Will he explain why Mr. Len Hill was excluded from the meeting last Thursday evening?
Is it not a fact that if the workers had not adhered meticulously to their code of practice the danger to the health of the people of this country would already be one of incalculable gravity and that the insults to them by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Employment and the Prime Minister are doing nothing to help? Will the right hon. Gentleman now ask the employers to respond immediately to the trade unions request for negotiations? The right hon. Gentleman said on television on Sunday:
"We back the judgment of the independent mediator".
Will he therefore give a categorical assurance that the employers are free to negotiate on the whole of the mediator's report?
Should not the prime concern—[Interruption.] This is a major crisis brought about by the Government. Should not the prime concern of the House be the grave danger to the health of our fellow citizens and to the country's industry? It is the Secretary of State's duty to bring about a speedy and honourable conclusion to the dispute by encouraging urgent negotiations. That is also the duty of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman will not do his duty, we shall do ours.
Mr. King: With great respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have listened to my statement. He invites the employers to respond to the recommendations in paragraph 8 of the mediator's report. I have just said that. As he knows, improving the earnings opportunities of water workers by the various methods that I described in my statement is precisely what paragraph 8 is about. Indeed, I concluded my statement by saying that one of the two options that should be pursued was the mediator's recommendations for urgent discussions in

145
various ways. The negotiating team, ably led by Mr. Len Hill, chairman of the South-West water authority, made it clear publicly that those recommendations were broadly acceptable. I certainly believe that that is the course that should be pursued.
The right hon. Gentleman seems unable to resist any rumour or smear, no matter how grave the issue before the House. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to contradict the lie about a secret meeting. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I were to hold a secret meeting it would not be held in my Department, during normal working hours, with officials present on both sides and with all the chairmen of the national water authorities who were available in London on that day. I had hoped that Mr. Len Hill would be able to come to the meeting, but as chairman of the South-West water authority, and in view of the seriousness of the dispute, he naturally needed to spend some time in his own authority.
The suggestion that I am seeking to replace Mr. Hill as leader of the employers' negotiating team is entirely false. I have considerable respect for his ability and as a negotiator and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should wish to introduce such a totally unjustified and singularly unpleasant smear.
Mr. Kaufman rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that for three months he has been putting pressure on the negotiators behind the scenes and that it was his intervention that prevented a settlement towards the end of last year. The information available to us after careful inquiry does not accord with what the Secretary of State has told the House. Mr. Hill did not know that the meeting was taking place. It is most peculiar that the only people available were those who agreed politically with the Secretary of State. It is also interesting that information has come to us that there was resistance by the employers to the replacement of Mr. Len Hill. We certainly agree that Mr. Hill carries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No, I shall not withdraw. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a very serious issue. The whole country is anxious about it. Therefore, we should conduct ourselves properly.
Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State does not deny that he held that meeting last Thursday. He has not told that House what went on at it, nor has he explained why it was so urgent that only three water authority chairmen were present and time was not made available for the rest of the nine chairmen to attend. I asked for a report on the meeting, but we have received only a series of denials that do not add up.
I repeat my request. Will the Secretary of State now encourage the employers to respond to the workers' request for negotiations which was made three days ago and to which no response has been received?
Mr. King: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to return to the issue that I hoped that I had dealt with. In relation to the "secret" meeting, I wish to tell the House with the candour and, I hope, the integrity that it would expect of me that the version that I have given to the House is absolutely correct. The reason why Mr. Hill did not know of the meeting was that it was to be a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The
146
concerns that arose at that meeting—Sir William Dugdale has put this on record, so I do not mind repeating it—related to the publicity arrangements and whether the water authority chairmen were ensuring that in heir own areas adequate publicity was being given to the terms of what we believed was, in the circumstances, a very fair offer and that their side of the argument was being adequately represented. It was not a question that only three people were present at the meeting. At the last minute, when I heard that the chairmen who were available at the time were coming in, I invited them to my office as I wished to join in the discussions.
That is the truth. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the slur that there has been any attempt to replace Mr. Len Hill as leader of the negotiating team, he free to do so, but I hope that he will understand from me—we have crossed swords on other matters and he knows that I value what I consider to be the responsibility of a Minister to the House—that there is no truth whatever in the allegation. I make that clear to the House now. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue those arguments, because there are very serious issues at stake, and I am appalled at the attempt to trivialise the issue with smears and rumours of that kind.
Once again, I have made it quite clear, and I understand clearly from the employers—they have said this to the unions directly—that they are more than ready to enter into urgent discussions on paragraph 8 of the mediator's, report. That is what the right hon. Gentleman asked, and that is what they are willing to do.
Mr. Kaufman: First, the Secretary of State has now given two alternative versions of Thursday's meeting, and the two versions are not compatible. Secondly, he has not responded to my request that he now ask the employers to respond to the message sent by the workers on Saturday so that urgent negotiations to resolve the dispute may take place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to allow the usual length of time on this subject. We have already taker, 20 minutes and have heard that talks are continuing tonight. Therefore, I propose to call a few more hon. Members from each side and then move on.
Mr. Tony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the general public do not understand why, when an independent mediator has been set up and when an agreement has been reached between the industry and the unions, the unions which were party to that agreement will not accept what the mediator has proposed?
Mr. King: It was made clear in Mr. Lowry's letter that, while it was hoped that the mediator's recommendations could be accepted, they were not binding. If that view is taken, I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) will say that, as that was the term of the ACAS understanding, the further term of the ACAS understanding should be observed. If the second part of the agreed procedure is not acceptable to the unions and with some reluctance the employers have realised an obligation to accept it to end the dispute, there is no question but that it is for the unions to pursue the further agreed procedure that is laid down and signed by them with ACAS.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that the dispute should be ended as soon as possible and that emergency cover has been an important factor? Does he agree that we should recognise the willingness of at least some water workers to keep that emergency cover going? The Secretary of State will be aware that, rightly or wrongly, there has been some suspicion that he has intervened with the National Water Council in the negotiations. Will he give an assurance that in any recourse to arbitration the Government will not instruct or otherwise intervene with the National Water Council in reaching a conclusion that it believes will bring the dispute to an end?
Mr. King: That obviously concerns the ACAS arrangements. It is a matter for both parties. I hope that there can be agreement about an arbitrator who will have to resolve the problem, if that is the course that the unions wish to take. In either circumstance, under the agreement, there should be an immediate return to work. That is part of the national agreement to which the unions are committed. There have been one or two slight deviations. I hope that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is important for industrial relations that signed agreements are honoured.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that the employees in the industry have behaved in an exemplary fashion since the strike began? That being so, does he agree that the Government should do their utmost to encourage the maintenance of that conduct for as long as possible? Does he agree that the Prime Minister, bedecked with diamonds, implying that they are nothing but a greedy lot of no-goods and the Secretary of State for Employment quoting a rule book when he cannot tell a rule book from a sore thumb do nothing to help to restore the normal tranquility of the industry but inflame already dangerous circumstances?
Mr. King: I do not believe that it will help if I comment on behaviour in the industry. Without question, in some areas there has been good co-operation to meet some difficult problems. In others, I have to say that behaviour has been less good. I hope that the normal processes of mediation and arbitration that are available can be put to good effect so that the public may be protected from what will otherwise become an increasingly unacceptable dispute. I understand from the evidence supplied by an opinion poll carried out by MORI for the National Water Council that the public regard the offer as fair, and think that it does not justify the type of industrial action that is now causing much hardship.
Mr. Robin Squire: In the light of the hardship that is being caused to an increasing number of people, especially the handicapped and the elderly, will my right hon. Friend say when he considers that the final stage of the procedure that is signed by all parties has been reached? Will he confirm that it was part of that procedure and understanding that, in the event of either party going to arbitration, there would be "an obligation" on the other party to respond to that request?
Mr. King: I understand that the employers have made it clear that, if the unions are unable, as they appear to be, to accept the mediator's recommendation and proceed to
148
the final stage because they are unable to accept the intermediate one, the employers recognise the obligation to accompany them in that reference to arbitration.
Dr. John Cunningham: Has not the country been brought to this grave circumstance first by the Government reneging on their election promise of free collective bargaining and, secondly, by the right hon. Gentleman's short-sighted and stupid attempt to try to impose a 4 per cent. ceiling on the negotiations and by the even more stupid intervention of the Secretary of State for Employment? Is the Secretary of State now saying that he will agree to the employers returning to the negotiating table to honour the commitment on comparability that was given to the water workers?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has a limited knowledge of the background to the negotiations.
Dr. Cunningham: I have worked in the industry.
Mr. King: Then there is even less excuse for the hon. Gentleman knowing so little about it.
Negotiations about the upper quartile have been proceeding throughout the year. There have already been some five or six meetings about comparability. It has never been promised or conceded. The hon. Gentleman was also wrong because the employers' opening offer was 4 per cent. Because it was unacceptable they went to arbitration. Arbitration was offered on the same day because the claim was difficult. It involves both an adjustment to the annual rate of pay and a complete change in the level in the pay league. Rather than trying to recreate history incorrectly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the serious problem of whether the agreement that has been reached can be offered.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Which groups of workers who would be done down if the water workers moved into the upper quartile have consented to that relative movement? Is there any explanation why the leaders of the National Union of Public Employees accepted an offer that is equal to or lower than that which has been offered to the water workers after their efforts on behalf of nurses and public sector employees in the National Health Service which had the sincere support of many hon. Members and much of the country? Has the Thames water authority given any sign whether it will repair mains bursts that occurred before the strike began?
Mr. King: I have not had any information on my hon. Friend's final point. Several mains bursts in London are being repaired. Some of that type of work is normally done by contractors and they have been carrying it out. My hon. Friend's point about the basic change in the earnings league illustrates why the mediator, who has had a better opportunity than any right hon. or hon. Member to assess the suggestion, having heard the unions put their case, was able to make no recommendation. Indeed, he specifically dismissed it. He said that, although there is a grievance about earnings, there are opportunities for earnings to be increased. The employers' point—the mediator agrees—is that increased wages must be earned and cannot be awarded out of the blue.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is the Secretary of State aware that Sir Walter Dugdale, the chairman of the National Water Council, told millions of people on television during the weekend that if the

149
Government wanted a settlement there would be one? It is as plain as a pikestaff that the argument is about just a little more money which the Government can authorise.
Mr. King: It is not "Sir Walter"; it is "Sir William". Nor is that what he said. The fact is—and this came out as plain as a pikestaff, if I may use the hon. Member's phrase—that it is not just a little more money. There is an issue of principle, the issue of the upper quartile. That came out clearly and union members themselves made that clear.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and informative statement to the House. I share his wish that this damaging dispute should be settled quickly. Is he aware that increasing evidence is coming to the attention of hon. Members that many water workers were not in receipt of ballot papers for the votes that have taken place? Will he therefore discuss with the Secretary of State for Employment whether, far from there being jiggery-pokery on the Government's side, there is a devil of a lot of jiggery-pokery on the union side? I can quote chapter and verse if he wishes.
Mr. King: This widens the issue into areas into which I would rather not proceed today. The way in which the respective ballots, soundings or whatever have been conducted, which will have been noted by many people up and down the country, must be of continuing concern. Undoubtedly others will want to reflect on this.
Mr. Jack Ashley: As a Member sponsored by the General and Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, may I say that, whatever the outcome of the dispute, the way in which the Government have handled it is a clear warning that they should reconsider their whole attitude to industrial relations when it can provoke and embitter moderate and reasonable workers like the water industry workers?
Mr. King: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on what he has said about the way in which the dispute has been handled by the Government. We have encouraged the discussions and the attempts at conciliation at ACAS. We have encouraged mediation and the appointment of an independent mediator. We have made
150
it clear at all times that under the national agreement arbitration is available. I should have hoped that that would have seemed to the right hon. Gentleman, with his trade union connections, an impeccable approach to a difficult industrial situation.
Mr. John Gorst: When the strike is over, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Secretary of State for Employment on an important matter that has been raised, namely, the necessity for alternative arrangements when strikes in essential services affect the lives or safety of the public, with a view to changing the law so that people may no longer have immunity when they put at risk lives and safety?
Mr. King: I well understand why my hon. Friend has raised that point. Every right hon. and hon. Member must be gravely concerned about the present situation, with a threat to an essential service. I regret it particularly because there is an agreement which provides for mediation and arbitration to continue. There is no good reason why normal working should not continue while these procedures go forward. It is not acceptable for the life of the country and the lot of elderly people, the sick and the handicapped to be so inconvenienced and distressed as many are.
Mr. Kaufman: Since the one thing that we are all agreed upon, including the right hon. Gentleman and myself, is that this strike is potentially of extreme gravity and must be solved honourably and reasonably on all sides, will the Secretary of State, in view of his continual commendation of the mediator's report, ask the employers to respond directly to the telex from the workers asking for further negotiations so that further negotiations may begin immediately?
Mr. King: I do not know how many times I have to repeat it, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will read the last paragraph of my statement, I hope it will be clear to him that that is precisely what the employers have offered in terms of urgent discussions. That has the full support of the Government. I shall not say any more, because I hope that the unions will shortly this afternoon be going to ACAS and that it will be possible to find some way forward in this damaging dispute.

Water Industry (Closed Shop Agreement)
4.4 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the operation of a closed shop agreement within the water industry".
Following Labour legislation in the 1950s, the water authorities have introduced a closed shop agreement within the industry. Membership of a designated trade union has been made a condition of employment for new employees; thus, the withdrawal of a union card exposes an employee to dismissal without redress. As a result of what has been said to me over the weekend and subsequently, it is clear that a substantial number of water authority employees in my area would like to accept the mediator's award and return to work, but they fear to exercise that right because they know that if they do so there is a substantial risk that they will be dismissed without compensation.
Such a situation is an intolerable affront to the principles of natural justice for which the House stands. The House should have the opportunity to urge upon unions and employers alike the need to give a formal undertaking that they will not bring about the dismissal of any employee who chooses to return to work and accept the mediators award.
This matter is specific because, as a result of the closed shop agreement, trade union constituents of mine are being obliged to do that which they do not wish to do. The matter is urgent because, as a result of the trade union closed shop agreement, trade union constituents of mine are suffering severe financial loss. The matter is important because the trade unions, having refused the mediator's award, are subjecting my constituents to severe and prolonged hardship.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the operation of a closed shop agreement within the water industry".
The House has listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, as I have myself, and to the exchanges earlier. However, the House knows that under Standing order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Liverpool, Wavertree (Circulation of Leaflet)
4.8 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like your guidance on a long-standing convention in the House by which Members of Parliament do not trespass on the constituencies of other Members.
In the past few days a scurrilous leaflet has been circulated in one of the wards of my constituency by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). Its distribution has caused considerable consternation to my constituents because it has the insignia of the House of Commons in the right-hand corner, it also has the print of the House of Commons on the right-hand side and it implies that the hon. Member for Edge Hill is servicing and representing my constituents. In the final paragraph of his leaflet he says:
"Now that the Mossley Hill Liberal Association has adopted me as their Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, I look forward to extending the service to the area coming into the constituency. Please remember that if I ever can be of service to you, or if you would like to help the Liberal campaign, you shouldn't hesitate to get in touch. You can write to me at the House of Commons".
I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, from one Member who is trespassing into the constituency of another.
Mr. David Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it clear to you and the House that before issuing the leaflet I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the chief whip of the Liberal party? He made it clear to me that a Committee of the House had considered the use of the emblem that is shown on the leaflet, which is not the insignia of the House of Commons, and found that it was in order to use it. Furthermore, I made it clear in the letter, while the Boundary Commission is still sitting, that the Mossley Hill Liberal association has just been formed, and in future I would hope for the support of the people in that area if I were ever to be chosen as a candidate there.
It is proper and in order for any person to seek selection as a prospective candidate.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall give a ruling in a moment. I will call the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Alton: Surely it is the right of any citizen to seek your protection, Mr. Speaker, to have the right of free speech and to make it clear that he has an alternative point of view to put to others. I do not seek to interfere in the work of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) while the Wavertree constituency exists. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is capable of discharging his duties in that respect. It is made clear in the leaflet that the largest component part of the new Mossley Hill constituency is my own Edge Hill costituency. That is the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Election expenses".] There is no question of election expenses being—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] My position is identical to that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), who was recently chosen as prospective candidate for the seat of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams).
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you be good enough to give long and careful consideration to this matter and not what I would term an off-the-cuff reply? There are many possible ramifications, of which you will be aware after you have considered the matter.
The hon. Gentleman said that he saw his chief whip. What that has to do with it I do not know. We have Clerks in the House who are helpful to every hon. Member, irrespective of whether he is in Government or Opposition. One should know that the Clerks should always be approached with regard to such matters. If they deem it necessary, they advise hon. Members to approach you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a serious issue because we know that there will be a number of similar happenings in the near future, when many constituencies will be amalgamated. You will not know, Mr. Speaker, what manoeuvres and manipulations are going on. I ask you to be good enough to say that you will consider the matter and come back to us with a considered reply, because otherwise there could be dangers for all hon. Members. Any prospective candidate could be affected. There are 18 in Bermondsey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-four".] I am told that there are 24. They could all use House of Commons paper and say that they are the prospective condidates for the lesbian league or the homosexual league.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the matter carefully as there is an abuse of our conventions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), and then, with respect to others, I hope to move on. I have a statement to make that may be helpful to the House.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I realise that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) may feel that he has considerable difficulties with his alliance friends in Liverpool. I should like to make it clear that his situation is not unique. As he said, other hon. Members on both sides of the House will be faced with the problem between now, the determination of the boundaries by the Boundary Commission and the run-up to the general election, whenever it comes, of having a cross-constituency interest as a candidate. I hope that in your deliberations, Mr. Speaker, you will give guidance to hon. Members who are affected in that way as it is no wish of mine or, I hope, of any hon. Member to abuse the conventions to which we have all, or nearly all, adhered for a long time, to trespass on another right hon. or hon. Member's constituency. We would very much appreciate your guidance.
Mr. Speaker: The House largely disciplines itself on such issues. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who came into the House on the same day as I did, which I never tire of repeating. The hon. Gentleman has a feel about these things. Obviously there will be difficulties with the changes that I understand are likely to come about.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What?
Mr. Speaker: Apparently those changes are, coming about. Since 4 o'clock a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Services, to which I turn for advice on such matters, has been considering this very leaflet. I will be advised on the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I think that it goes further than the hon. Gentleman thinks. We want some guidelines for hon. Members who will be in real difficulty. Perhaps at a later date I shall make a statement to the House when I have received the distilled wisdom of the Committee and have had a conference on the matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not raise the same question. With respect, we could go on all day.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not wish to pursue the general issue, Mr. Speaker, but will you give the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) the opportunity of reconsidering one remark that he made about the contents of the leaflet—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going into the matter any more. In view of my statement, we shall not have an exchange across the Floor.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is usually very cooperative.
Mr. Dalyell: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to a point of order yesterday on a matter of considerable substance, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has been accused by a former chief of the defence staff of misleading the House. Has there been any request for a personal statement to be made?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that statements have been made outside the House by the right hon. Gentleman and by the admiral concerned. Nothing except the hon. Gentleman's point of order has been said within the House.

Liverpool, Wavertree (Circulation of Leaflet)
  BILL PRESENTED
    HOUSE OF COMMONS (UNIVERSITY CONSTITUENCIES) (ELECTION AND RIGHTS OF MEMBERS)
    Viscount Cranborne, supported by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Julian Amery, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd, and Mr. David Atkinson, presented a Bill to provide for the election of Members of the House of Commons by university constituencies in the United Kingdom; to prohibit reference to political affiliations on ballot papers in such elections; to uphold the independence of Members so elected; and to prohibit such Members from holding ministerial office: And the same was read the First time; and order to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 February and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Solvent Abuse (Scotland)
4.18 pm
Mr. David Marshall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to add solvent abuse to the conditions indicating the need for a compulsory care order.
In 1981 11 young persons died in Strathclyde as a result of solvent abuse and 1,725 young persons were found inhaling solvents, according to the official report of the chief constable for Strathclyde region. I also understand that 33 youngsters died in Britain in 1981 because of that ever-growing practice, and that 14 of those deaths were in Scotland.
Although the number of deaths is recorded, one of the difficulties in assessing the extent of the problem is that no one has any idea of the numbers of young people involved. Even the Scottish Education Department in its consultative memorandum issued in late 1981 states that the numbers of young people concerned are a matter of conjecture and that it is safe to assume that most incidents of solvent abuse go undetected.
The Bill would help inasmuch as it would enable authorities to refer youngsters to a children's panel on a first detection of abusing solvents, whereas at present they are powerless to act and often, because of that, do not do so. Apart from helping these youngsters sooner, we would be building up a record of the true extent of the problem facing us. It is a sad fact that many instances of youngsters abusing solvents are ignored because of the prevailing attitude that there is nothing that one can do about it.
Let us change all that. Let us not find reasons for doing nothing. Just for once let us take some action to help reduce the scale of this menace in present-day society. The low-key approach adopted and recommended by the Government has failed, so much so that only last week Strathclyde regional council decided to adopt a high-level attack on the problem before it reached epidemic proportions in that area.
At this stage I should like to pay tribute to Strathclyde regional council, in particular to Councillor William Perry and to Mr. Geoffrey Isles, the principal officer on addiction, and to Glasgow district council, for their respective campaigns. I pay tribute also to the Glasgow Evening Times and the Daily Record for all their efforts.
However, neither the local authorities nor the media can take the necessary action, only the Government or Parliament can. Apart from legislation, if the Government have a million pounds to spend on an advertising and publicity campaign extolling the fatal virtues of nuclear weapons, why can they not spend money on an advertising campaign similar to that mounted against smoking, warning parents and youngsters against the dangers and evils of solvent abuse?
I do not intend to describe the symptoms, causes and effects of solvent abuse. That has been done here many times. My hon. Friend, the Member for Jarrow (Mr.
156
Dixon) did so most graphically as recently as 21 December 1982. There is, however, an air of frustration and hopelessness in many areas and among many parents as to how to cope with the problem. Their pleas for help go largely unanswered, mainly because of the absence of any encouraging or supportive legislation. Perhaps eventually Parliament will recognise the need to clamp down hard on shopkeepers who knowingly and deliberately sell solvents to youngsters for the purpose of solvent abuse, but in the meantime we have a responsibility to do what we can to reduce the scale of the problem.
I do not seek to make solvent abuse a punitive offence. That would only drive it underground and discourage people from seeking help. I prefer to see caring legislation introduced. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 came into being before solvent abuse became a problem. Section 32 (2) lays down the conditions that indicate when a child may need compulsory measures or care within the meaning of the Act and may therefore be referred to a children's panel. My Bill simply seeks to add to these a new condition—a child's indulgence in solvent abuse. My definition of the term solvent abuse is inhalation, for the purposes of intoxication or hallucination, of glue, adhesive, the contents of aerosols or any product containing volatile substances.
The children's hearing system is a uniquely Scottish one which enables the problems of a child up to the age of 16 to be discussed in the presence, and with the participation, of the parents in an informal setting. The legislation which created the children's hearing system and which governs practice within it applies, of course, only to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland told me in a written reply on Thursday 16 December 1982 that he would take action along the lines I am suggesting, that this would require only a small change to the legislation and that he would seek to arrange that when a suitable opportunity arose.
Surely there is no more suitable opportunity than the present. The Bill will not eliminate the problem of solvent abuse in Scotland but, by means of a very simple addition, sooner rather than later, to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 it may help to save some young people and parents untold misery, and it might even save some lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. John Come, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mrs Helen McElhone, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Michael Martin and Mr. John Maxton.

Solvent Abuse (Scotland)
  SOLVENT ABUSE (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. David Marshall accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to add solvent abuse to the conditions indicating the need for a compulsory care order: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 February and to be printed [Bill 70.]

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the Report [27th January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Lang.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That on the allotted day which under the Order [17th January] is to be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion as follows:

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Consideration

Half-past Eleven o'clock

Third Reading

One hour after midnight

Orders of the Day

  Transport Bill
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Transport Bill
    New Clause 1

      PAYMENT OF REVENUE GRANTS
      'Without prejudice to any other powers under which an authority may make grants to an Executive, the power to make revenue grants in pursuance of this Act shall, if exercised for the purpose of implementing proposals approved under the preceding section above, be regarded for all purposes as being properly exercised.'.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Brought up, and read the First Time.
      4.27 pm
      Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong):With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 25, in clause 5, page 5, line 14 leave out subsection (1) and insert
      (1) An Authority may in any year increase the amount of any revenue grant determined under section 4(1) above at such time or times as they think fit having regard to their duties under this Act and the Act of 1968 or the Act of 1969'.
      Mr. Booth: The purpose of the new clause is to create a clear legal right of passenger transport authorities to pay revenue grants to their passenger transport executives. This right will apply to any revenue grants made for the purpose of implementing proposals to carry out the transport plans which the passenger transport authorities have to approve under the provisions of clause 4.
      The Bill was introduced in an atmosphere of considerable concern about the legal position of local authorities in the metropolitan areas and the GLC in respect of their payments under transport policy. The situation had developed largely from a decision in the other place which held, in Bromley v the GLC, that the GLC did not have the legal right to pursue a transport policy on which it had campaigned, on which it had been returned to office and which, at the time of the campaign, although it had been a matter of considerable controversy with regard to its political merit, had given rise to no suspicion that it was illegal. It was considered to be a proper matter for democratic decision-making.
      In introducing the Bill, which is now at its Report stage the Secretary of State claimed that one of the merits of the measure was that it clarified the legal position. In Committee we showed beyond reasonable doubt that, far from clarifying the position, it created an area of grave doubt even where hitherto there had been some certainty. For example, by repealing section 15(3) of the Transport Act 1968 we shall remove a clear statement defining an area in which public transport authorities can issue instructions to their passenger transport executives on the policies to be carried out in the expenditure of money provided by the authority. The Bill is therefore bringing into question the democratic role of metropolitan authorities and of the GLC in the determination of transport policy. It is undermining the judgment of Mr.

      159
      Justice Woolf, who clearly set out the basis on which metropolitan authorities work in relation to their legal powers.
      4.30 pm
      Clause 5 provides legal protection only up to a level of expenditure that is to be specified by the Secretary of State in guidance that he will issue to the passenger transport authority. He also issues advice and guidance to passenger transport executives. If the Bill intends to deal with the legality of expenditure by transport passenger authorities in pursuit of their policies, it must be clear about the area in which those authorities can properly make expenditure decisions.
      Clause 5 thoroughly muddies the water and leaves the gravest possible area of doubt by saying that expenditure up to a particular level, which will be specified in guidance from the Secretary of State, represents a proper use of power and by failing to say that expenditure above that level is illegal. On the contrary, it leaves the whole issue to be determined by the courts. It makes nonsense of the English language if "guidance" is intended to mean an absolute determination of what constitutes legal expenditure. That is tantamount to saying that the Secretary of State will issue an edict on what public transport authorities can spend.
      If all the areas of revenue grant expenditure that might fall outwith the figure specified in the Secretary of State's guidance are left to the decision of the court and in doubt, the Bill cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to be clarifying the law. On the contrary, it is creating the gravest doubt.
      Clause 5 evades the important issue of what metropolitan or GLC public transport expenditure is legal. It leaves it to the courts to determine whether revenue grants in excess of the public expenditure limit in the guidance are legal. As a result, a passenger transport authority can discharge an electoral mandate that involves revenue grant expenditure above the limit set subsequently by the Secretary of State only at the risk of subjecting its members to surcharge and bankruptcy. That is wrong, and that is why new clause 1 is needed.
      If the Bill is placed on the statute book in its present form, it will add to the need for further legislation to clarify which transport policy decisions are to be made by local government and which by national Government. The Bill is unclear about what will be decided nationally and what will be decided locally, and it is also unclear about what the courts will decide when the first cases are brought on the meaning of clause 5(2). If the Bill is enacted, legislation will have to be introduced to clarify which areas are the responsibility of the metropolitan authorities or the GLC, when they should decide revenue expenditure and when the level should be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's comments about an element of doubt remaining over spending above the protected expenditure level, does he agree that those transport authorities that choose not to exceed that level no longer face the uncertainty of the past?
      Mr. Booth: Unfortunately, I cannot even agree to that proposition. Even in the area that deals with revenue
      160
      grants that total less than the public expenditure level that is defined in the Secretary of State's guidance, rate payments could be involved that breach the legislative requirement of the Secretary of State for the Environment under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The local authority might still be involved in a loss of revenue support grant and, given the logic of the decision by some of the Law Lords in Bromley v the GLC, it will be subject to actions for a breach of fiduciary duty. Unfortunately, there is not even any certainty that if expenditure is kept within the limits, local authorities will stay out of the courts.
      In some ways, that intervention has underlined my contention that the law should be clear about which decisions can be taken by local government without legal challenge and which decisions are for the Government to take. Once we have that legislation on the statute book we can legislate to remove any possibility of surcharge on and disqualification of those who take decisions in local government properly, with the exception of acts of wilful financial negligence or corruption. The Bill does not give those in local authorities any scope to proceed on that clear understanding. If new clause 1 and amendment No. 25 were accepted, local authority transport policy could be significantly clarified.
      I draw the attention of hon. Members to amendment No. 25. The Bill provides for public transport authorities to make only one determination each year, in accordance with the planning procedure in the Bill. That planning procedure is such that the determination will have to be made at the beginning of each financial year. Therefore, it can be made only in the light of the circumstances obtaining at the time, together with any reasonably foreseeable circumstances.
      The pattern of our national economy is such that within any one financial year there could be various changes which would mean that the provision made by way of revenue grant was insufficient to carry out the policy. In recent years there have been increases in the price of fuel, instances of major industrial action and other events which could easily disrupt the most carefully thought out passenger transport authority's three-year plan. Therefore, the authority might well find it necessary in the course of the financial year to inject a further subsidy into the passenger transport executive undertaking to stabilise and protect the level of service planned.
      Unless the Bill permits the passenger transport authority to increase its determination, the executive will be at the mercy of unforeseen events and, as a result, will be unable to carry out its services with the revenue grants provided. The Government and Conservative Members pride themselves on understanding, and being sympathetic towards, the problems of business men. Surely none of them would claim that any business would so restrict its own financial scope as to prevent its taking money from reserves or making some other provision to deal with an unforeseen call upon the financial provision that it has made for that year of operation.
      Mr. Reg Race: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see Sir Freddie Laker on television last night, when he was chastised by the Nationwide team for his activities during his previous incarnation with Laker Airways. Sir Freddie said that avoidance of amounts due to creditors was simply part of free enterprise. My right hon. Friend's comments about

      161
      the role of business men are apposite because, if they run into difficulties with creditors and overdraw their facilities, they do not pay their creditors, whereas public transport undertakings are now being told that they must eliminate all deficits within a specified period.
      Mr. Booth: I do not have the advantage of having seen the programme to which my hon. Friend refers, but the case is of a man who, in his business arrangement with Laker Airways, guarded himself against many creditors' claims. I hope that no hon. Member will advocate that such arrangements should apply to public life. They should certainly not apply to financial agreements between passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives.
      If an executive were protected in such a way that creditors were unable to secure repayment, Conservative Members would consider that improper. All that we are asking for in the amendment is that if circumstances arise which, in the best judgment of the PTA—on having been called upon even by a PTE—requires it to make an adjustment to the grant for the year, that the PTA should be able to do so.
      It is not only unreasonable, but uneconomic, to argue in the way that the Secretary of State did in Committee and say that if the problem arose all that would be necessary would be for borrowing to take place. If the PTE—or, for that matter, the PTA—found itself in that circumstance and said that it wished to borrow to cover itself against unforeseen circumstances, it would be doing so at a time of national economic difficulty, when interest rates were rising. In any case, the borrowing would only add to the financial burden of the authority in having to clear the debt.
      The amendment accepts that a PTA or the GLC must operate within the conditions imposed by the Transport Act 1968 and the Transport (London) Act 1969 and that if in the course of the year it runs up against an unforeseen call for finances to carry out its transport policies it can develop a further grant arrangement.
      There is no suggestion in amendment No. 25 that, in considering any further grant made during the year, all of those considerations that were proper at the time of the original determination should be set aside. Far from doing that, the amendment makes it clear that any further grant is subject to those broad conditions. However, given that qualification, if we are to try to draw some sensible transport planning out of the Bill's provisions, it is necessary that it should allow for such a contingency. Those are the aims of the new clause and the amendment.
      Mr. Harry Cowans: The Government claim to have business acumen. Is it not nonsense to force a local authority to borrow regardless of the market and regardless of whether it has funds which it would be more beneficial to transfer? All that the Secretary of State has said is that the authorities should borrow. The financial flexibility under the Bill, without the new clause, is restrictive. It is nonsense for the Government to claim that they are looking after the ratepayers when they force a local authority to borrow, even if such borrowing is not necessary because the local authority already has the funds available.
      Mr. Booth: I agree wih my hon. Friend. It makes nonsense to force the authorities to borrow in those circumstances and it creates a great inconsistency in the
      162
      way in which deficits must be dealt with under the financial duties of the PTE under clause 2. The borrowing will cause a deficit to arise, which presumably will fall to be considered under the deficit procedures at the end of the financial year, without any of the normal financial safeguards or financial alternatives for dealing with the problem being available to the authority at the time when the problem first arose.
      I hope that both the new clause and the amendment will commend themselves to the House. We look forward with interest to hearing what Conservative Members consider to be the merits of leaving the Bill in its present form. If they cannot put up any arguments to suggest that the Bill would be better without the new clause, we look forward to their support in the Lobby.
      4.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): It may be of help to the House if I respond to the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). He touched upon some of the fundamental purposes and aspects of the legislation. I agreed with some of his preliminary remarks. He began by saying that the Bill was introduced in an atmosphere of considerable anxiety about the legal rights to subsidise the metropolitan counties and the GLC. That is correct. There has been much anxiety about the legal ambiguities and the legislative position governing the payment of subsidy for public transport operations.
      I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that we are agreed that, although it has been challenged by others, there was and is a need for legislation to secure a stable and clear basis for the payment of subsidy for public transport operations. That is recognised, and that is why this Government have introduced the Bill.
      The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the judgment by Mr. Justice Woolf in the Merseyside case. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that judgment was given, although the case did not go to appeal. However, in the West Midlands authority case last year, when the metropolitan authority was legally challenged, it felt constrained to increase its fares. There has been other talk of legal ambiguity. There are still doubts about the legal position despite the recent case involving the GLC. The judgment was one of a long series of legal happenings on this issue.
      More than that, the bids for support for local public transport operations that the metropolitan authorities and the GLC are contemplating for next year, are such a quantum leap in expenditure that it is highly likely, even on the most prudent assessment, that new legal challenges and difficulties will arise. We are talking about a possible increase of between 75 and 100 per cent. between 1982–83 and 1983–84.
      Against that background, and even if we put aside the right hon. Gentleman's point about the considerable anxiety about the legal position, it would be folly not to bring forward legislation now to create the stability and clarity that is needed.
      There is an argument whether the proposed legislation establishes what the Opposition believe is needed.
      Mr. Kenneth Marks: The Minister agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) that there was cause for concern about Greater London. The metropolitan counties

      163
      have always agreed with that. He tried to extend that concern to apply to the metropolitan counties, but it does not apply to them. I am not sure that it applies even to Greater London since last week's judgment. The Minister did not give the real reason for the Bill—it is not the uncertainty about the legal position, but that he thought that the metropolitan counties would go too far in subsidising transport.
      Mr. Howell: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness said "and the metropolitan counties". The hon. Gentleman can check Hansard tomorrow. The reason belongs in the past, the present and the future. It would be imprudent to ignore the probable developments that are already written in the figures before us. If there is a liklihood of further legal challenge, that is as serious a consideration as the fact that there have been legal ambiguities in the past.
      Mr. Booth: The Minister has quoted me correctly by saying that the Bill was introduced at a time of concern about the legal rights of the metropolitan authorities, as well as those of the GLC. However, he is not entitled to deduce from that that I think that that concern can be met by the Bill. On Second Reading—I said that the Bill would not make a sensible contribution towards dealing with the concern of metropolitan authorities.
      Mr. Howell: That is so. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment challenges the main purposes of the Bill. The Opposition and the Government disagree about the legislation that is needed. It has been the contention of Opposition Members, repeated by the right hon. Gentleman, and embodied in the new clause, that the Bill—which we believe to be necessary and desirable to create the clarity and stability that have been, still are and will be lacking—somehow undermines democracy and fails to provide the stability and clarity that is required.
      The facts are quite different. The legislation will protect expenditure by metropolitan transport authorities up to a specified level. Within that level, there is extensive legal protection and legal certainty. The right hon. Gentleman cast doubt on the degree of legal certainty, even within the protected expenditure levels. Whatever the circumstances under rate support grant, clause 5(2) makes expenditure within the specified level a proper exercise of an authority's powers. It is, therefore, legally protected within the protected expenditure level. There is no doubt that that is a proper exercise of local authority power.
      The Opposition's quarrel with the Government is that the Bill does not give unfettered power, as the new clause would. The clause would give unfettered power to local authorities so that expenditure at any level, rather than expenditure up to a specified level, for which provisional figures have been put forward would be legally protected. Obviously, they remain provisional until the Bill becomes law.
      The quarrel is that above that protected expenditure level, expenditure by a local authority might still be exposed to ratepayer challenge, which the Opposition believe to be a terrible thing. Does the right hon. Gentleman want cash limits to be imposed by central Government? I have heard it suggested that that would be desirable. The Government do not believe that cash limits would be the right way to handle the matter. It would be
      164
      a far greater intrusion into the control of local transport undertakings and activities than the Government or anyone else desire. The Government have not adopted cash limits as a course, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman really wants that course. What does he want? The answer is explained in the new clause. He wants unfettered rights for authorities to spend. He wants them to be free to decide how much ratepayers' money should be spent on transport subsidies. If he wants that, he must also believe—this is the heart of the matter, and I must throw doubt on his belief—that if there were unfettered spending all ratepayers providing the money for that spending would be protected by local democracy, which he claims is under attack.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Minister think that it would be better for the elected members of local authorities to decide how much money should be spent, rather than unelected judges who, under the Bill, would decide how much should be spent? Is not the Minister guilty of using the courts as a political agent for his policy?
      Mr. Howell: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to think about the matter again. He obviously believes that all ratepayers vote, but that is not the case. Less than half the rates are raised by those who vote in the local democratic processes. More than half of them, are raised from commerce and business, where there is no vote. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness is suggesting that not only should we abolish the rights of all ratepayers to challenge expenditure above the protected level, which the Government have provided for the sake of stability and clarity in transport matters, but that we should remove all rights for ratepayers—the majority of whom do not have a vote and are, therefore, not directly protected by the local democratic elections—to have recourse to the courts at any level of expenditure, which should be unfettered. The Government believe that it is wholly wrong to remove that protection. A far better balance will be secured by the protected expenditure level within which an authority can proceed, comforted by the fact that, under clause 5(2) it is regarded as a proper exercise of their powers.
      Of course local authorities are free to go beyond the protected level of expenditure, but in doing so there is the possibility of a ratepayers' challenge. Opposition Members want that right to be removed, regardless of whether the ratepayers have the right to vote.
      Mr. Cowans: The Minister has misread the new clause. It seeks only the power to implement the proposals that have already been agreed. He cited clause 5 as a protective clause, but it does not protect the present position. Under subsection (2), the exercise of power relates only to spending within the guidelines.
      New clause 1 takes account of that, but allows for flexibility—if something happens to cause a deficit—for local authorities to make an additional revenue grant within the guidelines of the previous proposals, without having to resort to borrowing. That is exactly what the Opposition are seeking.
      Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is referring to matters that are more specifically addressed by amendment No. 25. The effect of the new clause would be to remove all fetters on the level of subsidy that a local authority could pay. The Government have made it

      165
      absolutely clear—they are not alone in their view—that there should not be an unfettered power because there are large numbers of contributors through the rates who do not have the vote. The Select Committee also thought it wrong, saying in its fourth report:
      "within the expenditure constraints which local authorities now face, we believe that the Government is right to seek some reduction from the levels of public transport revenue support which occurred last year".
      I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee, so he must believe that, as do the Government. That is reflected in our approach to the legislation.
      I turn to the more specific point whether during the year there should be powers to increase the grant in the face of unforeseen circumstances. The essence of our approach and the strong belief of the Government is that sensible financial disciplines require a single determination of grant to be made. We believe that it is poor financial practice for there then to be loopholes and escape valves through which further grant can be paid in certain circumstances. It is much better that that matter should be corrected, if unforeseen circumstances arise, by borrowing in the current year and the deficit or borrowing taken account of in setting the level of grant and, of course, the protected expenditure level for the following year. We believe that if a proper plan is made for calling upon reserves, reserves are available, but that if no proper plans are made there should not be a haphazard calling on reserves. Sensible financial practice demands that a determination be made each year. If special circumstances arise they should be met by borrowing in that year with the problem put right in the following year. That is an orderly and businesslike way of proceeding.
      Amendment No. 25 would, in our view, undermine that businesslike way of proceeding. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that amendment as well.
      5 pm
      Mr. Race: I wish to refer the Secretary of State to several important considerations in new clause 1. The clause strikes at the heart of the Government's proposals. The Opposition are saying that the determination of transport policy should be in the hands of elected people and not in the hands of unelected and unaccountable people in the courts—the judges who are responsible to no one but themselves and perhaps, at times, to their own rather strange views.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
      Mr. Race: I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend in a moment if he will allow me to develop my point. I think that he might agree with me once I have developed it.
      Our proposition in new clause 1 is that we do not want local transport undertakings to face the threat of serious legal challenge if they spend money beyond the so-called protected expenditure levels. It is crucial that local transport undertakings should have that power. One of our major criticisms of the Secretary of State's position is that, by his actions in the Bill, he is encouraging ratepayers to take legal action against duly elected local transport authorities. Therefore we say that new clause 1 is crucial if local transport undertakings, elected by the people and accountable to them through the process of election, are to be able to carry through in a reasonable way the policies on which they were elected.
      166
      I should like to refer to the way in which the balance between Parliament and the courts should be struck. Obviously, there will be occasions on which judges and the courts will have to intervene to determine precisely where Parliament's intentions lay in particular legislation. Sometimes the merit of an Act of Parliament or its meaning in changed circumstances is not clear. The courts cannot make political decisions because they are not empowered to do so. We have a system not of divided political responsibility, as in the United States, but of interlocking responsibility, and the court's responsibility is to determine Parliament's intention. The court's duty is not to determine what the transport policy for a particular area should be—at least that is my view, although I am not sure that it is the Secretary of State's view.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. I think that, inadvertently, he is putting the point in the wrong way. It is not the court's responsibility to carry out the intentions of Parliament. If it were, we would not be grumbling. My complaint is that the judges look at the face of the Act no matter how ridiculous and contrary to Parliament's intentions their conclusion may be, which is why we had the ridiculous decision on the GLC.
      Mr. Race: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I shall in a moment quote Lord Justice Kerr in the case of the London Transport Executive v. the GLC, the proceedings of which we have just received. It is an important point because it appears to me that the courts are interpreting their function in a way quite different from that in which most right hon. and hon. Members view their role. It is important to consider what the courts are up to.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
      Mr. Race: I shall allow my hon. Friend to intervene in a moment.
      The courts are not qualified to make judgments about the type of transport policy that a local authority should introduce. They have no information, and they do not want information, about public transport and how it affects the unemployed, women or people who do not have access to private transport. Therefore, they cannot possibly make judgments about whether a particular transport policy is reasonable or justified.
      After the Bill is enacted, the courts will be faced wth a ratepayer saying, "I do not think that the balance between the ratepayer and the user of public transport has been properly set by the elected local authority." The courts will then be roped into making a judgment about that balance. That is precisely what Lord Justice Kerr said on 27 January in his comments in the judgment of London Transport Executive v GLC. On page 10 of his remarks, referring to the proper exercise of powers contained in legislation, he said:
      "the local authority may not strike an unfair balance between passengers and ratepayers. Subject to the true construction of the 1969 Act, as interpreted in the Bromley case and discussed hereafter, the place where this balance is to be struck is a matter for the discretion of the Council as the authority charged with the implementation of the Act. But if the balance is arbitrary or clearly unfair, then it will be invalid under the Wednesbury principle, and indeed ultra vires and it will then be the duty of the courts so to hold."
      So, even if the local transport undertaking is elected on a policy and even if it considers carefully the implementation of that policy, if someone says, "I am terribly sorry but I do not think that the balance between the ratepayer

      167
      and the user of public transport is right," the courts can rule that that local authority's decision, whatever it is, is ultra vires—outside the powers of legislation passed by Parliament.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the courts, in addition to deciding matters of legislation, are also concerned with natural justice? Is that not a long-term principle of our law?
      Mr. Race: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but that question has not been raised in any of the judgments that I have seen in relation to public transport undertakings. It does not seem to be one that has exercised the courts. The courts have been saying that, no matter what the policy on which a local authority was elected, no matter what consideration was given to that policy by the elected councillors, and no matter how careful they had been, should someone allege that they cannot make that judgment because it strikes an unfair balance between the ratepayer and the user of public transport, and should that allegation be believed by the court, the court will say that the decision was ultra vires.
      I submit that the courts will therefore be making a political judgment about what is the proper balance between ratepayers and users of public transport. They are not qualified to make that judgment. No information is given to the courts about the way in which public transport is used by the unemployed, by women, by school leavers or by people without access to private transport. The argument that unelected and unaccountable judges can make this kind of decision seems absurd.
      Mr. David Howell: Does the hon. Gentleman's view extend to the point that courts should not judge upon whether an authority has transgressed or exceeded its statutory powers?
      Mr. Race: I am saying that the courts have decided, on the principles set by the House of Lords in the Wednesbury case, that there is a balance to be struck between ratepayers and users of public transport. That seems to be a principle that will inform all their actions over the next few months. It is important that people who elect local councillors on a particular policy should know that this is what will happen unless the Bill is changed. We are saying in the new clause that we do not want the courts making this kind of judgment. They are not qualified to make such judgments.
      We must protect the rights not only of local authority councillors but of the electorate. One has only to recollect how the whole concept of fiduciary duty and the duty to ratepayers was erected in the first place to understand what the issue is all about. The concept sprang out of the dispute in Poplar in the 1920s when the Labour-controlled borough council decided to pay its work force equal pay. This was challenged by ratepayers as being an unfair use of public funds. The courts invented the concept of fiduciary duty to ensure that this principle could not be established by a Labour-controlled local authority.
      Under the Bill the courts will determine, in the political and economic climate of the time, the extent to which a local authority can carry out its manifesto. I suspect that there will be a great difference in the view of the courts about what is appropriate and right as between a time of
      168
      economic growth when central Government are willing to pump money into local authorities, and during a period of more restrictive and monetarist approach by central Government. It will not be an objective view of reality. It will be not only the individual views of judges but a reflection of the prevailing political climate in national political life. I believe that new clause is crucial and that the House should pass it.
      The Secretary of State, in resisting the new clause, is trying to invent further powers for unelected people and is trying to increase his powers to restrict the rights of local authority councillors. I hope that those Conservative Members who have expressed some interest in the rights of elected local authority councillors will vote for it.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not weaken in his determination to resist the new clause and amendment No. 25. Throughout the discussions in Committee, and again this afternoon, attention has been drawn to the importance of maintaining a balance between the rights and duties of the transport authority, elected by the people locally, which enjoys the franchise but which produces less than half of the total funds that may be available to be spent within the local area and also less than half of the funds that are raised within the local authority area.
      There is also the need for some other authority to represent the interests of those who do not have the local franchise but who are nevertheless called upon to pay a large proportion of the funds that are expended by the authority in any of its duties—in this case as a transport authority in a metropolitan county. Under our constitutional arrangements, that duty must fall to the Government. It is not a matter of the political complexion of the Government. It is the role of the Government to represent the interests of the people at large. Overall, there is the concept that if a transport authority is acting in any way that appears to a certain group of ratepayers, local business men or those who are contributing to the funds locally to be exceeding the powers granted by Parliament, such action is open to challenge in the courts.
      I take strong exception to some of the comments about the role of the courts in reaching decisions in areas that are not to be properly appropriated either by the Secretary of State or by the local transport authority. The courts do not make, and never have made, decisions on the merits of political policy. It would be wrong and intolerable if they were to do so. What they have to decide is whether a policy, no matter what its merits, is sanctioned by the law as it stands at a particular time. If it does not, they will have to declare that it is outside the powers of the authority until such time as the law is changed. It is that balance involving the courts, the Secretary of State and the local authority that is the nub of the argument.
      I see amendment No. 25 as a more extreme form of the same concept embodied in the new clause. One can therefore deal with them together.
      Miss Joan Maynard: The hon. Gentleman reiterates the point about the unfettered right of the local authority to levy subsidy from the rates to transport. That is not correct. The local councillors are subject to election. The hon. Gentleman argues that some of the people who have to pay these rates are not represented. He refers, in some cases, to the owners of

      169
      industries. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the managers and workers, in general, in those industries, live within the ratepaying area. They are just as concerned about the validity of the industry and its ability to continue in business as are the owners. Their jobs are at stake. Despite the fact that they continue to vote for the transport policies of local authorities such as South Yorkshire, the Government, through the Secretary of State, are saying that if the electors of South Yorkshire persist in a policy which the Government do not like, they will lay down guidelines to bring in the courts.
      The hon. Gentleman says that the courts are not being asked to make political judgments, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) has just said, that is exactly what they are doing. They say that they are taking into consideration the balance between the ratepayer and the transport user, which must be correct. It must be a political judgment.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the reiteration of her views on this matter. I agree that the transport authority—the metropolitan county council—has a perfect right to put forward a policy on behalf of those who elected it. I suggest that there is a need to protect the rights and interests of those who will provide the majority of the cash but who do not have the right to make that decision. It is something that needs to be placed, on occasions, outside the local authority's control.
      The word "unfettered" has been used. I am opposed to the unfettered use by local authorities of what they believe to be a political mandate if that mandate works against the principle of natural justice, as I pointed out during my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race). Strong political views can be held and translated into political policies that are against the principles of natural justice. That needs safeguarding.
      I do not want to be diverted from the new clause and the amendment, because I should like to draw attention to the dangerous possibilities included in amendment No. 25. It does not suggest that there might be special circumstances in which it will be necessary to increase the amount of revenue grant in a year. The amendment provides:
      "an Authority may in any year increase the amount of any revenue grant determined under section 4(1) above at such time or times as they think fit having regard to their duties".
      If that amendment were passed, the authority would have the right to determine the amount of grant payable.
      It would be possible for local authorities virtually to disregard the level established by the protected expenditure level at the beginning of the year, because they would be able to say, "We have run out of money. There have been particular problems, so we need to increase the amount of grant." They would be able to say that, not once because there was a bad winter or something similar, but because there were political reasons for increasing the amount of grant made available.
      That is what the Bill seeks to avoid, and that is why the new clause and the amendment are directly opposed to the principle of the Bill, which is that there should be a balance and protection for local authorities. If the clause and the amendment are passed we shall lose the balance and the real purpose and thrust of the Bill, and I fear that that is the true purpose of the Opposition's proposals.
      Mr. Marks: To suggest that authorities will be unfettered if the new clause is passed is absolute nonsense,
      170
      and I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) knows it. Why does a party which has been saying for the past nine years that it will abolish rates dislike ratepayers so much that it opposes our views?
      On Friday I received the first 10,000 signatures on a petition from the Greater Manchester area where people are anxious that the Bill could result in poorer public transport for Greater Manchester through higher fares, cuts in services and the threat to children's cheaper fares. They ask Parliament to reject the Bill so that decisions on fare levels can continue to be made locally without directions or guidance from Whitehall. In a letter commenting upon what had happened in Greater Manchester the Minister said that he deplored the spending of ratepayers' money on paid advertising. I look forward to seeing his signature on some of the letters that will go to the Secretary of State for Defence.
      We were told on Second Reading and in Committee that the purpose of the Bill was clarification. We have had 100 hours or more of debate in Committee and the water has been muddied considerably by the Bill. It virtually gives the Secretary of State the right to dictate to metropolitan county councils and the Greater London council how they should run their passenger transport systems and by how much they should help those systems from their own finances. It is the Secretary of State's intention to place more fetters on local authorities.
      In Committee the Under-Secretary of State said that the powers of local authorities have not been reduced. Of course they have, and the Secretary of State confirmed today that that is the purpose of the legislation. Whit will happen? The Secretary of State will give advice to passenger transport executives. They will prepare a plan. The Secretary of State will then give some more advice to them and to the county council. The county council will then make a determination and that will go to the Secretary of State. He will advise them to think again, and at the same time he will make a grant. It is his business to make a grant, as he has in the past.
      There will be a threat to local councillors that there will be legal action, and the Conservative party will inspire that legal action, as it has in the past. It inspired legal action against Labour Governments and education authorities when the Prime Minister was the spokesman on education.
      Mr. Stanley Cohen: The Secretary of State referred to restraint on local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should insist on some clarification of that point? Who imposes the restraint and why?
      Mr. Marks: I hope that we shall receive that clarification. There is a great deal of restraint placed on local authorities. There is restraint by the electors and domestic ratepayers who do not like paying rates any more than business ratepayers. Local authorities have been restrained by the courts already and a number of other restraints exist.
      Whatever the views of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, our proposal gives local authorities the last word. That was the expression used by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee. Having listened to what the Secretary of State has said, I hope that the new clause and the amendment will be supported by both sides of the House.
      Mr. Peter Fry: Judging by the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and the intervention of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the Opposition seem to feel that once elected a local council can do what it likes. That is not the kind of democracy that I understand or the way in which Government in this country should work. Surely there must be some constraints. A Government came to power 50 years ago in another country through its proper electoral system. There were not enough checks and balances in that country's constitution, Nazi Germany followed and Hitler came to power with all that happened. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has pointed out, a proper constitutional system should contain checks and balances.
      Some local authorities have a degree of unbridled arrogance once they are elected. It applies to both sides of the political divide. The longer they stay in power, the longer they think that they always know best, although they are generally elected by a minority of the electorate.
      5.30 pm
      The basic point is whether this new clause is intended to destroy the purpose of the Bill. Presumably, if a local authority calmly consideres the advice that my right hon. Friend may tender and says, "We do not care what you say because we are going to do what we wanted to do in the first place," the whole exercise is pointless. I appreciate the honest desire of many Opposition Members to preserve for local government much discretion and decision-making in public transport matters. I accept that local people must and should have a great say in the public transport policy in their area. I take that for granted.
      However, the trouble is that if one always leaves it to the local passengers, they would never want fare increases. They would always want the fares to remain at rock bottom. In major cities, where for many years there has been tremendous resistance to fare increases, there is usually a great shortage of capital investment. That has been true of Greater London for many years, and it is even more true of New York where there is such great resistance to fare increases that, to our eyes, its public transport system is antiquated. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) knows that perfectly well. One cannot leave the decisions to those who wish to pay low fares and who are not worried about the overall considerations of public transport and the enormous amounts of money that are required today to keep it going.
      I have some sympathy with the new clause because I believe that the Bill has introduced another element of uncertainty, although it tries to remove uncertainty. The reason for that is shown clearly in clause 4, which precedes clause 5 where the new clause is to be inserted. Clause 4 provides:
      "The matters by reference to which the guidance of the Secretary of State … may be given shall include—
      (a) what appears to him to be the appropriate national level of expenditure by Authorities on revenue grants."
      That may sound fine, but what does it mean? Does it mean, for example, that there should be a notional national level? Is it the same as for British Rail, where 40 per cent. of fares are subsidised by the public service obligation? We do not know. Will there be differences between one metropolitan county and another, for example, between the GLC and south Yorkshire?
      I shall, of course, support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby, but he must spell out much more clearly his public
      172
      transport policy. He must tell not only the metropolitan counties but the shire counties what support he believes is reasonable from public funds to run public transport.
      My right hon. Friend knows full well that on Second Reading I took some time to put forward the view, which I share with several others who have an interest in public transport, that there is a need for a fixed percentage from the fare box. If my right hon. Friend believes—I presume that he does because it is included in the Bill—that there is an appropriate national level of expenditure by authorities on revenue grants, will he consider being more explicit or at least give a broad guideline to every local authority and public transport undertaking in Britain?
      There is gross unfairness between one county and another. We are all familiar with the tremendous problems of cheap television licences, and many of us believe that the cheap licence for those who live in warden-controlled accommodation should not have been granted because other old age pensioners rightly object and ask why they should not have it as well. The same is true of retirement pensioner concessionary fares. Every hon. Member must at some time receive letters from constituents asking why they cannot have a scheme similar to that operated by the district council or the metropolitan county next door. The position is most unsatisfactory.
      That is not a public transport issue, but it relates to public expenditure and to how far one considers public transport as a necessary social service. As there has been a lack of an overall national transport policy and the means to support it, we have reached the position today where some local authorities, rightly or wrongly, have decided to invest far more heavily in subsidising fares than others. That is not the fault of those local authorities, because hitherto they have felt fully justified in subsidising public transport. The difference has tended to be political, but not entirely. Lancashire county council has a good record of supporting public transport and it invests much money in helping public transport.
      Mr. Marks: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that all the shire counties receive grant under the transport supplementary grant on the understanding that they give concessionary fares? Some of them do not do that but use it to keep down the rates.
      Mr. Fry: This is not the place to discuss the intricacies of the transport supplementary grant. The hon. Gentleman knows my view about the TSG—that it should be much more specific. The way that it has been drawn up hitherto is most unsatisfactory, but that is a subject for another debate.
      My right hon. Friend must put some flesh on the bones of the phrase that I quoted from clause 4. If a national figure must be considered, he should make it clear and, if the Bill is to be successful, he must do it fairly rapidly.
      We are only at the start of even greater Government involvement in the entire public transport and local government scene. One cannot tackle the metropolitan counties and leave all district council undertakings completely on one side. Sooner or later one is bound to be brought into the argument whether a district council should be allowed to subsidise its ratepayers to the extent that a metropolitan county can do so. If we are bringing in legislation to control the worst spenders, my right hon. Friend must investigate how many district councils support public transport. He will find that district councils support

      173
      public transport in many ways, some of them most mysterious. The danger is that the Government are being led into a quagmire, so the sooner that my right hon. Friend sets down clear national guidelines, the easier it will be to take on the difficult task of imposing a national policy on the many different policies undertaken by local authorities.
      I shall support my right hon. Friend tonight, as I supported him on Second Reading, but I hope that he has taken note of some of the warning notes that I have sounded this evening.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: The new clause speaks of the power to make revenue grants being properly exercised. It is extremely important to bring to the attention of the House one local authority which is certainly not exercising its rights in a proper and correct way. That, I am sorry to say, is the West Midlands county council, which has spent about £70,000 on a campaign against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Opposition Members say, "Hear, hear." I wonder how many people who are paying the £70,000 agree with that expenditure.
      Mr. William Wilson: As one of the ratepayers of the West Midlands county council, I can say that one hon. Member in the House supports it.
      Mrs. Knight: It is a poor show indeed if only one of the Members who is a ratepayer of the West Midlands county council supports it. Fortunately it can be said of the hon. Gentleman that he can afford to support a grant of this nature, but it is wrong to use ratepayers' money in this way.
      The campaign leaflet is misleading in every way. Many ratepayers have undoubtedly been conned into believing what the West Midlands county council says in its leaflet. I should like just a few minutes to put the record straight. I hope to show that it is way out of line with the way in which the new clause suggests that revenue should be spent.
      The first thing that the leaflet attempts to tell the ratepayers in my area is that the Bill threatens local bus and train services. It says:
      "if the Bill becomes law Westminster could decide just how much West Midlands County Council could spend on them."
      That is absolute rubbish.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: It is right.
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman really must try to understand what I agree is a complicated matter. It may be beyond him, but he must try to understand it. The Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to tell each of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC—not just my authority—the maximum level of revenue support which the Government are prepared to protect from legal challenge each year. It is not said that they will decide how much the West Midlands county council, or any other council, can spend. The council will have its rights, duties and responsibilities left intact. If, in that framework, councils decide to spend more money, that is for the council to decide. At least it clears up a great deal of confusion under the present law. It does not remove the right of local councils to do what they wish with their money.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: That is not true.
      Mrs. Knight: It is true. I am sorry if Labour Members do not understand. They must read the Bill.
      The second paragraph of the leaflet says:
      "The County Council has told the Government it needs to spend £42 million on buses and trains in the year that begins next April."
      What is really important, surely, is to know how much the council is currently spending. It is no good saying that it has told the Government that it needs to spend £42 million without saying what its current spending is, because that is an important part of the argument.
      The truth is that the planned expenditure on revenue support of £42 million has to be compared with expenditure currently estimated at £28·2 million. To say that one wishes to spend £42 million while the current expenditure is only £28 million is rather a big jump, and the ratepayers have every right to know how much of an increase the West Midlands county council is demanding. It is right and proper that that figure should have been set out in the leaflet, but it is not.
      5.45 pm
      Furthermore, we go on to hear that without that enormous jump
      "Hundreds of jobs of people now working in the bus-building and bus components industry would be lost."
      People must understand that there are claims on public money for services in addition to transport. The Government recognise—and I hope that all hon. Members do—that we must subsidise public transport. It is not the principle of subsidy that is in question, but the amount that the country can afford to subsidise. That is what we are talking about. If we do not understand that we must balance other interests and claims on public money, there will be other problems with regard to local employment. Many businesses will close if they have to pay much more in rates.
      Those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the west midlands know perfectly well that we have a frighteningly large number of factories the roofs of which have been taken off so that the rates do not need to be paid. If one is to demand more and more rates, more and more factories will go out of business.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: The hon. Lady has obviously not sat on the Standing Committee since last November, unlike many hon. Members. As a Member who represents a Birmingham constituency, the hon. Lady must have seen the election addresses that went out at the time of the West Midlands metropolitan county council elections in May 1981. It was specifically stated that the Labour-controlled metropolitan county council would put up rates to bring fares down. That was what the hon. Lady's constituents voted for. That is what they are continuing to tell the hon. Lady they want to see in practice, by sending her hundreds of protests.
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman must not presume to tell me what my constituents mean, because I can tell him that many of my constituents have great problems in meeting their rate demands.
      Another facet of the deceit in this leaflet is that it does not give a clear picture. It says nothing about the rate increase which, per se, is being demanded. The fact that the leaflet threatens further unemployment must be put clearly next to the undoubted truth that if rates continue to rise there will be further unemployment for reasons other than that given.
      Mr. Cryer rose—
      Mrs. Knight: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      It is significant that the organisers of the campaign urge people to cut off the part of the leaflet on which the information is set out. It is no wonder they ask them to do that, because anyone who knows anything about the subject at all will know that the information is misleading. All that they wish Members of Parliament to have are the boxes on the other side ticked. They do not want us to know that people have been conned into ticking boxes on the basis of wrong information.
      Against one of the boxes on the other side are the words:
      "I am against further rises in local bus and rail fares."
      Who is not? "I am against service cuts." "I do not want to pay any more money." "I want fares to be kept down." Those are the comments that one hears. Those who make them must believe in Father Christmas. Where else they think the money is coming from, I do not know.
      I was fascinated to see that one of my constituents had added another box and crossed out the others. Against that box it said:
      "I support the abolition of the West Midlands county council."
      He ticked that box.
      I should like to add two other questions to the form:
      "Do you agree that the West Midlands county council should have spent £70,000 of your money on this campaign?"
      We should then have seen how many people agreed with that. I should also have liked to ask:
      "Are you, as taxpayers and ratepayers, ready to contribute a further £18 million per annum on top of the money that you are already contributing to subsidies for the buses in the West Midlands?"
      We should have the truth if we are to have a campaign of this kind. We do not have an iota of it in this leaflet.
      I finish by saying that I strongly support all subsidised transport, but subsidies cannot be limitless. I recognise that transport must be regarded as a service and that all services must be paid for. What I am trying to do is to make a plea for realism. In doing so we should, without hesitation, vote down the new clause.
      Mr. Booth: I wish to respond to one point made by the Secretary of State. He misrepresented the new clause as a call for unlimited—he used the word unfettered—expenditure by public transport authorities. Our case has been clear. It is that there are hard, important decisions to be taken on issues of transport expenditure and transport policy. They are political decisions, and if there is to be any valuable role for local democracy the extent to which those decisions can be taken in the local political arena must be clearly defined. We should have the courage to say in the House, when we deal with transport legislation, that this is the part of policy that Government will determine, and this is the part that will be determined by local authorities.
      We recognise the right of the Secretary of State under our law to prescribe the amount that we pay by way of transport supplementary grant, but also recognise the right of local authorities to campaign among their electorate for a mandate as to the type of services that should be run in their area, and the amount of ratepayers' money that they should add to the transport supplementary grant provided by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing those services.
      176
      We disagree specifically with the Government about the idea that there should be a part of policy that is outwith the control of Parliament, outwith the control of local government and left to court decisions on the basis of appeals on precepts that are outwith what we believe should be properly defined in legislation as the role of local government.
      Until that is accepted by the Government, we shall continue to have the difficulty of having matters determined in court in a way that makes nonsense of local democracy, of the voting process, and of allowing local people, through a proper democratic framework, to determine the type of service that they should have and that is provided with their public money.
      Mr. David Howell: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), in pressing the new clause, has been candid in explaining his reasons for doing so, and about what he and his right hon. Friends wish. The new clause would certainly allow the authorities concerned to spend up to any level of revenue grant that they chose. He said that he wanted them to campaign for that right to do so, and appeared to endorse the curious view of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) about the rule of law and the role of courts in this country. I wish to say a word or two about that before we end the debate, because it is important to realise the views that are being canvassed about the rule of law, to which we are all subject, however high and mighty, however elected and by whatever mandate we are empowered.
      The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness said that we should let local authorities campaign, or pay under the new clause, any level of revenue grant that they think is right and sensible. The legislation does not stop them doing so. On the other hand, it does not extend the protection against ratepayer challenge to any level of grant, but only to a limit specified by the protected expenditure level.
      With regard to the campaigning, I draw attention to the robust speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). She spoke about the campaigning that she had come across against the Bill and about what it is alleged to do. She was right to point to some of the inaccurate and misleading advertisements. Whatever may be said about advertisements for certain policies, it must be wrong for inaccurate and misleading statements that are calculated to arouse anxiety but that have no basis in fact to be put out at ratepayers' expense. In particular, I refer to the advertisements that claim that the concessionary fares for the elderly, the blind and the disabled are to be threatened by the Bill. Those claims were put out as assertions, paid for by ratepayers, in a number of leaflets in metropolitan authorities. The claims are wholly untrue, as I have said many times, and as I repeat again, and I cannot refute them too often. The Bill does not affect the power of the local authorities to grant concessionary fares.
      It is wrong to claim that the Bill affects that power and it is wrong for local authorities to put out leaflets claiming that there will be large rail and bus fare increases arising from the Bill. It is wrong to say that there are bound to be massive cuts in services, and, above all, it is wrong to say that the Bill is a threat to cheap concessionary fares for the elderly and children. I have been distressed to receive letters, as have other hon. Members, from people who

      177
      have been led by this propaganda to believe that the concessionary fares were to be taken away. That has no basis in fact.
      Mr. Cowans: In balancing the books of a public transport executive, if it becomes necessary to cut services, can the Minister still say that the concessionary fares will not be threatened? A person may be standing at the bus stop with his nice new concessionary fare in his coat pocket, but the bus that he uses may not run any more.
      Mr. Howell: It does not necessarily follow that the services that the elderly, blind and disabled use may be altered under the Bill by the more efficient running of the transport services. Whatever the hon. Member may say, leaflets have been sent out—I do not know whether with his approval or not—claiming that the concessionary fares for the elderly will be threatened, but that is not true and is inaccurate and misleading. However, the leaflets have been sent out by a public authority with ratepayers' money. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will dissociate themselves from this practice. That is the type of campaigning that I hope we would all be against.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) urged me to look beyond the proposal that there should be a protected level of expenditure for metropolitan transport authorities, and sought a more national scheme in which he felt that there should be fewer variations, and more laying down of a reasonable level of support throughout the nation. That is his view, but he knows that I shall not go along with that.
      Local transport decisions about how much support to give in the shire counties or the metropolitan counties are bound to vary. There is bound to be a wide variety of local circumstances which must be properly taken into account. There is, as the Bill describes, a basis upon which the holder of my office seeks to put forward a national view, or a view of the amount of national resources that should be available for total support for local transport. Within that there should be, are bound to be, and properly will be, considerable variations. I would not seek to put too rigid a mould upon those.
      The hon. Member for Wood Green was worried about the role of the courts and the law. I found his remarks curious and slightly chilling, because he clearly has the view that if there be an elected body, whether or not it is a statute-making one—and local authorities are not—once elected it should have the right, and should be allowed, to proceed unimpeded by any challenge in the courts by any person of any locus or standing. That is alien to our democratic tradition.
      6 pm
      I quote the words of Lord Justice Kerr in a recent judgment relating to the GLC and London Transport when he referred to the Wednesbury principle as follows:
      "If an authority misdirects itself in law, or acts arbitrarily on the basis of considerations which lie outside its statutory powers, or so unreasonably that its decisions cannot be justified by any objective standard of reasonableness, then it is the duty and function of the courts to pronounce that such decisions are invalid when these are challenged by anyone aggrieved by them and who has the necessary locus standi to do so".
      That is a fundamental statement of view. It upholds the rights of the individual against authorities, however they may have derived their authority.
      I am amazed that the hon. Member for Wood Green should challenge that proposition or that he should go
      178
      against the proposition put by Lord Justice Watkins in the earlier Bromley judgment in relation to the "Fares Fair" policy which was condemned by many people and which Labour Members supported and said should be restored. It was described as a hasty, ill-considered, unlawful and arbitrary use of power. Those who see a proper place for the rule of law in this country object to it.
      Mr. Race: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish to misrepresent my views. My objection is not to the role of the courts in interpreting the intention of Parliament and the precise form in which the law stands, but to the courts making judgments about what is a fair balance between the ratepayers and the people who use public transport because the courts are not qualified to make such judgments.
      Mr. Howell: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. I see that point. The judgments, from one of which I quoted an extract, direct themselves to the view that the courts are not able to make a judgment as to the precise and right balance between the ratepayer and farepayer. That remains open to challenge by the ratepayer if it is believed that the local authority has not observed its fiduciary duty.
      I thought that the hon. Gentleman said—if it is a misrepresentation, I withdraw it—that the courts should have no part in this matter. The courts and the rule of law have a part in our affairs and in our democracy at every level. I hope that every hon. Member supports that view.
      Mr. Stan Crowther: No one is suggesting that an authority should be immune from legal action if it acts irresponsibly, foolishly and unreasonably. We object to the fact that under the Bill an authority which has acted completely reasonably and responsibly, and which under the present law is protected against action, in accordance with Mr. Justice Woolf's famous judgment in the Merseyside case, will in future be exposed to action because it has exceeded a figure arbitrarily fixed not by Parliament or the courts but by the Secretary of St ate who is taking the law into his own hands.
      Mr. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that reassurance about his views of authorities that act unreasonably in an ill-considered, unlawful and arbitrary way. That is precisely what was happening in the "Fares Fair" case. If hon. Members had recognised that more openly and readily at the time, it would have improved the general debate.
      As for reasonableness and balance in the future, the purpose of the Bill, which would be undermined by the new clause, is to provide a protected level of expenditure within which authorities that act reasonably and seek a balance between the ratepayer and the farepayer will have nothing to fear from a ratepayer's challenge, as in the past they had.
      To some extent, the ratepayer's rights are being reduced but the capacity and ability of a local authority to proceed without fear of legal challenge and in the proper exercise of its powers under clause 5(2) are being strengthened.
      Those are the reasons why I believe that the Bill is right and necessary at this time and will create the greater stability that has been lacking. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness began by referring to those reasons when he talked about the atmosphere of concern in which

      179
      the Bill was introduced. I believe that the House would be wrong to accept the new clause or the amendment and right to reject both of them.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 294.

      Division No. 54]

      [6.4 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Fitt, Gerard

      Adams, Allen

      Flannery, Martin

      Allaun, Frank

      Forrester, John

      Alton, David

      Foster, Derek

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Atkinson, H. (H'gey,)

      Freud, Clement

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      George, Bruce

      Beith, A. J.

      Ginsburg, David

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Golding, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gourlay, Harry

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Graham, Ted

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Grant, John (Islington C)

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

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bradley, Tom

      Hardy, Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Buchan, Norman

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

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

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

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Ian

      Homewood, William

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Horam, John

      Cant, R. B.

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Carmichael, Neil

      Huckfield, Les

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Conlan, Bernard

      John, Brynmor

      Cowans, Harry

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

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

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Crowther, Stan

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kerr, Russell

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lambie, David

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

      Lamond, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leighton, Ronald

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

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

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Deakins, Eric

      Litherland, Robert

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dewar, Donald

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Dixon, Donald

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Dobson, Frank

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dormand, Jack

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Dubs, Alfred

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Dunnett, Jack

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      McKelvey, William

      Eadie, Alex

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Eastham, Ken

      Maclennan, Robert

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

      McMahon, Andrew

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

      McNally, Thomas

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McTaggart, Robert

      English, Michael

      McWilliam, John

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Magee, Bryan

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ewing, Harry

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Field, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      180

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Meacher, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Mikardo, Ian

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stoddart, David

      Morton, George

      Stott, Roger

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Strang, Gavin

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Straw, Jack

      Newens, Stanley

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Ogden, Eric

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Park, George

      Tilley, John

      Parker, John

      Tinn, James

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Torney, Tom

      Pendry, Tom

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Penhaligon, David

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Pitt, William Henry

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Race, Reg

      Wardell, Gareth

      Radice, Giles

      Weetch, Ken

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Richardson, Jo

      Welsh, Michael

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Whitlock, William

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robertson, George

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

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

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Roper, John

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

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Winnick, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Woodall, Alec

      Sever, John

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Wright, Sheila

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Silverman, Julius

      Mr. Norman Hogg.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bright, Graham

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brinton, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Brotherton, Michael

      Ancram, Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Arnold, Tom

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bryan, Sir Paul

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

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

      Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

      Buck, Antony

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Budgen, Nick

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Bendall, Vivian

      Butcher, John

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

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

      Best, Keith

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Blackburn, John

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

      Blaker, Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Body, Richard

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cockeram, Eric

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Bowden, Andrew

      Cope, John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Corrie, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Costain, Sir Albert

      181

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Critchley, Julian

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Crouch, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Knox, David

      Dover, Denshore

      Lamont, Norman

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lang, Ian

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Durant, Tony

      Latham, Michael

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Eggar, Tim

      Lee, John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Loveridge, John

      Farr, John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      MacGregor, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

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

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

      Fox, Marcus

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Madel, David

      Fry, Peter

      Major, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marland, Paul

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Marlow, Antony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Mates, Michael

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Goodlad, Aiastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gow, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Mellor, David

      Greenway, Harry

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Grieve, Percy

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Grist, Ian

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Grylls, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Moate, Roger

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moore, John

      Hannam, John

      Morgan, Geraint

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hawksley, Warren

      Myles, David

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neale, Gerrard

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Needham, Richard

      Heddle, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Henderson, Barry

      Newton, Tony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Hicks, Robert

      Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hill, James

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Osborn, John

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Hooson, Tom

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Hordern, Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parris, Matthew

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

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Pollock, Alexander

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Porter, Barry

      Jessel, Toby

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      182

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tapsell, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Renton, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Thompson, Donald

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Trippier, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Trotter, Neville

      Rossi, Hugh

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Rost, Peter

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Viggers, Peter

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Waddington, David

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Wakeham, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Shersby, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Silvester, Fred

      Walters, Dennis

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Smith, Dudley

      Watson, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Speed, Keith

      Wheeler, John

      Speller, Tony

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Spence, John

      Whitney, Raymond

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sproat, Iain

      Wilkinson, John

      Squire, Robin

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Stainton, Keith

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stanley, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stevens, Martin

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Stokes, John

      Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      MAKING AND RETENTION OF SURPLUS BY A PTE
      '(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers of an Executive and of an Authority as the case may be—

      (a) so to arrange the affairs of the Executive and any of its subsidiaries as to achieve a surplus of revenues to aid the efficient operation of the Executive during such period as they determine to be appropriate and

      (b) to retain any such surplus or proportion of such surplus as is referred to in (a) above for use for such purpose and at such time as they think fit.

      (2) Where any Executive retains such surplus as is mentioned in (b) above, the Secretary of State in giving guidance under section 4 above shall not be entitled to take into account the amount of any such surplus.'. — [Mr. Robert Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the position with regard to reserves in local authority accounts in relation to transport matters. It is perfectly normal for surpluses to be set aside from time to time for expenditure at some unspecified time in the future. Many undertakings, especially transport undertakings, are extremely prudent in putting surpluses in reserve for the future acquisition of plant or equipment or to take care of

      183
      their capital account. That is a perfectly prudent way in which to proceed and one would expect it to achieve the Secretary of State's approval.
      The Bill as drafted, however, seems to be deficient in relation to the way in which surpluses can be used. Indeed, it is not even clear that surpluses may be set aside for future use. As we understand the Bill, if a surplus is built up over a 12-month period it must be spent within the following 12 months. It seems unreasonable that a passenger transport undertaking should have no control at all over its reserves and no ability to plan its accounts.
      The difficulty is that as a result of the disclosure provisions in the Bill the Secretary of State will know the state of the accounts of the PTA or PTE concerned. It will thus be open to him to intervene with regard to the use of reserves.
      I shall not go through the whole Bill but it is clear that the Secretary of State is not simply taking a general power to say what he thinks expenditure levels should be; he is taking the power to intervene in every aspect of local government transport policy. He is taking the right to interfere directly with the running of the executive and the judgments of the PTA. That is wholly wrong. If he believes, as he seems to, in local authorities acting reasonably and sensibly, he should give them the powers to do that.
      I envisage circumstances in which an authority may have built up a reserve for any purpose, but the Secretary of State will have considerable powers through the Bill to tell it how to use those reserves, irrespective of whether that is what it wants. He will issue guidance to local authorities. As they must take it into account, if they refuse his advice, the PTA or the PTE might be challenged in the courts.
      If new clause 2 is accepted, it will be clear that an executive will be empowered to achieve a surplus, to retain it and, where a surplus is repaid, the Secretary of State will not be entitled to take account of that surplus in his figures when he issues guidance. The new clause is eminently sensible. I can see no reason why the Secretary of State should refuse to accept it and I therefore commend it to the House.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I gave the Government's reaction to new clause 2 and the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I shall try to reply in straightforward and commonsense terms to the hon. Gentleman's points.
      Executives are able to create a reserve if they wish to use surpluses, although they would be doing that at the ratepayers' expense. If that reserve were used to support revenue expenditure, such expenditure would have to be authorised under the plan and come within the protected expenditure level.
      The main purpose of new clause 2 and the redefined financial duty is to strengthen the financial disciplines of the executive to operate commercially. The fault with the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that new clause 2 would undermine that necessary financial discipline. It would enable the executive to use ratepayers' money to build up a surplus which could then be used for any purpose that it thought fit.
      Mr. Cowans: New clause 2 is reasonable. Before the Under-Secretary of State for Transport spoke, I thought that it would go through with the speed of light, judging from the speeches of some Conservative Members.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that it was right and proper that local authorities should be able to spend their own money. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), much of whose speech I agreed with, made a strong plea for standard concessionary fares and for local authorities to use their finances in their own areas according to need. As an ex-local authority man, I agree with what he said, but the hon. Members for Edgbaston and Wellingborough voted with the Government.
      Life is made difficult when one thing is said in the Chamber—the version that is read outside—but when it comes to a Division the diametrically opposite view is presented. It is nonsensical when hon. Members allegedly support a course of action in the House, but when the chips are down, they ensure that that course of action cannot take place. I have heard of people riding two horses at the same time, but that is ridiculous.
      The Minister has a chance to get off the hook. New clause 2 is eminently reasonable and ties in nicely with new clause 1 which the Government did not have the sense to support. New clause 1 provided for when a local authority was forced by the Government to go to the market to borrow. The only solution to a contingency that the Secretary of State could provide was to borrow. If the Secretary of State believes that it is good business to go to the market at an especially bad time when it makes more economic sense to use the capital that one already has, I suggest that the business men and women are on this side of the House and not, as is often said, on the Conservative Benches.
      It seems that the Secretary of State wants it both ways, the Bill could become an Act that remains in force for the next 100 years. That is often forgotten. If a local authority manages its affairs so that it can achieve a surplus, it seems abundantly sensible that that surplus should be utilised for the benefit of the people in the community whence it came, in the form, for example, of concessionary fares which the hon. Member for Wellingborough mentioned.
      What will happen if a prudent authority manages, even within this nonsense of a Bill, to make a surplus? The Secretary of State will immediately claw it back. Where is the incentive in that for any local authority to make a surplus?
      The Secretary of State has the audacity to stand up as the champion of the ratepayers. The only ratepayers that we hear about from Conservative Members are industrial ratepayers. Time and again it is the industrial ratepayers, not the domestic ones, whose case has been made by Conservative Members. It is always the industrial ratepayer who is disfranchised and does not have the "dough". We hear little about the other people called domestic ratepayers.
      6.30 pm
      The new clause provides an opportunity to redress the balance. If the Minister of State went to his industrial ratepayers—he might mention it casually to the domestic ratepayers too—he might find that they agreed with the new clause. If a surplus accumulated by an authority was ploughed back into its transport undertaking, it could provide a better transport system; industries might

      185
      therefore have more customers and they would make better profits. Does that not make sense? The Secretary of State says that if an authority makes a surplus he will penalise it and claw back the surplus under the protected expenditure level. No local authority would have an incentive to make a surplus.
      The proposal of the Minister is nonsense in anybody's terms. It is not good commercial practice. It is the same as saying to an industry which gets a grant from the Government to build a factory that if it is successful they will take back the grant out of the overall surplus. The Government do not do that. Why, therefore, would it not be sensible to treat transport authorities in the same way?
      I do not see why the Government cannot accept the new clause. It would not destroy the intent behind the Bill. I oppose the whole Bill. Unfortunately, my hon. Friends and I find ourselves in the tragic situation of trying to make something better out of patent nonsense. I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I am renowned in the House for my brevity, although I might lose that record quickly.
      If a local authority made a surplus, it could, by budgeting sensibly, restore many of the things that the Secretary of State has taken away. It could reintroduce children's fares at a level less than that laid down by the Secretary of State. Many businesses invest their surpluses. By the new clause we want a local authority to have the right to invest any surplus within the community from which it came. Surely that is reasonable. I cannot see that it destroys the political dogma with which the Bill is invested.
      If a local authority knew that it could use a surplus within its area, that would be a great incentive. For instance, a local authority might introduce a concessionary free travel system such as is operated in Tyne and Wear.
      Because section 15(3) of the Transport Act 1968 is to be phased out, which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) knows all about, some of the things which would have been provided under it might be provided out of a surplus, giving the community a much better service. It might be possible to have advanced technology which might not be submitted under the protected expenditure level but which was desirable within the area. Surely that would be sound practice.
      The tragedy of the Bill is that, far from protecting the industrial ratepayer, which the Secretary of State imagines it will do, the opposite will be the case. Instead of a surplus being used for the benefit of the industries which have paid the rates, it will be taken back by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That will do nothing for the industrial ratepayers within that area: it will not do much for the Chancellor of the Exchequer because what was a large amount for the community from which it came would be peanuts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      One could argue that this proposal does not make a major political point but it would restore to local authorities two things taken away by the Secretary of State: first, the incentive to make a surplus which could be invested in the community and, secondly and most important, the power for a local authority to make decisions in the interests of the community without the heavy dead hand of the Secretary of State being placed upon it. Local authorities would welcome that. I am amazed that the Minister does not welcome it. If he sent the proposal to the Confederation of British Industry, it might say that it would be good practice. Perhaps that is why he would not send it to that body.
      Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Much would depend on how surpluses were utilised. I want to draw attention to how some of the loss has been made through the distribution by West Midlands county council of this infamous pink pamphlet. On the admission of the council the pamphlet has cost ratepayers £73,308, for printing, distribution, putting on hoardings and many items which are not specified. This was done on the ratepayers' behalf, so-called.
      One million of these documents and advertisements in the press have enjoined my constituents and other constituents in the west midlands, at my expense as a west midlands ratepayer, to save local buses and trains on four grounds. People are asked to agree with these statements:
      "I am against further rises in local bus and rail fares.
      I do not want service cuts—that would cause me considerable problems.
      I object to the Transport Bill in its present form. I would like to see more public money made available to support public transport in the West Midlands."
      Those are the four loaded statements which this infamous document puts to ratepayers. If money accumulated under the provisions of the new clause turned into a surplus, it might be spent in this manner. It is upon these grounds that I maintain that the spending of the surplus by the local authority would be out of order.
      My constituents have said several things about the pamphlet. One of them said:
      "I support the view that we would be well rid of the West Midlands county council and their wasteful spending ways."
      The council has probably spent over £100,000, with indirect costs. We have argued in the House whether it is right or proper for the Government to spend £1 million on propaganda. Here is an example of at least one-tenth of that sum having been spent without reference to the public, from either surpluses or losses. Therefore, surpluses accumulated, if any—to date the West Midlands transport authority has been dealing only in losses—could be used in that offensive manner.
      Another constituent wrote:
      "I read the attached with increasing anger. We as individuals, manufacturing industry and a country cannot afford luxuries, which include excessive subsidies. Please do all you can to prevent those 'lunatics' at county hall increasing rates for 'political' purposes.
      I recently commuted to work on the Birmingham bus system, clean, fast, efficient but no passengers! Keep up the good work. The medicine is not palatable—but it is curing the patient."
      Another constituent, objected strongly in similar terms to ratepayers' money being spent, whether out of surpluses, as would happen if the clause were passed, or out of accumulated losses. Therefore, to support that policy the county council will raise fares by about £15 million. A fine against it of £25 million will be encouraged. Therefore, there will be an increase in costs of about £40 million because of the campaign, which will wipe out the proposed rate reduction of 12½ per cent. to be made by the district council. Of that £15 million reduction proposed by the district council, £4 million would have been invested in education and would have led to many people being employed as teachers.
      Mr. Cowans: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He seems to be deriding the West Midlands county council's leaflet. If he wants to do so, that is his prerogative. Will he explain the difference between the West Midlands county council sending a

      187
      leaflet to its electorate and the Secretary of State sending a letter to my constituents? The only difference is that at least in the council's leaflet there were little boxes so that people could show what they thought. There were none in the Secretary of State's letter, which was produced at the taxpayers' expense.
      Mr. Bevan: There was also a letter sent out in July by the Secretary of State inviting all local authorities to discuss his Bill. The reaction from the hon. Gentleman's authority and every other authority was nil. No one came forward during that long period until the issue of the Bill and the White Paper. The authorities did not bother to discuss it or suggest the amendments that are now being moved. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I and others are extremely sceptical about the Opposition's new clauses.
      Another of my constituents, objecting to the infamous documents that were issued at such colossal cost to the ratepayer without his knowledge, said that he was ashamed at the enclosed leaflet and felt that it was inappropriate that it should be issued. He had not completed the form and did not intend to do so. He thought that the use of public money in this way was outrageous.
      6.45 pm
      If that was the way in which any accumulated surpluses were spent by either the authority or the executive, all Conservative Members would have to vote accordingly against the amendment.
      Out of the circulation of about 50,000 leaflets to my constituents, about 150 have been returned. Another 90 have been returned with names in a long list, but without addresses. Out of the 150, at least 26 have been returned in which some of the four boxes have not been filled in, or none. The questions in the leaflet are not synonymous. One cannot be both against rises in local bus and rail fares and not want service cuts. Many people have not signed one or the other of wanting service cuts or objecting to the Bill in its present form. If that is the reaction of my 50,000 constituents, with only 100 of them bothering to fill in the form, many of them objecting and only partially filling in the forms—
      Mr. Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to read out letters of this nature? I have received a petition signed by 150,000 people who are diametrically opposed to the Government's proposals. I shall not attempt to read out all their letters. I should welcome your ruling.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): There is nothing out of order in what I have heard so far.
      Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to read out anything like 150,000 letters.
      The fact is that my constituents could not be bothered to fill in the forms after the West Midlands county council had spent over £73,000 in issuing them. Those who bothered to write letters nearly universally condemned what had been done. One takes seriously the points that they made, especially that of a lady who described herself as possessing only two bicycles as a means of transport. She said:
      "I support the view that we would be well rid of the West Midlands county council and their wasteful spending ways."
      188
      Therefore when I answer the handful of people who bothered to fill in the forms I shall bear in mind new clause 2, which proposes that an executive should spend its surpluses as it likes. Under the present administration in the west midlands there is a glaring example of how a transport authority spends its losses, to the detriment of the ratepayers and the travelling public.
      Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State carefully to consider the leaflets, which were framed with loaded questions, to see what action he can take, contrary to the action suggested in the new clause 2, which will prevent that frivolous and deceitful way of spending ratepayers' money.
      Mr. Race: When the hon. Gentleman replies to his constituents, as well as having his little tirade against the West Midlands county council, will he mention that his Government are spending £18,000 million of taxpayers' money on supporting 3½ million people in idleness?
      Mr. Bevan: There was a reference to that matter in Prime Minister's Question Time today, when my right hon. Friend pointed out that it was the Labour Government who set the precedent of spending taxpayers' money to support publicity campaigns. However, I have no more to say about that.
      We must view with great scepticism the import of clauses such as new clause 2, which purports to apportion money in the way in which an authority would wish. Therefore, I shall support the Government in opposing the new clause.
      Mr. Cryer: It takes one's breath away to hear a Conservative Member object to expenditure by the West Midlands county council on explaining the position to their constituents and asking for a response when that same Government supporter was no doubt bellowing out support for and affirmation of the proposal of the Secretary of States for Defence to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money—not £70,000—on a campaign of spurious defence propaganda which would be better entered, in my view, in the electoral returning officer's books as election expenditure this year.
      Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Member agree that in the instance he cites there is debate about whether the money should be spent in the future whereas in the instance that I have brought forward the money has already been spent without reference to the ratepayers?
      Mr. Cryer: All I can say is that I am pleased that the Government have been caught out because, if not, the money would have been spent long ago. I am pleased that the criticisms we have raised have stopped what is not a carefully prepared assessment to which the public are asked to respond but a political propaganda campaign which the Secretary of State for Defence is trying to mount with the aid of a slick advertising organisation such as Saatchi and Saatchi.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend is wrong. If it were Saatchi and Saatchi, there might be some point in the exercise. Is he not aware that it is going to J. Walter Thompson, an American firm? The Prime Minister says that we should buy British, but the Government are to give £1 million to an American advertising agency.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We seem to be straying from the subject of the new clause to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will now address his remarks.
      Mr. Cryer: I am coming straight to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mentioned a public relations campaign run by a firm "like" Saatchi and Saatchi because I know that that is not the firm involved.
      If an executive or an authority were able to use a surplus, it would help the campaign to buy British. If it had a surplus and felt, in the absence of bus grants, for example, which are being phased out, that it wanted to replace some of the fleet, it might well help Metro Cammell Weyman in the con-stituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), which badly needs the orders.
      In Committee I pointed out that Bristol buses were making Leyland, having phased out the make of Bristol. A couple of days ago came the announcement that Bristol was closing down. It would be very helpful if PTAs had the right to spend surpluses on new vehicles and perhaps help to finance new developments in transport by this means.
      What I find amazing is any suggestion that the Government should not accept this new clause. For instance, the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has been forced by Government fiat to bring forward from the reserves—in effect, the surplus of past years—nearly £4 million in order to finance the support for the bus services which it wants to give in 1983–84. In spite of being able to do that, the authority will still have to raise fares to make up a difference of £10 million between the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State and the expenditure which the passenger transport authority wishes to incur in order to maintain bus services in West Yorkshire. The Government have forced it to cut back, but in order to preserve the services at their bare minimum they have had to use a past surplus.
      It seems eminently reasonable that the new clause should be accepted by the Government to allow local authorities to do just that sort of thing because, as has been pointed out time and time again in Committee, if local authorities are not allowed to finance services in this sort of way services will be cut, services such as those to hospitals and those in rural areas. It is very reasonable, therefore, for a passenger transport authority to examine its resources and see how best it can keep those services going.
      In these circumstances, a surplus could be used whilst being disregarded by the Secretary of State in his calculation of the degree of support. It is extraoridinary that the Secretary of State has approved the action of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council in using a surplus in this fashion, when all this is doing is putting into primary legislation the administrative approval of the Department of Transport. That means greater parliamentary accountability, which I would consider a positive step forward, rather than simply leaving matters to be decided in Whitehall. It would give the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council the right to allocate its funds instead of having to go cap in hand to the Department to ask for permission. If this Bill gets through, that cap-in-hand process will be repeated time and again because the essence of this legislation is that Whitehall knows best.
      Mr. Cowans: The situation is worse because if this new clause is not carried then the Secretary of State can be very selective as to where he makes a decision. The new clause would prevent that political selection.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the case of West Yorkshire, for example, the bus services are
      190
      financed from fare revenue to the tune of over 70 per cent. It may well be that, for historic reasons, the Secretary of State will accept that as reasonable. West Yorkshire wants to move towards greater support so that fares fall rather than rise, so that greater use is made of buses and so that there are more opportunities for people to travel. However, the Secretary of State will undoubtedly attack the real pillars of achievement in passenger transport such as South Yorkshire, which has given significant support to bus services for a number of years. This is accepted by the electorate of that area and it has resulted in superb low-fare bus services which are widely used and appreciated by working men and women and their families.
      If the clause is not accepted, the Secretary of State will be able to bring selective political judgment to bear against those Labour-controlled local authorities that are carrying out Labour policy with obvious success both at elections and in greater numbers of people using the services. This is clear evidence of the success of Labour's transport policy. This is what the Secretary of State wishes to stop. If this new clause is not passed then he will use his powers selectively and, in my view, vindictively against Labour-controlled authorities.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: One wonders whether Ministers actually read the speeches that they deliver before or after they have delivered them. In the many hours we have spent in Committee, on almost every amendment and in almost every debate—the same has happened today—we have been advised that local authorities should follow good commercial practice in transport. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) nodding his head in agreement. Yet when we have a new clause which actually puts the PTA in the position of behaving in a good, sound, commercial fashion, we find it is not allowed to do so. Every reasonable commercial organisation that I know builds up a reserve as a contingency fund against unexpected costs or to buy capital equipment in the future. That is over and above the proper procedure in a commercial company of running a depreciation account. That is good commercial practice. However, that is not what the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State says. The Under-Secretary of State says that if the new clause is accepted it will weaken the local authority's financial discipline, but it will do the very reverse It seeks to strengthen the financial discipline of the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive.
      7 pm
      I do not understand why a passenger transport authority or metropolitan county is singled out and cannot have reserves. In general, local authorities are entitled to build up reserves and to use them as they think fit. The dead hand of the Secretary of State is to touch every aspect of local authority transport policy.
      We should at least be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for making it perfectly clear that the passenger transport authority or the passenger transport executive cannot carry reserves. Before this debate, there was some doubt about the ability to carry them, but the situation is now clear. The Under-Secretary of State said that an authority could build up a surplus during a financial year but that when setting the protected expenditure level for the next financial year, he would deduct the amount of the reserves. I should explain that the protected expenditure

      191
      level is the amount of money that the Secretary of State believes that a local authority should provide in rate support for transport services.
      The Under-Secretary of State cannot say that the money can be held in reserve, but that it will then be taken away and that the authority will be open to challenge in court for having the temerity to hold a reserve. It could be prejudicial to the ratepayer's interest to hold a reserve. The Secretary of State wants authorities not to keep money in reserve and to accrue some income from the interest, but to borrow money at the excessive rates of interest that have existed under this Government. That cannot be in the ratepayer's interest. If it is a particularly bad winner and an authority has excessive costs to bear, it cannot hold a reserve to deal with such a contingency. It must expend the reserve and then borrow money. The only person to benefit from borrowing is the moneylender. Indeed, we all know the Government's great respect for moneylenders.
      Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government are trying to put metropolitan county councils on exactly the same footing as Argentina so that they have to borrow Government money to prop them up, just as the Government are propping up Argentina.
      Mr. Hughes: I can understand why the Argentines incurred the Prime Minister's wrath. However, I do not know what the metropolitan counties have done to incur her wrath and to be treated in the same way. All responsibility is being taken from them.
      It has been shown time after time that local authorities do not have the last word. The first, middle and last words all rest with the Secretary of State and with his determination of what a local authority and passenger transport authority can do. They are not allowed to carry reserves. That shows how he is interfering in local democracy. I invite the House to support the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes.228, Noes 288

      Division No. 55]

      [7.4 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Carmichael, Neil

      Adams, Allen

      Cartwright, John

      Allaun, Frank

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Alton, David

      Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Anderson, Donald

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Coleman, Donald

      Ashton, Joe

      Conlan, Bernard

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

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

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Crowther, Stan

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Cryer, Bob

      Beith, A. J.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Davidson, Arthur

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

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Bradley, Tom

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

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Deakins, Eric

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

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

      Dewar, Donald

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Dixon, Donald

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dobson, Frank

      Buchan, Norman

      Dormand, Jack

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Dubs, Alfred

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Campbell, Ian

      Dunnett, Jack

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Cant, R. B.

      Eadie, Alex

      192

      Eastham, Ken

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      English, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Harry

      Morton, George

      Faulds, Andrew

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Field, Frank

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Fitch, Alan

      Newens, Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Forrester, John

      Ogden, Eric

      Foster, Derek

      O' Halloran, Michael

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

      O'Neill, Martin

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Freud, Clement

      Park, George

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Parker, John

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Parry, Robert

      George, Bruce

      Penhaligon, David

      Ginsburg, David

      Pitt, William Henry

      Golding, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Race, Reg

      Graham, Ted

      Radice, Giles

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Richardson, Jo

      Hardy, Peter

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Robertson, George

      Haynes, Frank

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

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

      Rooker, J. W.

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

      Roper, John

      Home Robertson, John

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Homewood, William

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Horam, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Sever, John

      Huckfield, Les

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      John, Brynmor

      Silverman, Julius

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Snape, Peter

      Kerr, Russell

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Lambie, David

      Stallard, A. W.

      Lamond, James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Leighton, Ronald

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Stoddart, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stott, Roger

      Litherland, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Straw, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Tilley, John

      McKelvey, William

      Tinn, James

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Torney, Tom

      Maclennan, Robert

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      McNally, Thomas

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      McWilliam, John

      Warden, Gareth

      Magee, Bryan

      Weetch, Ken

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wellbeloved, James

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Welsh, Michael

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Whitlock, William

      Maxton, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      193

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

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Wright, Sheila

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Woodall, Alec

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Mr. Harry Cowans.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Alexander, Richard

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Farr, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Ancram, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Arnold, Tom

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

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

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

      Forman, Nigel

      Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fry, Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Best, Keith

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Gorst, John

      Blackburn, John

      Gow, Ian

      Blaker, Peter

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Body, Richard

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Greenway, Harry

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grieve, Percy

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grist, Ian

      Bright, Graham

      Grylls, Michael

      Brinton, Tim

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

      Hawksley, Warren

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Budgen, Nick

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Heddle, John

      Butcher, John

      Henderson, Barry

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Hill, James

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

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

      Hooson, Tom

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clegg, Sir Walter

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

      Cockeram, Eric

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Cope, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Corrie, John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Critchley, Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Crouch, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Dover, Denshore

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Durant, Tony

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Knox, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Lamont, Norman

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lang, Ian

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Latham, Michael

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      194

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Lee, John

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Rost, Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Loveridge, John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lyell, Nicholas

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      MacGregor, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M,

      Shersby, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Silvester, Fred

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

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Smith, Dudley

      Madel, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Major, John

      Speed, Keith

      Marland, Paul

      Speller, Tony

      Marlow, Antony

      Spence, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mates, Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Squire, Robin

      Maw by, Ray

      Stainton, Keith

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stan brook, Ivor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanley, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stevens, Martin

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Stokes, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Moore, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Morgan, Geraint

      Thompson, Donald

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Trippier, David

      Myles, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Neale, Gerrard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Needham, Richard

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Neubert, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Waddington, David

      Normanton, Tom

      Wakeham, John

      Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Osborn, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Waller, Gary

      Parris, Matthew

      Walters, Dennis

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Watson, John

      Pawsey, James

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wheeler, John

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Pollock, Alexander

      Whitney, Raymond

      Porter, Barry

      Wickenden, Keith

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Wilkinson, John

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rathbone, Tim

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Renton, Tim

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      INTERPRETATION OF PART I
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'in England or Wales'.—[Mr. Eyre.]
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
      '"revenues" includes sums received by way of revenue grants, payments made in accordance with the power contained in section 138 of the Act of 1968 or section 40 of the Act of 1969.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Hughes: It is important to note the way in which the amendment has been drafted. The comma is important, because it seeks to make it clear that revenue grants are distinct from payments made in accordance with the powers under section 138 of the 1968 Act or section 40 of the 1969 Act—those being the sections under which payments can be made for concessionary fares.
      One reason why we need a proper definition of the word "revenues" is that the Government failed to define it properly when they originally drafted the Bill. As we are dealing with a Bill that seeks to clarify the law, we wonder how much it does that when a basic concept such as revenues cannot be properly defined in primary legislation. It does not say much for the Government's control over the parliamentary draftsmen or their scrutiny of Bills presented to the House. They should have produced a Bill that adequately defined "revenues".
      We understand that payments made for concessionary fares must appear somewhere in the accounts of a PTE. They cannot be left out—for bookkeeping purposes, if for no other. If they do not appear, the accounts will not balance. The difficulty is that once the payments for concessionary fares are brought into the accounts, how will they be protected from threat or attack?
      The Government have repeated ad nauseam that nothing in the Bill affects concessionary fares for the elderly, children and young persons, the blind and the disabled. We believe that the Bill is a threat to concessionary fares and, indeed, to the services to those for whose benefit there is a payment on concessionary fares.
      In the first instance, there will be pressure on the PTA's budget by the Secretary of State's setting of the protected expenditure level. If payments on concessionary fares are regarded as grants, the Secretary of State will have an influence on the amount of money provided for concessionary fares. I understand and accept in good faith that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention directly to influence the amount of money that can be paid for concessionary fares, but, nevertheless, the actions that he will take under the Bill will squeeze local authority funds for concessionary fares.
      No one in the House or in the country is beguiled by the Secretay of State's statement that he is seeking to clarify the law for local authorities. That is not the purpose. The aim of the Bill—the Secretary of State has been clear about it—is to compel the PTAs to push up fares. The purpose is to cut the amount of money they give to revenue support, which, if it is done, means that they must increase the fares. That is his intention. If fares are
      196
      increased, and since in many cases the support for concessionary fares is paid by district councils, it will mean that the higher the fares the greater the amount of money the district council will have to find. The concessionary fare is decided at a certain level, and the difference between that level and the scheduled bus fare must be met by someone or other. If that money is increased, it must come from somewhere.
      We are not dealing with transport in isolation from what is happening in other local authority services. Under the fiduciary scheme of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, who has been now transposed to Defence—heaven help us—local authority finances are being squeezed as every year goes by. They are severely limited in the amount of money that they can spend. If they are under threat, they are bound to ask, "Can we afford the amount of concessionary fares?" That is one way in which the authorities could be squeezed.
      The Secretary of State could say that in his view the amount of concessionary fares is too low. He need not say that he has no right to advise or guide the PTAs or the PTEs in that matter, because clearly he has. The Bill says that they must take into account any guidance that he gives them on any matter. Clause 4(6) states:
      "The matters by reference to which the guidance of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above may be given shall include—

      (a) what appears to him to be the appropriate national level of expenditure by Authorities on revenue grants;

      (b) the benefits which would result from the making of such grants; and

      (c) the levels of present and past expenditure by the Authority on such grants;"

      The Secretary of State will be able to interfere with everything that a PTA seeks to do and every policy decision that it seeks to make. As one of the major policy decisions that it will have under review is the level of concessionary fares, we believe that as long as it is not clear that payments under section 138 or section 40 are separate from the protected expenditure level, again, the dead hand of the Secretary of State will fall and will compel the reduction, if not the eventual elimination, of concessionary fares.
      I know that the Secretary of State has objected to and that some of his hon. Friends have shown considerable ingenuity in remaining in order by quoting, leaflets that have been distributed, but we are not scaremongering on this issue. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State can tell a PTA that its concessionary fare is too low and that it is not generating revenue from pensioners or the blind and disabled. If that advice is given and is challenged in the courts, it may be that that advice will be the difference between a PTA being within the law and outwith the law.
      Amendment No. 2 would remove the threat to concessionary fares. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to make a name for himself, protect the good name and reputation of his Government and accept our amendment.
      Mr. Eyre: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke as he did about concessionary fares. On many occasions in Committee we discussed this matter at great length and it has been explained many times to the hon. Gentleman that concessionary fares are not affected by the Bill.
      Anxiety has been expressed that concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled will have to be withdrawn as a consequence of the Bill. Tyne and Wear county council, in a misleading leaflet given to members of the public, has

      197
      claimed that concessionary fares are threatened by the Bill. That must have caused great concern among the elderly and disabled. The remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North this evening come into that category because they, too, will cause concern. The allegation is completely untrue.
      I should like to make the position clear once and for all. The powers under which authorities pay for the concessions for the elderly and disabled are not affected by the Bill. The Government fully accept the need for concessionary fares. That is why, when the power of the GLC to provide concessionary fares was thrown in doubt by the House of Lords judgment, the Government took immediate steps to provide it with the necessary powers.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister is reading from a six-month-old brief when he says that the Government took immediate action. The Government did not take immediate action. When the Opposition said that the House of Lords decision threw into question the ability of the GLC to make concessionary fares, it was denied time after time and only when pressed did the Government fianlly introduce legislation. We applauded the Government when they did so but they did not do it immediately.
      Mr. Eyre: I shall not go over the history with the hon. Gentleman but the Government moved rapidly to deal with the problem in London and introduced legislation specially to correct the position. I maintain that my claim was altogether fair.
      We have drafted the Bill so that it does not affect the powers of authorities to provide concessionary fares. Payments by authorities for concessions under existing powers will remain entirely a matter for the authorities. These are social payments aided by the Government to the rate support grant system. They are therefore not eligible for transport supplementary grant. There will be no need for authorities to change their concessionary fares on account of the Bill.
      Tyne and Wear's document was a deplorable effort. The way in which the document alleges publicly that the Bill will mean the end of concessionary travel for senior citizens, the blind and the disabled is completely misleading and inaccurate. I should like to refer more specifically to the amendment.
      7.30 pm
      Miss Maynard: The point we are trying to make is that concessionary fares are part of the local authority's expenditure. The question of subsidy is obviously part of that consideration. The Bill will establish guidelines under which concessionary fares may well be affected.
      Mr. Eyre: This matter was discussed a number of times in Committee. I would not accuse the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) of using weasel words. The hon. Lady is, however, expressing an unreasonable concern. I have emphasised that concession-ary fares and the arrangements about them are outside the Bill and are not affected by the Bill. They are social payments which are supported by the rate support grant. Payments of money in that respect are outside the protected expenditure level to which the hon. Lady was referring. They provide funds additional to the protected expenditure level.
      The purpose of the Bill is to clarify the law and to stabilise the situation by creating an area of certainty for
      198
      transport expenditure, thereby freeing local authorities from the danger of challenge in the courts in respect of that area of certainty. The Bill gives an opportunity for consistency and for the provision of transport services on a stabilised basis. This is as much in the interests of the elderly and the disabled as of any other group of passengers. I reassure the hon. Lady as strongly as I can that the fears which she has expressed are not justified and that the Bill does not affect concessionary fares.
      The amendment is unnecessary and unwise. The revenues of an executive include all payments properly credited to the revenue account. The term "revenues" clearly includes payment for services provided to the elderly and disabled mentioned in the amendment. If we start identifying particular payments as being part of the revenues, we shall cause confusion, not remove it. It would cast doubt on the status of items that are not mentioned, of which there are many.
      I should now like to refer to Government amendment No. 3. The Government promised in Committee, in response to concern expressed by Opposition Members, to table an amendment on Report to remove any possibility of uncertainty that revenue grants, as defined in clause 1, are part of the executive's revenue. The grants are part of the revenue for the purpose of the new financial duty. This is normal accounting practice. Such treatment has always been our intention. We promised to remove any uncertainty. I hope that Opposition Members find the clarification helpful.
      Mr. Booth: One can understand why the Under-Secretary of State argues that the provision of concessionary fares covered by section 138 is outwith the protected expenditure limit. In the strictest of legal terms, that is so. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot elevate that argument into a claim that the Bill sustains and stabilises the provision of concessionary fare services. It is clear from the guidance already issued by the Secretary of State that those metropolitan authorities that have offered the best concessionary fare services to people within their areas who need them will be those that will have their revenue grant support most severely restricted.
      I take South Yorkshire as an example. It has a record of expanding services and a substantial payment for operating concessionary fares. It is clear, according to the definition of revenue in amendment No. 2, that those keeping the books of the passenger transport executive must include within revenue the payments made under section 138 for concessionary fares. While payments of revenue grant, subject to the PEL, will be an additional or separate item on the income side, the ability of the PTE to run the services required, including those for people who pay concessionary fares, is controlled to a substantial degree—I would argue to a crucial degree—by the total amount of revenue grant.
      It does not matter whether the revenue grant contains the section 138 payments within its definition. What is far more important is that the total revenue available to the PTE to run services should be stabilised, maintained or expanded. It has been made clear by the Secretary of State that he has no intention of sustaining that overall figure in the operation of the Bill if it becomes an Act. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will cut the figure. He intends to slash it. There will be only a limited number of options open to those authorities placed in this situation.

      199
      One option will be to cut the services to a point where they could be sustained with reduced revenue under current fares policy. That will, of course, strike at concessionary fare users. They will suffer from the drop in service levels. Another option will be to attempt to press up fares to try to recover the loss of revenue grant. However, all the evidence suggests that there will be such a drop in ridership among travellers who do not benefit from concessionary fares that authorities, like others that have attempted to follow this course, will be forced into a cycle of cutting services.
      The issue before the House is not one of narrow legal definition. When metropolitan authorities say to those living in the area—in my view, justifiably—that the services for concessionary farepayers are at risk, this is not because the Government are including, within their definition of revenue grant, matters that exclude section 138 payments, but because the authorities are far more concerned about the practical issue of their ability to maintain the services. It is undeniable that, under this legislation, the ability to maintain services, especially by those metropolitan authorities with the best record, must be gravely undermined, weakened and, in many cases, reduced to such an extent that they will not be able to retain those services.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: I want to reinforce a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I am sure that the Minister will recognise its particular significance in the west midlands and his constituency. He will know that during the reduced fares period, before the West Midlands High Court case, there was a study of the increase in ridership during that period. It was a study not just of the increase in ridership occasioned directly by the decrease in fares, but of the increase in ridership because of the 2p concessionary fare that had been made available to children and old-age pensioners.
      I take it that the Minister has read that study. It was done by two interested academics from the university of Aston in Birmingham. It established clearly that it is not just the overall decrease in fares that is important in attracting an increase in overall ridership, but that a big increase in ridership is occasioned by childrens' and old-age pensioners' concessions. He has the evidence from the west midlands to prove that.
      I do not want to go into all the comments made in that survey, but it shows—if I may use an economist's phrase—that the elasticity of the demand is high with old-age pensioners and children's concessionary fares. There is evidence to show that with a small reduction in fares there is a big increase in ridership.
      If my right hon. Friends and I are perhaps a little too assiduous, in the Minister's eyes, in pressing that point, it is because we realise that it is a valued fares concession. There is another reason why we seek to hammer home the point again tonight. Following the judgment in another place on the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy, I recollect, and I am sure that the Minister can, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said two things. First, he said that we had no need to worry about concessionary fares, that they were all right, protected and not affected by the judgment; and, secondly, that we need not worry about the
      200
      metropolitan county councils and passenger transport executives in other parts of the country because they were wholly different.
      At that time, various of my right hon. and hon. Friends made the point that the Government would need to introduce legislation to protect concessionary fares. We said that the judgment that had been given in another place affected provincial metropolitan county councils. That was pooh-poohed by the Government. They said that concessionary fares were all right and not affected by that judgment and that metropolitan county councils were covered by different legislation and therefore we need not worry.
      In the end, the Government did not just have to introduce a Bill to protect concessionary fares in London. They have been forced to alter their ideas on legislation governing the metropolitan county councils. It became worse, because to continue with any fares policy in London the GLC had to have a letter from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General saying that it was all right in his eyes for it to continue with a fares policy after "Fares Fair".
      All hon. Members who know the Minister, know that he is sincere. He also reads his briefs well. I do not doubt that he has come to the Dispatch Box with the most accurate and reliable information at his disposal, but, unfortunately, so did his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following the "Fares Fair" judgment in another place.
      We are pressing the amendment because we are still uncertain and want to protect the revenue grant for concessionary fares beyond doubt and peradventure. I recognise that the Minister and the Secretary of State have gone a little way towards doing that in their amendment, but the Secretary of State has felt the need to start writing publicly to people up and down the country because he can see that they are worried.
      All my hon. Friends from Tyne and Wear, Merseyside and Greater Manchester know that the Secretary of State has been forced to write his celebrated open letter to the local press and local Conservative Members saying that there is no need to worry about the concessionary fares. However, there is a great deal of anxiety felt about the lack of protection which, in some people's eyes, the Bill affords to concessionary fares.
      I hope that the Minister will understand that, having had a fair old argument in Committee about this, many Opposition Members are still not happy with the form of the amendment that he has presented. We still feel that it needs to have the kind of "belt and braces" substance that is contained in our amendment. I hope that the Minister understands that he still has a long way to go to satisfy my right hon. Friends and myself.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Martin Stevens: I wish to comment upon the latter words of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) in advancing his proposition. The Minister is always charming, emollient and overflowing with good faith, but I propose to be a little more tart and thorny in my comments upon the metropolitan authorities' conduct.
      It became necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to introduce legislation on concession-ary fares, because the lawyers advising the GLC took a

      201
      different view of the significance of the House of Lords decision from that taken by the lawyers advising London Transport or those advising my right hon. Friend.
      Disputes between lawyers may lead us to take the view that we need to wear a belt and braces. At all events, my right hon. Friend introduced his measure to ensure that there would not be a scintilla of doubt about the law's meaning. Conservative Members are in no doubt that the attitude of the leaders of the GLC was mischievous and tendentious. They were not acting in good faith. They were seeking to pick an unnecessary quarrel to make a cheap, divisive political point as a result of which the citizens of London have come off worse.
      The advice that my right hon. Friend gave the House about concessionary fares resulting from the House of Lords decision was, in my view, perfectly correct. It was necessary to legislate only because the GLC chose not to accept what was manifestly the thrust of the House of Lords judgment.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: As to the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), the least said, soonest mended. He knows perfectly well that the only reason why a legal challenge was mounted against the GLC was that a couple of drunken Tory golfers got together in a club in Bromley and started arguing about whether the scheme was legal. The leader of the Tories in the GLC did not challenge the legality of the "Fares Fair" policy when the matter was debated. If we are in a mess with the House of Lords, it is because of historical accident.
      Mr. Stevens: The hon. Gentleman has been rather strict with me, so I can be rather strict with him. It does not matter how many drunken Tories, although I refuse to accept that such a species exists, brought actions against the GLC or anyone else. What matters is what the law says, and in this case, in three courts, seven out of nine judges or nine out of 11—the overwhelming majority—concluded that the GLC had acted illegally. That was neither political nor, I hope, were they drunk. It was the operation of the law that Opposition Members rejected.
      Mr. Hughes: I cast no aspersions on the sobriety or otherwise of the judges in any court. Unfortunately, this Bill does not clarify the law. Far from producing legislation where there is not a scintilla of doubt, there is a rolling fog of doubt about where the law stands. That has worried us throughout the debate. The trouble is that we must take the Secretary of State at his word. We know that the constraint under which the passenger transport authorities are operating is that the transport supplementary grant has been cut this year. They are receiving less this year than they did last year. Faced with those circumstances, there is no doubt that concessionary fares are threatened.
      So certain was everyone of the law that it was only in Committee that the Government discovered that the metropolitan counties had no power to grant concessionary fares, although they had been doing so for a long time. Someone forgot to include it in an Act. The Under-Secretary of State cannot say with such certainty that the law is now absolutely clear and that no one need bother about where it stands.
      I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentlemen said, and I believe that, legally, the payment made for
      202
      concessionary fares is additional to the protected expenditure level. In the interests of time, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2 line 11 at end insert
      ',and accordingly references to the revenues of an Executive include references to sums received by way of revenue grants'. —[Mr. Eyre.]

    Clause 2

      FINANCIAL DUTY OF EXECUTIVES
      Mr. Eyre: I beg to move amendment No. 4. in page 2, line 22, leave out from "charges " to end of line 24 and insert
      "subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to the next following accounting period as if the combined charges there referred to included an amount equal to the amount of the deficit.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 5, 38 and 39.
      Mr. Eyre: Amendment No. 4 is a clarifying amendment. It is intended to make it clear that an executive is under a duty to make good any deficit incurred in the previous accounting period. The only exception to that duty relates to a deficit that is covered by the planned appropriation of reserves as provided by clause 2(3). However, we shall deal with that in a subsequent amendment.
      Amended subsection (2) will make it clear that in the year following one in which a deficit is created, the repayment of the deficit is to form an integral part of the executive's duty to break even. That duty is always subject, as is the duty in clause 2(1), to the phrase
      "so far as is practicable",
      and the requirement to repay a deficit is to be achieved by making the deficit a charge on the accounts for the following year. If the executive then fails to break even in that subsequent year, it cannot lose the deficit from the earlier period. What will be required in practice is that the repayment of a deficit must be a charge on an executive's account in a new financial year. Then the executive must comply with its duty to break even. It must, so far as is practicable, achieve enough revenue, including grant, to offset its costs and any deficit brought forward from the previous years. If, at the end of the year, the account is again in deficit, it will be a new deficit carried forward for repayment in the following year.
      The purpose of Government amendment No. 5 is to clarify the meaning of clause 2(3) and to achieve its intended purpose. The amendment will replace the phrase
      "making good out of other funds"
      with the phrase "the appropriation of reserves". That will make it clear that where a deficit or part of a deficit is covered by the appropriation of reserves proposed in a clause 3 plan, approved by the authority under clause 4, the duty under clause 2(2) to make good that deficit or that part of a deficit is disapplied. In other words, an executive can use reserves to cover a deficit.
      Clause 2(3), as originally drafted, allowed for the planned use of other funds in association with the technical deficit after that deficit had been incurred and without then having to make good the deficit in the following year. It did not enable the executive to plan to use reserves in place

      203
      of revenue grants and in consequence to run a technical deficit. As executives are likely to wish to plan to use and then actually to use reserves, this amendment allows them to do so. Therefore, the amendment makes it clear that where the use of reserves is planned, and the reserves are then so used, the duty under clause 2(1) to break even is disapplied in relation to that planned use of reserves.
      Under clause 2(3) as amended it will be clear that an executive could plan to appropriate reserves and to run the associated deficit provided that the use of reserves is proposed and authorised in a plan prepared by the executive under clause 3 and approved by the authority under clause 4. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) would bear with me for a moment and remain in the Chamber, because the points that I am making are relevant to one point that he raised recently. The authority and executive can agree and use reserves in substitution for revenue grant.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley for returning to the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman alleged that passenger transport executives cannot buy new buses with their reserves, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent passenger transport executives from using their reserves for capital expenditure, which includes the purchase of buses. Protected expenditure limits relate only to the revenue branch. If a passenger transport executive accumulates a surplus—one must emphasise that so far they are not profit-making organisations—it must do so at the expense of the ratepayers. If it accumulates a reserve, that reserve would be valid for the purchase of Leyland buses, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I would be as keen on their buying as many Leyland buses as they justifiably can. I know that the hon. Gentleman would be happy if they could do so.
      8 pm
      Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for that clarification. Will the Minister also confirm that a PTA could use the money from surpluses to offset revenue in the following year to give further support to the bus services without that money being taken into account by the Secretary of State for the guidelines?
      Mr. Eyre: The use of expenditure for revenue support—as distinct from capital spending, which the hon. Gentleman raised and on which I was happy to be able to produce such a good answer—can be done only on the basis of having been duly authorised under the planning process and having come within the PEL.
      I referred to an authority and executive being able to agree and use reserves in substitution for revenue grant. There is also an amendment to clause 10 that will have the same effect for 1983–84 when there is no plan submitted under clause 4. However, we shall see that in a subsequent amendment.
      Amendment No. 38 is included in this group and it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to explain the situation there. As the House knows, the Government are concerned that the Bill should be on the statute book by 1 April. Although the executives and authorities will not have prepared a plan for 1983–84 we intend that authorities should only be able to make revenue grants in the coming year if they have first made a determination as to the total of grants to be made. That is
      204
      what clause 10(2) is intended to achieve. We had thought that the original drafting of this subsection made that clear but some doubts were expressed by Labour Members in Committee. Therefore, we made an amendment in Committee to make it absolutely clear that revenue grants for 1983–84 could be made only in accordance with the determination by the authority.
      We are equally concerned that that determination should be made only in the light of guidance given by the Secretary of State. We have already announced initial guidance in the White Paper entitled "Public Transport Subsidy in Cities". We have since had discussions with most of the authorities concerned. We have looked again at the wording of clause 10(2) and have tabled this amendment to make it quite clear that authorities can only make a grant determination for 1983–84 when they have both received final guidance from the Secretary of State and also taken that guidance into account. The amendment in no way alters the spirit of the clause, but it makes it clear what is intended. Authorities will still be able to exceed the guidance if they wish, but the amendment will make clear the process to be followed if the authority is to comply with the law and, if it wishes, adopt the protection provided by clause 5(2) without, in 1983–84, having first gone through the planning cycle.
      Because there was some misunderstanding on this point in Committee I shall reassure the House that the protection provided by clause 5(2) is brought into general effect on 1 April 1984, but it is also brought into effect for 1983–84 by clause 10(3) where authorities have followed the procedure in clause 10(2). The amendment is also to some extent consequential upon amendment No. 39 which will allow the use of reserves in 1983–84 to cover a deficit provided that such use of reserves has been notified to the Secretary of State before he issues his guidance. Although it does not explicitly say so, the amendment will in practice allow a brief period for completion of consultation before the guidance for 1983–84 is announced, and will enable the executive to notify the Secretary of State of any intention to use reserves.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) for drawing the attention of the Standing Committee to the need for provison in clause 10 for the use of reserves in 1983–84, which drew the Government's attention to the need for this further clarification in clause 10(2). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber for a few moments. The amendment clarifies how clause 10(2) will operate and, therefore, how the protection of clause 5(2) is to be provided in 1983–84. That is in everybody's interest, not least of the executives, the authorities and the transport users who can benefit from the legal certainty available by complying with the Bill's requirements.
      The House will recall that an amendment was made earlier to clarify the provision of clause 2(3) for the executives to use reserves to cover deficits provided that such use of reserves had been proposed in the plan approved by the authority. The hon. Member for Penistone helpfully pointed out in Committee when we touched on this subject that clause 2(3) only operates in relation to a plan and there will, of course, be no plan for 1983–84. Therefore, a specific provision is necessary to enable the planned use of reserves in 1983–84. In respect of such use we need to disapply the duty to break even—clause 2(1)—and the duty to make good a deficit in the following year—clause 2(2). That is the purpose of amendment No.

      205
      39 which requires the executives to notify the Secretary of State of any intention to use reserves before he gives his guidance to the authorities.
      I believe that those amendments and the statements that I have made will helpfully clarify the situation and I hope that Labour Members will find the amendments of assistance.
      Mr. Booth: I wish to speak to Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39 as they both raise serious and difficult issues for the passenger transport authorities. Before I do so, may I say that the Minister has just asserted—and it would appear to agree with the Bill's provisions—that section 5 will not operate until 1 April 1984, which follows from clause 10(1)(c). If that is the case, surely the local authorities cannot come to an arrangement with the Secretary of State in respect of 1983–84 on the basis that that will provide them with the protection of clause 5(2) which is not in operation for that year. Therefore, if they are faced with a challenge during that year they surely cannot argue in their defence that they have come to a suitable arrangement with the Secretary of State and are living within the protected expenditure limits which he has issued in guidance under the provisions of clause 10(2).
      Amendment No. 38 bites upon that part of the Bill. The Bill provides:
      "An Authority shall not make any revenue grant in the year beginning on 1st April 1983 except in accordance with a determination made by them after the passing of this Act as to the amount of the revenue grants to be made by them in that year".
      The amendment adds that they cannot make such a determinatin unless they have been given guidance by the Secretary of State after the passing of the Act. The effect of this is to put a block upon the payments by PTAs to their PTEs from the time of the passing of the Act until they get the formal guidance. It would be illegal to make a payment to a PTE without a determination, and if we pass the amendment it would be illegal to make the determination without having received the guidance.
      The Government are asking for an effective blocking mechanism on payments if PTAs chose to operate it that way. Even if the Secretary of State wished to facilitate authorities that carried out their present statutory duty under the Bill and who were keen to do so—there cannot be many of them—I contend that the Secretary of State is under a legal obligation to consider the matter of his guidance, to be issued after the Bill is passed, in accordance with all the issues that he has to take into account in deciding upon that guidance.
      The Secretary of State has to consider any fresh evidence that has been put to him and any representations that have been made to him. For him to issue that guidance without having done that would leave him open to charge. These processes of consideration of something as complex as the transport plan of a metropolitan authority are bound to require careful consideration, particularly if the Secretary of State is to stay within the manpower forecasts in the Bill.
      I find it hard to see how, with the limited manpower forecast contained in the memorandum of the Bill, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to examine all the plans of all the metropolitan authorities in the detail that is necessary to issue guidance as to what their protected expenditure level should be and how they should make
      206
      their plans accordingly. During the time of this process of consideration, the PTE will presumably have to await payment from the PTA.
      If the Secretary of State does not consider all these matters, after he has received these powers with the passing of the Bill as an Act, presumably he can be successfully sued by metropolitan authorities for failure to do so. The Secretary of State for the Environment had a case brought against him a few months ago because he failed to take matters properly into account in the determination of the rate support grant. I am certain that the Secretary of State of Transport does not wish to be involved in a parallel case over his guidance in the setting of protected expenditure limits.
      Therefore, it is clear that to pass amendment No. 38 could lead to considerable difficulties and would undoubtedly give the Secretary of State power to hold up payments. He would be able to argue, properly, that he was taking time to consider properly the matters that he should take into account before issuing the guidance. He would have to tell metropolitan authorities and the PTAs that Parliament had decided that it was not proper for them to make payments until they had considered his guidance and that they would have to wait until they had it.
      8.15 pm
      One might be prepared to consider some way of streamlining that process if the absence of an amendment on these lines in the Bill created a problem. I listened to the Under-Secretary of State in the hope of hearing some argument for the necessity of the amendment. No such argument has been advanced. It has merely been claimed that it makes the Bill clearer. One would think, in view of all the claims that have been advanced during the proceedings of the Bill about clarification, that we had a Bill that was crystal clear from end to end and would probably be the textbook guide to future generations for the first class in a study of statute registration. It could be claimed that the Bill was a simple one that anybody could read because the House of Commons at every wage was advised by the Government as to the changes it could make to make the Bill clearer. I fear that instead it will be a textbook for those who wish to see how legislation can lead to a series of complex legal cases and can throw an important part of local government into confusion.
      The absence from the Bill of amendment No. 38 would not create any problems. The justification in advance, that it would bring section 5 protection, cannot apply to the first year in any case, and it is only the first year that comes within this peculiar set of provisions. After the first year, the planning process is in operation and section 5 is in operation. A problem is not created because the PTA can pay on the basis of a determination that it has previously made, irrespective of the Secretary of State not having issued a final guidance, even if we do not pass amendment No. 38. In making that determination, the local authority will have to take into account all its legal obligations and statutory duties.
      Amendment No. 38 can create a serious problem and will do nothing to solve any of the difficulties created by the Bill. Unless we hear some further explanation that shows that it has some merit hitherto undisclosed, I shall, at the appropriate time, advise my hon. Friends to oppose amendment No. 38.
      Amendment No. 39 clearly applies only to the first financial year, 1983–84. It seeks to define the

      207
      circumstances in which reserves accumulated in 1982–83 can be used in the year 1983–84. The Secretary of State has already said, in advance of the passing of the Bill, that he agrees that the reserves of certain metropolitan authorities can be used without this affecting the protected expenditure level figure that he will include in his guidance.
      I cite as evidence of this a letter sent to Mr. R. G. Brooke, chief executive of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council on 21 January 1983 from Mrs. J. Bridgeman at the Department of Transport. The second paragraph read:
      "I am happy to be able to confirm that in the event of the Council transferring the sums proposed (£3·2 million and £0·6 million) from reserves, he"—
      the Secretary of State—
      "will not regard that particular transfer as affecting the amount which he will give in his guidance as the appropriate level of revenue support for 1983–84.".
      The Secretary of State has made it clear in the case of West Yorkshire that he is willing to allow that authority to use its reserves in a particular way without affecting its protected expenditure level in the guidance—to whatever extent that may be of importance, given that section 5 will not be in operation in that year. I understand, although I have not the correspondence to prove it, that there has been a similar communication in the case of Tyne and Wear. A bargain can be struck with the Secretary of State whereby those two metropolitan authorities will be able to spend in 1983–84 part of the reserves accumulated from the 1982–83 operation without that having any bearing on the protected expenditure level that the Secretary of State will set for 1983–84 if the Bill becomes law.
      Amendment No. 39, however, is not a general application of what apparently has been agreed with two metropolitan authorities. There is no condition attached to amendment No. 39 giving an assurance that the expenditure of reserves would go forward in a way which would not affect the protected expenditure level. What is more, amendment No. 39 adds to the arrangement that has been made apparently with West Yorkshire and possibly with Tyne and Wear.
      A further condition is that authorities that seek to spend their reserves after the Bill becomes an Act must notify the Secretary of State of their intention before he gives his final guidance. If they notify the Secretary of State of their intention, he then has a right to include in that final guidance a protected expenditure level. There is no reason why the Secretary of State should not take into account the amounts of the reserve that are proposed to be spent.
      Logically, there would not be much point in making the amendment if the Secretary of State did not intend to take that into account.
      Perhaps I missed something in the Under-Secretary of State's explanation, but I heard nothing to suggest any other reason why the Secretary of State should know about any proposals to expend reserves. If the amendment were carried, the Secretary of State would take over from local authorities the right that they have had up to now to decide expenditure affecting their reserves.
      There is a further difficulty in this arrangement. Presumably the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State accept that there will be crucial difficulties in attempting to operate this legislation. This is probably the first time in history that there has been an attempt to
      208
      change local government expenditure patterns for the financial year by legislation that cannot be on the statute book, even assuming a favourable timetable in the House of Lords, until the beginning of that financial year. It has normally been accepted that local authorities should know well in advance of the start of the financial year what would control their relationships with the Government, the amount of support that they would receive and their legal rights in respect of expenditure.
      It has normally been assumed that a local authority should know within 21 days before the start of the financial year what is required of it and the legal obligations necessary to enable it to determine properly its rate precepts and revenue grant.
      There is no possibility of that happening now. There is now the maximum prospect of difficulty and confusion as regards the statutory responsibilities and duties of authorities in the run-up period. No one can challenge that at present the authorities still have the duty, 21 days before the start of the financial year, to issue rate precepts calculated according to their revenue grant arrangements. Presumably they are still legally required to do that because they are not entitled to anticipate—certainly one hopes not—that Parliament will pass the Bill in its original form or even in an amended form. As we have seen today, the Bill is still being amended and it may be amended still further. Considerable doubt therefore exists.
      The effect of the Government amendments will be to create even greater confusion at the beginning of the financial year. Until the Secretary of State issues his guidance, local authorities will not know their position and they will not be able to make payments to their passenger transport executives. To reduce the great difficulty in operating in the first year, the Government should at the very least withdraw the amendments and reconsider the matter. If they can find no arguments in favour of the amendments given the clear argument that the amendments will merely make the task of the passenger transport authorities more difficult and the prospects for the PTEs no better, the Government should drop the amendments now.
      For those reasons, pending the advancement of an argument on the merit of the amendments or some way in which the difficulty can be overcome, I intend to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the amendments when the time comes. I understand, however, that, due to the order in which the amendments occur under the guillotine and the fact that they bite on clause 10, that time will come at a later point in our proceedings.
      Mr. Race: It is crucial that the House should understand what the Government are attempting to do in amendment No. 38. We are all indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) for illustrating so clearly that this is in a way the most disgraceful part of the Bill, because the element of retrospection seeks to pinch the activities of local authorities in 1983–84. It is a bit much for the Under-Secretary of State to propose a further amendment today to destroy local authorities' freedom of action, not in two years' time or a year's time, but in a week's time, before the Bill even becomes law. If Members complain, as we sometimes do, about the attitudes of judges and about retrospective legislation, it is essential that we complain

      209
      about the Bill and about this amendment, because the Government are attempting to muddy the waters so that local authorities do not know where they are.
      Local authorities are now determining what precepts to set for their lower tier authorities—that is, for the district councils in the case of metropolitan authorities and for the GLC element in the London rates. They will be making those decisions in line with their views about the development of transport policy in the next 12 months. That is perfectly lawful under the present legislation, but at the very time when local authorities are carrying out that process the Government are saying that, despite the legality of the authorities' decisions, they intend to change the law so that on 1 April the authorities will not be able to pay a penny to the transport executives on the basis of those perfectly lawful determinations until the Secretary of State gives them guidance on which to make fresh determinations. That is the politics and legislative practice of wonderland. The House has a duty to vote amendment No. 38 down tonight and, if we have the opportunity, to remove some of the retrospection in clause 10.
      The Government are making this change for only one reason. They want the money that local authorities have earmarked for public transport in 1983 in their war chest for the general election. They want the money so that they can hand it to their friends in the middle classes and those who are rather better off than everyone else. They want the money so that they can make tax concessions in the Budget in March. To obtain that freedom the Government are quite happy to limit the freedom of local authorities to act perfectly lawfully under the existing legislation. It is a scandal, and the House should reject this disgraceful amendment.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I thought that we were examining a series of simple clarifying amendments that those people who have followed the Bill in detail would welcome as meeting some of the criticisms that have been made by Opposition Members. Those Opposition Members are now looking a gift horse in the mouth.
      The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) destroyed his own argument extremely well when he said that it had always been the practice that local authorities should be given as much notice as possible about the way in which the rules under which they determine their expenditure might be established. That is exactly what amendments Nos. 38 and 39 do.
      Mr. Booth: It is not.
      Mr. Griffiths: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is exactly what they do. The Bill establishes a new arrangement whereby expenditure levels will be determined by a process that is initiated locally but which will also take account of the guidance that is issued by the Secretary of State. It is intended that the Bill will become an Act in time to be effective in 1983–84.
      It must be reasonable to include in that legislation amendments that make clear all the considerations that local authorities will take into account in future, such as the protection that is granted to them in clause 5. Although we are giving local authorities notice of what is to happen, it will be useful for local authorities to recognise that this year they will have to establish their expenditure pattern only after they have taken due regard of the Secretary of State's guidance.
      Mr. Race rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point later. The proposal is perfectly reasonable. It is not necessary for us to raise the temperature with comments that are reminiscent of the class war, and talk about elections and gifts to party supporters. The Bill will help those people who have to make decisions to make them adequately. It is urgent.
      I should have thought that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) would be the first to recognise, if he had had the opportunity to examine this evening's newspaper, that the Esso Petroleum Company Limited is withdrawing its headquarters from London because it can no longer bear the rate burden in central London. If an international company is moving because of its rate burden, we can see the importance of introducing this type of legislation.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: It has nothing to do with rates.
      Mr. Griffiths: With respect, it has everything to do with the rates. The objective of the Bill and of the amendments is to make clear the limits within which local authorities can reasonably expect to exercise their jurisdiction with regard to support for transport.
      Mr. Race: If the level of rates in London is so onerous and dangerous that it is causing a mass exodus of industrial firms, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the dockland enterprise zone in London's East End has been such a lamentable failure, given that local authority rates are not levied there? Secondly, in terms of amendment No. 38, will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the problems for local authorities? Having made a determination about the precept to lower tier authorities, how can they then levy a supplementary precept if they need to change their policy in the light of the Secretary of State's guidance, given that they cannot do it lawfully?
      Mr. Griffiths: You would probably not permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss with the hon. Gentleman during this debate the success or otherwise of an enterprise zone. If he is seeking to make the pont that there are many disincentives to establishing businesses in the City of London—transport being one of them—I agree.
      We ought not to wait until next year to bring in these provisions, as seemed to be the implication in the speech of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. There is an urgency about the matter.
      In regard to the second part of the intervention by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race), surely it is to avoid the situation that he postulates, that is, the need to carry out the procedure twice, that these amendments are being put forward. It would be utterly wasteful for the authorities to proceed to make financial plans for next year without taking into account the fact that they will be required to follow the new procedure.
      Mr. Roger Stott: The Bill is not yet an Act.
      Mr. Griffiths: The Bill is before Parliament. We recognise that there must inevitably be a transitional year. The Government's point is that the transitional year must begin on 1 April 1983 because it is necessary to give advanced warning. Opposition Members have said frequently that the courts and others take no notice of guidance given in speeches made by the Secretary of State

      211
      or anyone else in the House but only of what the House decides. Whether Opposition Members like it or not, we are attempting to lay down the rules.
      Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that no Government have the God-given right to assume that their proposed legislation will be passed without amendment either by this House or by another place. The Government assume that the Bill will be passed by this House and by another place without significant amendment. That is why they have introduced the amendment at this late stage. It is an amendment in absolute retrospection and they have no right to assume that the Bill will reach the statute book without being amended substantially. If they wanted the provisions to bite in a given year, they could have had them biting in 1984–85 when the legislation had gone through both Houses of Parliament and had got the Royal Assent. They cannot and should not assume that they have the right in retrospection to do it now before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
      Mr. Griffiths: I think I have already made the point that it is essential that the legislation should operate from April of this year because of the financial pressures being imposed on ratepayers, domestic and others, by metropolitan counties. The proposals they are putting forward need to be restricted for the benefit of the ratepayers.
      There is no attempt to prejudge the issue. If the Bill fails, which it may—Bills have failed before—so will the amendments that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has moved. Therefore, as the Bill would not become an Act, the local authorities would not have to take it into account. They have to take account only of what Parliament does, not of what Ministers say. Nevertheless, because we wish to meet the point made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, we believe that local authorities should be told that the provision is to be operative this year and not the succeeding year.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: I shall not continue on the point of retrospection, which was serious. The hon. Gentleman referred to the urgency and need for the legislation. Can he understand that Esso Petroleum, to which he has just referred, was simply following a process that is now being pursued by all the major oil companies that are moving their operations out of London, not because of the rate burden but because computers and microprocessors no longer necessitate having large central headquarters in London? Unfortunately, that may happen to many other large firms. That is a problem for London. The hon. Gentleman must have come across the completely contrary evidence when Debenhams in Birmingham closed down its city centre store last year. The reason was the high level of bus fares. Debenhams moved out of Birmingham just because of that. Therefore, in spite of his example of the need for and urgency of the Bill, there are many more examples of the urgency and need to stop the Bill.
      Mr. Griffiths: One can choose selective examples. The one that I chose was particularly significant as there was an announcement today. The company had enormous reserves and financial strength. It quoted the level of rates as one of the reasons for its wish to leave the centre of London. That is entirely relevant to the issue that is before us.
      212
      I agree that there are pressures in both directions on businesses. However, we are dealing with a specific area of expenditure that places a burden on ratepayers. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) drew attention to the enormous projected increase in expenditure by the West Midlands county council. Something had to be done to make it clear that there was a limit to the freedom of local authorities to respond to party political programmes. That is all that we are seeking to do. Therefore, it is essential that we should include the amendments in the Bill, which is excellent. The amendments will improve it further.
      Mr. Cowans: Conservative Members have betrayed a remarkable lack of awareness of how local government works. I have heard the argument that the Bill will allow local authorities to reduce their rates this year. That is gobbledegook. The fact is that the metropolitan counties have a statutory duty to get their rate precepts out 21 days before the end of the financial year, on 10 March. The only thing that can be deduced from that fact is that the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are saying, before the Bill has gone to the other place and regardless of what their Lordships want to discuss there, that these provisions must be enforced by 10 March. If that is not a betrayal of democracy, I do not know what is.
      The Conservative manifesto spoke boldly of taking away the chains from local government. If this is "taking away the chains", British Steel will spring up overnight, because what it means is that more chains will be manufactured. If this is a secret plot to bring British Steel into the black, it may very well work.
      8.45 pm
      In Committee great emphasis was laid on consultation. I think that I am correct in saying this. The Minister and the Secretary of State are here and will leap to their feet to correct me if I am wrong. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) made great play of the fact that a letter was sent to local authorities. The Secretary of State joined in this and asked them to come in for consultation. As the Member for Yardley rightly said, at that stage they did not respond.
      In Committee the Secretary of State said ad nauseam, "I will accept representations from any local authority that wants to come and talk to me." If that is wrong, I hope that he will stand up and correct it now. I shall repeat what I said, because the right hon. Gentleman was obviously busy with that book. It must be a good story. He said that he would accept representations from any local authority that wanted to come and see him.
      Let us look at that in the context of the amendment. I propose to concentrate, much to the relief of everyone, on amendment No. 38, because it is nonsense in any terms. Those who understand how local government works—and there seems to be a remarkable lack of understanding on the Government side—know that the amendment will prevent the payment of revenue grants. I think we can all agree on that. One does not have to be a BSc to work it out.
      The clause relies on the Bill being out by 10 March, so we had better go to the other place and tell them before they even start to discuss it that the Minister must have the Bill by that date. There seems to be some doubt about that happening, so let us consider what will happen if it does not get through by 10 March and that the clause is carried tonight. It will mean that a local authority which makes

      213
      its precept, which it is its statutory duty to do, and issues it on 10 March, will find there are no guidelines—none has been issued because this Bill is not yet law—and it cannot pay from 1 April 1983 a revenue grant to allow any buses to run or any wages to be paid. That is exactly what this says. It is nonsense in anyone's language.
      There will be fleets of buses standing idle and men reporting at depots to take those buses out, but the Secretary of State made a mistake. He did not get the Bill by 10 March. The local authority will not be able to pay wages, run buses, or run the Tyne and Wear metro. Everything will stand still. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say, as he has said on previous amendments, that they can borrow, because even if they borrowed they could not pay revenue grants to the PTA. If that is not nonsense, I do not know what is. Everything hinges on the Bill going through.
      I am waiting for right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, who I know have had local government experience, to leap to their feet as business men and tell me how buses are run and wages are paid if the local authority cannot make a revenue grant. In my mind's eye I see thousands of them leaping up to tell us. However, the reality is that not one Conservative Member has stood up. I can assume only that they are as confused as the local authorities will be if the amendment is accepted. Even they have begun to realise that it is gobbledegook.
      Let us suppose that, by some mischance, the Secretary of State gets things right and that, as he carries a lot of luck, he gets the Bill enacted on 10 March. Let us also suppose that the metropolitan counties then make their precept. That is very good. I give the Secretary of State 10 out of 10 for trying. It will then be argued that the right hon. Gentleman must issue the guidelines.
      Let us imagine that the Bill has been enacted and that it contains amendment No. 38. The mandarins who work round the Secretary of State will draw up the guidelines and he will sign them and send them out. Unless the House has been misled and the guidelines already exist—although no one has told us about it—there will be a lapse of time. However, it is a distinct possibility that they exist already. Perhaps some hon. Member will leap to his feet and tell us that the guidelines have existed since the beginning of our deliberations in Committee.
      I am a reasonable fellow, and I assume that that is not the case. Therefore, time will elapse. Time after time the Secretary of State and the Minister have said that they will listen to representations from metropolitan county councils that go to them with special problems about the guidelines. Not all councillors live in London. However, all the councils will have to receive the guidelines and will have to examine them before discovering whether they have a problem.
      Let us assume that the authorities find that there is a problem. We must remember that we are talking about the initial year and that there is no plan. Therefore, there is nothing to go on. Not all local authority members dwell in the town hall for 24 hours a day. Therefore, meetings will have to be convened. An authority's legal personnel will have to examine the guidelines to see whether there is a problem.
      On the law of averages, there will be many problems. Even if there are only half as many problems as expected, the Minister, being a man of his word, will have to listen to the representations. The local authority, being wise and having taken good legal advice, will go to the Secretary
      214
      of State with the problem. However, throughout that period, no revenue grant can be made. Therefore, the buses will still be standing in the depot, and the lads will be saying that although they are not being paid, the Secretary of State will eventually let them know that they can make revenue grants.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Rubbish.
      Mr. Cowans: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to change that rubbish by joining us in the Lobby. He has a great opportunity to take the rubbish out of the Bill. It may seem funny to Conservative Members, but those standing around waiting for wages are actually ratepayers. It is a vicious circle. The Secretary of State will not allow the local authority to pay revenue grant, so the local authority cannot pay its wages and the men cannot pay their rates. That is what we get from business men. No wonder there are so many bankruptcies and closures all over the country. Business is having to put up with such nonsense.
      There are extreme difficulties. The Secretary of State fears that local authorities will exercise their democratic right in this first year to implement the policies for which they were elected. Therefore, he uses this method to try to stop that happening. Will he explain how a system can work if no money is put into it?
      Let us assume that the Secretary of State is right, and that the Bill is enacted in time. How will a local authority pay a revenue grant? How can the Secretary of State keep his repeated promise that local authorities will have the right to knock on his door? He has said that he will consult them—those are his words, not mine. How can he do that and at the same time keep buses running? If the Secretary of State can explain that, he should not be in the House, he should be emulating Houdini.
      Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. As you know, I like to be helpful to occupants of the Chair and if anyone in the House cuts up rough, the Speaker will have my backing. I place you in that category, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it should be "Speaker".
      Amendment No. 38 shows a marked contrast to previous Conservative positions. It clearly states that local authorities will not make revenue grants in the year beginning 1 April 1983. The amendment states:
      "no such determination shall be made by an Authority unless they have been given guidance by the Secretary of State in relation to the determination".
      The legislation may be delayed by their Lordships. The Bill will not be delayed here because the Conservatives have a majority and have imposed the guillotine. The debate will finish at 1 am. However, Conservative Members cannot guillotine the Bill in the Lords If the Lords carry on talking, as I hope they will, and then send the Bill back to this place with amendments, time will have to be allocated to deal with the amendments. It is conceivable that the Bill will not receive Royal Assent until after 1 April.
      The amendment would make retrospective the prevention of local authorities from making revenue grants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) has so graphically and capably pointed out. That, in effect, would grind the bus services to a halt or, yet again, force them to borrow in order to pay wage, fuel and other bills.

      215
      The proposed legislation is potentially retrospective, quite apart from the fact that local authorities should not be bound by suggested legislation. Parliament has a system of dealing with legislative proposals. They become law on a date to be specified by the Bill, following the Royal Assent. In many ways, we have seen the increasing control of central Government by the use of delegated powers, and by the guidance of those powers with statutory instruments that make codes of practice into legally enforcible documents. Now we have proposed legislation that is being forced on local authorities even though it has no validity. The reason is that the Government know that if this legislative proposal is ignored by local authorities and is subsequently passed by the House, local authorities would be placed in a difficult position in any court case. Individual councillors may find themselves facing difficulties, too, because the district auditor—or the audit commission that is coming into operation which is even more a creature of central Government than the district auditor—may deem that the local authority should have taken notice of a legislative proposal. The authority may be subject to surcharge if, for example, it decides that since the proposal is not legislation, it will go ahead and give a revenue grant. It is a serious matter.
      9 pm
      Mr. Race: I invite my hon. Friend to consider another aspect that is even more probable. Suppose that a local authority decides that the Bill will become law and that it should pay regard to PEL levels for 1983 as set out in the White Paper, and therefore determines its precept in early March on that basis. Assuming that it wishes to spend more than the PEL levels, it therefore precepts its district authorities for more than it would require if it met the Secretary of State's guidelines. What is to stop an aggrieved district council, perhaps under Conservative control, from taking the metropolitan county council to court and saying "You are spending more than the level of the PEL, even though you have done it quite lawfully and in anticipation of the views of the Secretary of State"?
      Mr. Cryer: That shows that the legislative proposal, far from clarifying the law, will confuse it and give rise to a number of uncertainties for those who are elected on election manifestos to carry out their ideas in the service of the public.
      Parliament, which has unlimited powers, is imposing legislation on councillors who do not have parity with Members of Parliament because of the fear of surcharge. There are no financial curbs on us if we alter our views. There is no possibility of a surcharge on us. But the financial obligations and the need for financial scrupulousness is far greater for councillors than for hon. Members in this place. We should end that duality of standards and have one standard both for Parliament and local authorities in financial disclosure and one standard for both in the ability to make decisions about expenditure without any threat of surcharge.
      My final point concerns the dual standards of the Government. There is unquestionably a potential element of retrospective legislation in the Bill. When the Labour Government were in office in 1975, they introduced the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act to provide that
      216
      11 local authority councillors should be given back their civic rights. It placed them on the same basis as 400 Scottish National party and Labour councillors who benefited from the Scottish legislation. The crime of those 11 Clay Cross councillors was that they had kept down the rents. They were surcharged by the district auditor. They committed no crime, but they lost their civic rights. The Labour Government introduced legislation to give them parity of status with 400 Scottish councillors.
      When the Labour Ministers came to the Dispatch Box, rank after serried rank of Tory Members howled and jeered and said, "It is retrospective legislation. It is the end of civilisation as we know it, the end of democracy and the decline of standards." Indeed, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw)—who was then a Labour Member but now belongs to the SDP—was much heralded because he said that it was a slippery slope to Fascism. There were jeers from the Tory Benches, yet the Tory Government are now casting to one side all idea of consistency and saying that retrospective legislation is entirely suitable when it is convenient for them to attack Labour-controlled local authorities. It is time we remembered that the Tories have no scruples. They are prepared to bring forward any legislation that suits their book—
      Mr. Porter rose—
      Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to the hon. Member because he was one of the few Tories in Committee who had the guts to air his criticisms of the legislation. I am sorry to say that, although he spoke extensively about his criticisms to Labour Herald and Labour Weekly, unfortunately, his voice did not follow his vote on many occasions. I think that discretion was probably the better part of valour because he was not present in Committee very much.
      Mr. Porter: My voice cannot follow anything very much at the moment. With regard to retrospective legislation, if the Bill does not become an Act by 1 April, I for one will have nothing to do with it. It becomes retrospective only if it becomes an Act after 1 April. At the moment it is not retrospective. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) knows full well my views on some of the details of the Bill. Certainly the point about retrospection is one that he takes badly.
      Mr. Cryer: I have always claimed, and I thought that I made it clear in my comments, that I was referring to potential retrospection. First, the Government cannot control the process of legislation in the Lords and, secondly, their intention is that this clause will apply whatever date the Bill becomes law. Therefore they have a clear intention to bind local authorities not from the date of Royal Assent but from now. That is the important intention being displayed by the Government in the Bill. It is disingenuous for the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port to think otherwise, although he said firmly in Committee that he does not like the Bill. My suggestion to him is that if he has any doubts he should go into the Lobby and vote against the amendment. It will take guts and determination for him to do so, but one or two hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have from time to time, when a Labour Government have been in power, experienced the knocks and difficulties that accompany

      217
      minority issues. None the less it is a possibility, and since the hon. Gentleman has expressed such reservations, he should follow his voice—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman might get some votes.
      Mr. Cryer: That is a possibility. Amendment No. 38 takes away yet again local authority autonomy and its ability to make a judgment about local circumstances. I shall not pursue that matter because we are coming to a series of amendments that deal with that in some detail.
      Those Tories who have any concern for their manifesto pledge to return local democracy to local authorities once again should see to it that they vote against amendment No. 38 and others.
      In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the new method of self-selection for being called to speak is a vast improvement and has my unremitting endorsement.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: May I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if it is my signature that you need for your nomination as Speaker, I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)?
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Do not ruin his chances altogether.
      Mr. Huckfield: I could travel down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I prefer to talk about cheap fares.
      If my hon. Friends the Members for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and Keighley have been strident in their accusations, that stridency has been more than justified. Many of us regard this as potentially one of the most noxious parts of a politically malevolent Bill. One needs to examine more deeply the motives behind the Bill.
      When the Secretary of State was looking for a target on which to base his reputation, he examined the Greater London Council and some of the Labour-controlled metropolitan county councils that were seeking to implement cheap fare schemes from 1 April this year. The right hon. Gentleman knew that those schemes would be politically desirable. His advisers therefore conceived a Bill that would enable the Secretary of State, in the quickest possible time, to stop cheap fare schemes coming into operation. The right hon. Gentleman admitted at the Conservative party conference last year that, given legislative time, he would have preferred to have gone further and that he would have liked to take transport decisions completely out of the hands of the metropolitan county councils. However, there was only time to introduce this measly Bill.
      The worst suspicions of the Opposition were confirmed when the Secretary of State introduced the Bill and the White Paper on the same day. With the Bill in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman realised that his chances of getting the measure on the statute book in time to stop Labour-controlled metropolitan county councils introducing cheap fares schemes were threatened. The Opposition hoped that this might be one occasion when the other place would prove itself to be of some use by helping to delay the passage of the Bill and so prevent its implementation by 1 April. As proceedings in the Committee became more difficult, with hon. Members unable to understand what the Secretary of State was saying and certainly, on a few occasions, unable to understand what the Under-Secretary of State was saying, we began to wonder increasingly how the Government
      218
      would get the measure through the House and through the other place and see it accorded Royal Assent before 1 April.
      We can now see how the Government intend that this shall happen. I have to search my memory to recall another example of local authorities being told to base their rate calculations and, what is worse, their rate precept calculations on possible future legislation. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has stated that local authorities have to take future forecasts into account. They also have to consider population changes, economic circumstances and the rate of inflation. I have never heard previously of local authorities being legally required to take into account legislative changes that might happen in the future.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) is correct. There could be a massive Back Bench revolt in the other place—it will not be the first time that it has happened—that would stop the passage of the Bill in its present form. One can envisage local authorities up and down the country watching events in the other place, day by day, to see whether the Bill will get through in its present form. If the Secretary of State wants local authorities, Labour-controlled or Conservative-controlled, to make sensible transport decisions and to cut out some of the excesses he alleges still occur, and if he wants transport decisions to be taken in the best possible manner, the process by which he is rail roading the Bill through the House, together with the fact that he intends to make the measure retrospective, is possibly the worst way to seek sensible decisions.
      I wish to examine the position of local councillors when they take these decisions. The right hon. Gentleman knows that following the cases of the Camden councillors and of the Kensington councillors, the judgment in the High Court on the balanced fares scheme, the West Midlands county council case and the Merseyside county council case, there is already sufficient legal doubt in the minds of democratically elected Labour councils.
      The Minister must understand that by introducing an element of retrospection to a measure which may only get through another place in another form, he is not serving the clarification of the law. He is only underlining the fact that the further we go through the Bill, and the more it goes through the other place, the more complex and doubtful it becomes.
      I hope that we shall press the amendment to a Division. The more amendments like this we see the more we realise that the Secretary of State's intentions are political. I hope that, for the sake of good government and accurate, efficient, well-balanced and sensible future transport decisions, this is one amendment that the Secretary of State will see fit to withdraw.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Eyre: In his thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that he had no doubt that I would answer the Opposition's questions. I shall now do that, but I know well from the tone of the Opposition speeches that I shall not give pleasing answers to their questions.
      The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) was correct when he said that authorities will riot be able to pay grant in 1983–84 until the Secretary of State has given his final guidance. Nevertheless, the intention is that the guidance will be given within a few days of the

      219
      Royal Assent. Authorities have, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, been given provisional guidance and have been invited to discuss that guidance.
      I want to emphasise the fact, because it is one that the Opposition favour, that the planned use of reserves is to be provided for in the amendment, as requested by Opposition Members. Although section 5 is not brought into effect by clause 10(1)(c) until 1 April 1984—I am replying to one rather technical question put by the right hon. Gentleman—nevertheless, the protection of clause 5(2) is brought into effect for 1983–84 by clause 10(3). I know that there was some debate in Committee about this, but a great deal of thought has been given to it, and I am advised that that is the correct answer to the question.
      I cannot give an assurance on the matter raised by the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. However, the Secretary of State will take into account the planned use of reserves. The planned use is exempted only from clause 2(1) and 2(2) which lay down the duty to break even or to make good any deficit.
      The Bill will give the protection of clause 5(2) to an authority in 1983–84 only if the determination of the grant is within the guidance that will be given after Royal Assent. That will avoid representation, because all necessary proceedings will take place after that time. I know that the hon. Members for Keighley and for Wood Green will be interested in that constitutional point. There will be no need for lengthy processes after Royal Assent, because the Secretary of State will, within a few days, to allow any last-minute representations and to receive formal notification of the use of reserves, give his guidance and authorities will make their determinations.
      I am sure that the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) will remember that the protected expenditure limits were provisionally published in the White Paper on 5 November, which means that local authorities have been aware of those limits since then. As Opposition Members know, authorities were invited to discuss and to make representations on relevant factors. My right hon. Friend and I are very willing to enter into consultations and to receive representations. Therefore, there has been an adequate basis well in advance for planning the 1983–84 budgets and the precepts that follow.
      I confirm that final guidance, after taking account of representations, will be given within a few days of Royal Assent. Therefore, I have answered the questions and set out the programme that will apply as continued progress is made with the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 25, leave out from '(3)' to 'for' in line 28 and insert
      'For the purposes of this section there shall be disregarded any deficit or potential deficit in an accounting period to the extent to which it is or is to be covered by the appropriation of any reserves of the Executive available for the purpose if the appropriation of those reserves'.
      Mr. Stott: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'by the Executive'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'by them'.
      220
      No. 8, in page 2, line 29, leave out from 'below' to end of line 30.
      No. 9, in page 2, line 40, clause 3, after 'of', insert 'an Authority and'.
      No. 10, in page 2, line 40, after 'year', insert 'jointly'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 41, leave out
      'and submit to the Authority'.
      No. 12, in page 3, line 2, leave out first 'them' and insert 'the Executive'.
      No. 13, in page 3, line 2, leave out second 'them' and insert 'the Executive'.
      No. 14, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'Executive' and insert 'Authority'.
      No. 15, in page 3, line 31, after 'plan', insert 'the Authority and'.
      No. 17, in page 3, line 40, clause 4, leave out from 'year' to 'in' in line 42.
      No. 18, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'as so approved'.
      No. 19, in page 4, line 18, leave out 'approve' and insert 'prepare'.
      No. 23, in page 4, line 29, leave out
      'approving a plan in such a form and'.
      No. 26, in page 5, line 29, clause 6, leave out 'submitting any plan or'.
      No. 27, in page 5, line 31, leave out 'plan or'.
      No. 28, in page 6, line 1, leave out 'an Executive's' and insert 'a'.
      No. 29, in page 6, line 1, leave out 'approved' and insert 'adopted'.
      No. 30, in page 6, line 4, leave out 'approval' and insert 'adoption'.
      No. 31, in page 6, line 5, leave out 'approved' and insert 'adopted'.
      No. 32, in page 6, line 9, leave out 'approved' and insert 'adopted'.
      Mr. Stott: All the amendments deal with the provisions encompassed in clause 3, which sets out the preparation and submission of the financial plans that the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive must submit to the Secretary of State for his final approval.
      In Committee, we discussed at great length the rather cumbersome approach recommended by the Government in this Bill in the way in which transport policies and plans are arrived at, and the way in which the executive and the authority must comply with the provisions of clause 3. When we debated the matter in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, as was his wont, tried to charm us and invited us to believe that the provisions of clause 3 did not affect the relationship that has existed between the passenger transport authorities and the passenger transport executives. I told the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State that at that time we did not believe what was said. We did not believe that the provisions of clause 3 meant that the relationship was unaltered. In fact, clause 3 circumscribes the way in which the passenger transport authority formulates its transport policies and programmes and is a further diminution of the local authority's powers to determine its transport policy. Almost every clause is riddled with provisions that circumscribe the local authority's right to determine its transport policy. Clause 3 brings that more into focus in the way in which the authority has to deal with the executive.
      Some Conservative Members may remember the local government re-organisation in 1974 when the metropolitan

      221
      authorities were set up and given their powers under a former Act. The relationship that subsequently developed between the passenger transport executive and the passenger transport authority has in many cases been remarkably good. Arguments have been advanced by my colleagues in local authorities that the passenger transport executive ought to come more directly and closely under the control of the passenger transport authority. On the other hand, arguments have been advanced by the employees of the passenger transport executive, the bus drivers and those who have been organised in the Transport and General Workers' Union, by the effect that the situation as it pertains today is preferable.
      I recognise that there is a difference between the elected authority and those who work in the transport industry as to the role of the executive. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the relationship between the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive is about right. It is about right because the time-honoured practice of consultation and negotiation has produced a transport policy and programme for individual metropolitan authorities in the way in which the elected authority wanted such programmes to be produced.
      In Committee I cited evidence from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. In the light of recent events, I fully accept that its recommendations are completely disregarded by the Government, but none the less I believe that the Monopolies and Margers Commission is a valuable public body which, given the opportunity, has closely studied the operations of the west midlands passenger transport executive. It is the firm recommendation of the commission—not mine or my right hon. and hon. Friends, not the Association of Metropolitan Authorities or individual local councillors who happen to be chairmen of passenger transport authorities—that:
      "The Executive feels that it would benefit from less intervention by the county. With the existing statutory background, there is always the possibility of friction between a PTE and its county council. We believe, however, that on the whole the system has worked reasonably well in the West Midlands, thanks to the good sense of key individuals on both sides."
      That could be echoed throughout the metropolitan authorities. The relationship which has been arrived at between the authorities and the executive is about right. However, the Secretary of State produces a Bill and presents it to Parliament which fundamentally alters that relationship. The authority will be a guest at the party. It is not its party any longer. The party consists of the Secretary of State and the passanger transport executive, who decide what the plan should be. Eventually, somewhere along this convoluted series of negotiations, the elected authority is advised what the plans should be, and what the plan contains. This is a fundamental departure from what happens now.
      We have tabled these amendments to preserve the status quo because in this case the status quo is worth preserving. Why the Secretary of State should want to interfere from Marsham Street in the way that these plans are arrived at, God alone knows. However, he appears to want to do so.
      9.30 pm
      I was interested to receive from the Chartered Institute of Transport a copy of a letter sent to the Secretary of State giving its opinions about the provisions of the Bill. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the penultimate paragraph:
      222
      "Our final point concerns the position of professional transport people, particularly the Members/Directors of the Executives, within the statutory processes envisaged in the Bill. No one can have failed to observe the degree of political conflict—and indeed acrimony—the Bill has generated between the Metropolitan Authorities and the Government. These are the very bodies which, together with the Executives, the Bill engages in complex interlocking procedures of guidance, plan-making and decision about public transport policy and provision. In this context the direct links envisaged in the Bill between the Executives and the Secretary of State in various aspects of these procedures could well bring Executives into conflict with their Authorities. This would not only mutilate against the effectiveness of public transport but would also frustrate the successful operation of the system set out in the Bill and even the provisions of the 1968 and 1969 Acts. We would urge that links between the Department and the Executives should be through, or with the full knowledge of, the Authorities; Clause 6(1), in particular, should be amended on these lines."
      This is the professional body, that has written to the Secretary of State advising him of the acrimony that surrounds his legislation—acrimony about which there can be no doubt.
      We have had a lobby down here today, although the Secretary of State might not have been aware of the fact, predominantly of people employed in public transport in the Tyne and Wear area, but from elsewhere as well, protesting about the provisions of the Bill. There can be no doubt that there is a great deal of acrimony not only from those who work in public transport but from the elected councillors who have to administer it. The Secretary of State is forcing home his inbuilt advantage of a majority in placing clause 3 before us, and is circumscribing the proper, well-tried, democratic route between the executive and the authority.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will have second thoughts. If he does not believe me, perhaps he will believe the Chartered Institute of Transport in its submission to him earlier this week. It said, as we did, that this is the wrong way to go about it. The relationship between the executive and the authority is the right relationship. The Secretary of State should maintain and not destroy that relationship. The provisions of clause 3 do the latter, while our amendments try to maintain the status quo that has worked successfully over many years, and works well even today.
      Mr. David Howell: I imagine that hon. Members will wish to pursue some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), but perhaps it would for the convenience of the House if I made some initial responses to his remarks.
      The hon. Gentleman began by saying that the relationship that had developed between the PTAs and the PTEs was about right, but I am sure that, with his considerable knowledge of the different relationships in different areas, he would be the first to concede that it has developed in different ways. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's opinion that the relationship was about right, but there has been pressure from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which has been campaigning in bizarre ways against the purposes of the Bill. The association said that the authorities wanted to acquire more power, to take over and establish a closer relationship with the passenger transport executives.
      I do not know whether the hon. Member for Westhoughton carries his hon. and right hon. Friends with him when he says that he believes that the relationship is right, but I believe that the Association of Metropolitan

      223
      Authorities is wrong in the stand that it has taken over the Bill and in rejecting my proposals for consultation from July onwards. Some of its members have been wrong in the propaganda that they have put out, making inaccurate statements about the Bill and at the ratepayers' expense. They are wholly wrong about concessionary fares and they are wrong to want to change the relationship with the passenger transport executives.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill changed the relationship between authorities and executives. That matter was pursued at great length through 100 hours of fun in Committee, and there is a difference of view between us. The Government contend that although the financial and other duties of the executive are modified in the Bill in relation to the 1968 and 1969 Acts, the basic relationship between the two bodies has not significantly altered.
      If the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge that, he must do more than assert that there has been a fundamental change. He must go back to the 1968 and 1969 Acts and identify exactly where any change in relationships has occurred.
      There have been some additions. The Bill requires that the executives shall be responsible for the initial preparation of a three-year plan. I think that it was the hon. Gentleman, or one of his hon. Friends in Committee, who said that that was already the practice in some areas so there was no need to put it into legislation. We argue the other way. The legislation underpins that good practice in some areas and brings the benefits of sensible, stable, long-term planning for transport support and subsidies to more metropolitan areas than at present.
      Under the existing legislation, the authorities have the power to appoint members of the PTE. That will remain. The power of the authorities to make grants to the PTEs also remains, as does the power to obtain information, to appoint auditors, to give directions on the form of accounts, the establishment of reserves and the provision of particular services.
      The initiatives on matters such as the preparation of budgets, plans for service reorganisation and for capital expenditure are extremely important. They are undermined if money is flowing out in revenue support in every direction. Agreements with British Rail, the National Bus Company and other bus companies and the initiatives on fare levels rest with the executives, although they have to secure the approval of the authority for what they propose. That continues to be enshrined in this legislation.
      The hon. Gentleman is in the same position as I in that, unlike some of the veterans of the past transport legislation, I did not take part in the debates on the 1968 and 1969 legislation. It is clear from the reports of those debates and from the legislation that emerged, however, that the intention was perfectly sensible. The executive carries out the executive function, including the preparation of plans and the carrying out of those plans to carry on the transport business.
      The authorities should fulfil their political role of calling for alternatives, for which there is provision in this legislation, and making decisions on the social subsidy, the revenue grant, the additional money from ratepayers and taxpayers which will be put in in response to certain political judgments and local judgments about matters over and above those taken into account by the executives.
      224
      That was the pattern under the previous legislation. The only change is not in the relationship between the authority and the executive but in the process, so that the Secretary of State is involved with both bodies. The Secretary of State gives guidance to the executive, which formulates the plans, as under the 1968 and 1969 Acts, and then notifies the Secretary of State of those plans. Under clause 6, the plans are also supplied to the authorities, so everyone knows what everyone else is doing.
      The hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the relationship, as should anyone who believes that it has been about right. No one wishes to see great changes in something that is about right. All that is proposed over and above that, however, is a planning process throughout the year, beginning with guidance from the Secretary of State on the level of expenditure which the Government believe, in the light of certain criteria set out in the Bill, including national resources, should be protected from any legal challenge. If authorities decide to spend above that level, there will be no protection from legal challenge.
      That is the basic purpose and thrust of the Bill and it is reflected in these arrangements. There is no upheaval in the relationship between the PTEs and the PTAs. The hon. Gentleman is wasting his energy and his oratory in seeking to identify some great upheaval resulting from the Bill, because there is none. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the relationship is about right. I also believe that the pattern involving initial guidance from the Secretary of State can bring nothing but advantage in creating a more stable basis on which local authorities' plans can be formulated in future years so that stability and efficiency can be built into our transport system both in the capital and in the metropolitan counties.
      I hope that my hon. Friends, and, indeed, all those who want a stable and efficient transport system, will support our intention and reject amendments that seek to change it.
      Mr. Stott: The Secretary of State should realise that this is a very important issue. If more Opposition Members have not sought to contribute to the debate, it is because we are very constrained by time and the House needs to discuss other important amendments.
      The Secretary of State has given his point of view, as he is perfectly entitled to do. He has challenged me to explain why I and my hon. Friends believe that there is a definite and distinct divergence between the provisions of the 1969 Act and those of the Bill. I thought that I had done that in my earlier remarks, but clearly the Secretary of State has closed his mind to any argument in respect of the relationship between the PTEs and the PTAs. He, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and one or two Conservative backwoodsmen are the only people who actually believe what he says. I have met no one in the AMA, the local authorities or anywhere else who believes that the Bill and the provisions of clause 3 do not fundamentally alter the relationship between the executives and the authorities.
      If the Secretary of State continues blithely to state that nothing has changed, only he will believe his own rhetoric. No one else will. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared now to take on board some sensible, reasonable and rational amendments, I must ask my hon. Friends and any other hon. Member who is listening to reject the Government's proposals and to vote for ours.
      Amendment negatived.
      9.45 pm
      Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 2, line 40, after 'of', insert 'an Authority and'.—[Mr. Stott.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 284.

      Division No. 56]

      [9.45 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Forrester, John

      Adams, Allen

      Foster, Derek

      Allaun, Frank

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

      Anderson, Donald

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Freud, Clement

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      George, Bruce

      Bagier, Gordon AT.

      Ginsburg, David

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Golding, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Beith, A. J.

      Graham, Ted

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Herman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Bradley, Tom

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

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

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

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

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Home Robertson, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Homewood, William

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Horam, John

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

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Campbell, Ian

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Huckfield, Les

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cartwright, John

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      John, Brynmor

      Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

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

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kerr, Russell

      Crowther, Stan

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Lambie, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lamond, James

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Leighton, Ronald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Deakins, Eric

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Dewar, Donald

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Dixon, Donald

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dobson, Frank

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Dormand, Jack

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Dubs, Alfred

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McKelvey, William

      Dunnett, Jack

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      McMahon, Andrew

      Eastham, Ken

      McNally, Thomas

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

      McTaggart, Robert

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

      McWilliam, John

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Marks, Kenneth

      English, Michael

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ewing, Harry

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maxton, John

      Field, Frank

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Fitch, Alan

      Meacher, Michael

      Flannery, Martin

      Mikardo, Ian

      226

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Snape, Peter

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Morton, George

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Stoddart, David

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Stott, Roger

      Newens, Stanley

      Strang, Gavin

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Straw, Jack

      Ogden, Eric

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Thomas, Dr. (Carmarthen)

      Park, George

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Parker, John

      Tinn, James

      Parry, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Penhaligon, David

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Race, Reg

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Radice, Giles

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Wardell, Gareth

      Richardson, Jo

      Weetch, Ken

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Welsh, Michael

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Robertson, George

      Whitlock, William

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rooker, J. W.

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Roper, John

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

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Rowlands, Ted

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

      Ryman, John

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Sever, John

      Winnick, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Woodall, Alec

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Wright, Sheila

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Silverman, Julius

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Harry Cowans and

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brotherton, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

      Arnold, Tom

      Budgen, Nick

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Butcher, John

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

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

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

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Bendall, Vivian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

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

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Best, Keith

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cockeram, Eric

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Colvin, Michael

      Blackburn, John

      Cope, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Corrie, John

      Body, Richard

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Critchley, Julian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Crouch, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brinton, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Dover, Denshore

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      227

      Durant, Tony

      Latham, Michael

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lee, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Loveridge, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Luce, Richard

      Farr, John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      MacGregor, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

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

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

      Fox, Marcus

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Madel, David

      Fry, Peter

      Major, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marland, Paul

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Marlow, Antony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Mates, Michael

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gow, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Greenway, Harry

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Grieve, Percy

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moore, John

      Hannam, John

      Morgan, Geraint

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Myles, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Needham, Richard

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Neubert, Michael

      Heddle, John

      Newton, Tony

      Henderson, Barry

      Normanton, Tom

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hicks, Robert

      Onslow, Cranley

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Osborn, John

      Hill, James

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hooson, Tom

      Parris, Matthew

      Hordern, Peter

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pawsey, James

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

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, Barry

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Jessel, Toby

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Renton, Tim

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Rhodes James, Robert

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lang, Ian

      Rossi, Hugh

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rost, Peter

      228

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Thompson, Donald

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Thornton, Malcolm

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Trippier, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Trotter, Neville

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Shepherd, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Waddington, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Wakeham, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Smith, Dudley

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Speed, Keith

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Speller, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Spence, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Watson, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Wells, Bowen

      Squire, Robin

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Stainton, Keith

      Wheeler, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Whitney, Raymond

      Stanley, John

      Wickenden, Keith

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stevens, Martin

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stokes, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 4

      APPROVAL OF FINANCIAL PLANS AND DETERMINATION OF REVENUE GRANTS
      Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'particular'.—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 28, at end insert—
      '(d) the general, social and economic circumstances of the area, including the number of people unemployed, the average level of earnings and the level of car owner-ship;
      (e) any approved structure plan or local plan or any other relevant town and country planning considerations affecting the area for which the authority is responsible;
      (f) all other matters referred to in section 9(3) of the 1968 Act.'.
      10 pm
      Mr. Crowther: I should like to comment briefly on amendment No. 20 and then turn to amendment No. 22.
      Amendment No. 20 would leave out "particular" from a part of the Bill which will require the passenger transport authority to have "particular regard" to certain matters. There are three matters to which it would have to have particular regard. Unfortunately, this appears to be in conflict with section 9(3) of the Transport Act 1968, under which authorities will continue to operate, and which has not been repealed. Section 9(3) requires authorities to have "due" regard to certain matters when they are deciding on plans on the basis of which they must provide a properly integrated and efficient system of public transport. What

      229
      "due" means in that connection I am not sure. It would mean the same if "due" were not there: they would have to have regard.
      I tried in Committee to persuade both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to explain the difference between "regard" and "particular regard". I did not succeed in obtaining a clear answer, but there must be some difference and it is with the purpose of eliminating the difference that this amendment is proposed.
      It would then mean that equal weight would have to be attached to the matters referred to in the new Bill and to the matters referred to in the 1968 Act. It would clarify the point completely and make life a great deal easier for the members of authorities who have to make these decisions.
      Amendment 22 is aimed at the same objective but goes via a different route. We suggest that the problem be solved by adding to the list of matters to which the authority must have either "regard", if amended, or "particular regard", if the Bill is not amended, to a number of very important considerations, including those which are already set out in the 1968 Act. Our purpose in all this is that there should be no dubiety in the minds of members of authorities as to how they are required to carry out their duties.
      As things stand, with the 1968 Act still in force and this new Bill saying something quite different, members of authorities will be placed in a position of considerable difficulty in deciding what their duties are going to be. This seems to be a very simple way of clearing the matter up. The Government ought to welcome this because we are helping to clarify what will be a very unclear piece of legislation if the Bill remains unamended.
      There are various matters which we think ought properly to be considered by an authority in deciding its policy in relation to public passenger transport, fares and subsidies. It should consider
      "the general, social and economic circumstances of the area, including the number of people unemployed, the average level of earnings and the level of car ownership."
      We also say that it should take into consideration
      "any approved structure plan or local plan or any other relevant town and country planning considerations affecting the area for which the authority is responsible."
      Finally, we throw in for good measure
      "all other matters referred to in section 9(3) of the 1968 Act."
      That would make the whole thing a neat package of matters to which the authority would have to have regard, including, of course, the Secretary of State's guidance. However, the Secretary of State's guidance should not overrule all these other matters, which are of vital importance. Indeed, if the Secretary of State is going to oppose this amendment—as I imagine he will do—I hope that he will explain why he thinks these are not matters to which an authority should have regard in the preparation of its transport policy, as any transport authority which did not have regard to matters like the level of motor car ownership, the level of earnings, the level of unemployment and so forth could not possibly do its job properly.
      If the Secretary of State had ever been involved in such work, he would know that an authority cannot do its job properly if it ignores such things. The needs of various areas differ. Under the 1968 Act, the authority must pay attention to an area's needs. It must have due regard to that. The Secretary of State is proposing to add a maximum of 10 people to his staff to assist him in implementing this complicated new legislation. It must be
      230
      obvious to everyone that it will not be within the Secretary of State's scope or ability to carry out investigations to establish the needs of each area. Therefore, the authority must have regard to that. It should be made responsible.
      As I have said, needs vary from area to area. I shall not give all the examples that I could give, but in South Yorkshire family incomes are significantly below the national average. Indeed, they are about £20 below the national average. The level of car ownership in South Yorkshire is far below the national average. Unfortunately, unemployment is much higher than the national average. Those are examples of the things that the authority alone can deal with.
      I have in my hand an interesting document, and the Secretary of State should pay it some attention. It raises an important constitutional or legal problem. In Committee, the Secretary of State repeatedly refused requests from us to invite a Law Officer of the Crown to one of our sittings so that we could ask him about he legal problems that we envisaged as a result of the Bill One of those problems is that, under the Local Government Act 1972, South Yorkshire county council—like all county councils—was made responsible for producing a Structure plan in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The plan was produced and duly approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 19 December 1979. So far so good. The point is that the cheap fares policy was an integral feature of that structure plan, which was approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment. An officer of the council gave me the document to which I have referred; and I am grateful to him. It shows many points at which the cheap fares policy is integral to the structure plan. Without that policy, the structure plan could not be implemented.
      Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Transport is now adopting a different view from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is producing legislation that will make it impossible for county councils to operate the policy that is part of the approved structure plan. I stress that an approved structure plan is a statutory document. It is the statutory duty of the structure plan authority to ensure that it is implemented and that all planning decisions throughout the county are made within the framework of that approved structure plan.
      The Secretary of State has refused to allow Law Officers of the Crown to tell us their view, so I want to know his view of the law when the Bill has been enacted. If South Yorkshire county council—in pursuit of its duty as a structure plan authority to ensure that the provisions of the plan are observed—finds it necessary to pay a revenue grant to the executive that is higher than the Secretary of State's guidance figure and thus outside his protected expenditure level, will it face the danger of legal action; and will it risk the possibility of surcharge? Will the council be protected because it is carrying out their duties under another Act? We are entitled to know. Certainly, members of county councils will wish to know. If they are protected, it makes nonsense of the whole concept of the protected expenditure level. There would be no need for it, because the law would remain as it is.
      An authority that is behaving responsibly and exercising its discretion properly is not acting unlawfully. That was the decision of Lord Justice Woolf in the Merseyside case. Presumably, as the Government have written the provision into the Bill, local authorities are not

      231
      protected. The courts will find themselves in the farcical position of having to decide whether an authority had acted lawfully, while knowing that it had acted lawfully under the 1968 and 1971 Acts. Will it have acted unlawfully under the 1983 Act? The court will have to decide on the conflict of views between one Secretary of State and another. The authority will be a football between them. It will be carrying out its duties under a plan approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment but will be falling foul of the Secretary of State for Transport. It is a serious matter. We need a clear sign of what the Government consider the law will be at the end of the process. It is a farcical position.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends have said that the proper people to make decisions are locally elected councillors. We will be faced with statistics on such matters as car ownership, levels of income and so on. Only the locally elected councillors can work out the implications in human terms of those statistics. They know how families are affected by low incomes, by having no motor car or by being unemployed. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not have the faintest idea of how families are affected by such problems. They can be properly solved only at local level.
      It is more than ever necessary that we should amend the clause to maintain the position that has always operated, where sensible and responsible local authorities make their own decisions. If the public do not like the decisions, they will throw out the councillors at the next election.
      Mr. Stott: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has received a copy of an interesting letter from the Chartered Institute of Transport to the Secretary of State. I wish to quote it to reinforce his point about the differences between what the Secretary of State is doing in the transport area and what the Secretary of State for the Environment is doing with the structure plans. The institute states:
      "Regrettably the dichotomy between the guidance figure and the expenditure targets set by the Secretary of State for the Environment significantly weakens the value of your guidance. We appreciate the difficulty of harmonising these two policies with different objectives and, of course, a great deal depends on what the Metropolitan Authorities decide to spend on other services within the budget. But it already seems that for certain authorities block grant penalties may well apply before expenditure on subsidy reaches your guidance figure."
      That view buttresses the point that my hon. Friend is making so well this evening.
      Mr. Crowther: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have not seen that letter, but it reinforces my point. It further illustrates the nonsense of the position that will be created by this foolish Bill.
      10.15 pm
      I would have liked the opportunity to draw some illustrations from the document to which I referred, but time is too short. I will mention only one which demonstrates my point clearly. It refers to industrial development but the same principle applies to shopping policy, to recreational policy and so on. This is an extract taken from the approved structure plan. It states:
      "A factor influencing the capital investment proposals for transport, car parking provision and the balance between these matters and various land uses, particularly in central areas, has been the current County Council's policy of containing fares and the assumption that future County Councils would continue the
      232
      same policy. It is the County Council's view that fares containment helps people to make more and longer journeys and thereby increases the range of job opportunities for workers and widens the labour catchment area for employers."
      That is an extremely important point. That, I repeat, is part of a structure plan approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is a stautory document from which the county council is not entitled to stray.
      I shall not detain the House for more than another minute. The point has been fairly clearly made. We believe that it is necessary for members of local authorities—not only south Yorkshire to which I have referred but authorities all over the country—to understand just what their duties are and what protection they will have in carrying out their duties in a normal, reasonable and lawful manner.
      The amendments under discussion will clarify the position. They will make it clear that a transport authority, although it has a duty under the new legislation to take notice of the guidance of the Secretary of State, also has other duties. The other duties are of no less importance and of no less weight than having regard to what the Secretary of State has said. Although the Bill is still a bad Bill and the principle of interference with local Government is still there, and we do not like it, if the amendments were written into the Bill, it would be more understandable and would clarify what is at the moment a murky area.
      Mr. John Page: I wish, as a London Member, to express on behalf of my constituents total abhorrence of amendment No. 20. Of all the rather stupid, bent wire hangers on which the Opposition have tried to hang a debate tonight, amendment No. 20 appears to me to be the most bent and the most likely to fall off the peg. It is clear that the amendment seeks to delete from the Bill the requirement that particular interest should be paid by the authority to the need to achieve a proper balance between the interests of ratepayers in their area and the interests of transport users.
      Over the past 18 months London has suffered from the fact that particular regard was not paid to those interests. My constituents and the people of London, as I said in an earlier debate, still have tattooed on their hearts what the GLC jokingly called the "Fares Fair" policy. I beg my right hon. Friend to oppose the amendment and to keep in the Bill the requirement that particular attention should be paid to clause 3(4). At the time of the "Fares Fair" policy, insufficient regard was paid to the interests of ratepayers in my constituency. Over 3,000 people petitioned me to take a stand on the issue.
      I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill. I beg him to oppose the obnoxious amendment No. 20.
      Mr. Marks: The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State as well as the local authorities should take cognisance of the three items in the Bill and the three in the amendment. I have tried to discover from Ministers in Committee what is meant by "guidance". Will the Secretary of State simply give a figure to the authority when it submits a plan, or will there be a statement? On the occasions when the Secretary of State gives guidance he should make a statement to the authority giving the reasons. The statement should be public. Let us have open government. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell the local authority and the executive the reasons for not agreeing with them. So far, all that has been provided is a figure.
      Greater Manchester asked for £49 million, and the Secretary of State responded with £44 million. It is

      233
      obvious that the right hon. Gentleman regards Greater Manchester as a responsible authority. I agree that it is. However, the right hon. Gentleman does not say how the figure in the White Paper was reached. Does he intend to give no reasons for the decision that he reaches?
      The Department of Transport, when it builds motorways, a bypass or a new trunk road, has a system called a cost-benefit analysis in which it endeavours to quantify the benefits against expenditure. Sometimes, expenditure on building a motorway is not a matter of pouring money down the drain. There can be benefits. The Department considers the probable reduction in the number of accidents, the saving of time for commercial and private vehicles and the environmental benefit to the town or village that will be bypassed. It is all very scientific.
      What calculations will be made by the Secretary of State or the five to 10 additional members of his staff who carry out the work? Will there be any analysis? The Opposition argue that there should be an examination not only by the authority but also by the Secretary of State, if he is to interfere to this extent, giving reasons for what he does. Greater Manchester has started to operate a cost-benefit analysis system. The Department has shown interest in its progress. It is significant, however, that the Department has not undertaken a similar exercise.
      What will happen is that the Secretary of State will think of a number. My guess is that, in the case of Manchester, he has deducted an amount that might arise from lower interest rates and a reduction in national insurance charge, to arrive at his figure. What system is he using? The right hon. Gentleman talks about planning. Is he saying that he will not take into account and will not expect the authority to take into account the three items listed in amendment No. 22? If he does not take them into account, the whole Bill is a mockery. To give a figure without supplying the reasons is nonsense, and I am sure that even the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), who has arrived late on the scene, will not accept it.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the general theme of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). The House is entitled to guidance from the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman, in addition to dealing with individual authorities, should also come to the House. Hon. Members wish to know his general theory. There seems a danger—I have watched the progress of the Bill in Committee—that the Secretary of State will make decisions on political grounds, and that if he likes an authority on political grounds he will apply criteria different from those for authorities he does not favour. The Under-Secretary of State says that he does not think that what I say is true. My view, in that case, is that it should be shown not to be true.
      I should have liked to have seen, as I said on Second Reading, an amendment which would have obliged the Secretary of State to come to the House to obtain approval for the guidelines. Parliament could then have discussed in detail those elements which he regards as important—for example, economic issues. The House, local authorities and PTAs would then have been better served. They would have heard the Secretary of State's arguments, the response of the House and the result of its vote. It would have been much better than a secret determination when no one knows how, why or what the
      234
      Secretary of State has considered. My experience in local government tells me that one is unlikely to receive any answers if one asked.
      The Government are not providing what we regard as an efficient and effective transport system. In London we have congestion and accidents on the roads. The transport policy followed by the GLC or the PTA in London will have to take congestion into account to a greater degree than any provincial city.
      Paragraph 21 of the White Paper states absolutely clearly:
      "In assessing value for money, account will be talon of the benefits to users of public transport and to other road users in terms of reduced congestion and accidents."
      As I pointed out on Second Reading, those words do not appear in the Bill. Why not? They are the most vital elements to be taken into account in London. Part of it is taken into account by clause 4(3)(c) which refers to
      "the need to achieve a proper balance between the interests of the ratepayers in their area and the interests of transport users "
      The clause refers to public transport users. We are back to the old story which began with the GLC. The Government took issue on how the balance was to be struck. Will the Minister say where the Bill refers specifically to the benefits to other road users by reduced congestion and accidents? Are we to take those issues into account?
      The Secretary of State asserts continually that he is interested in London and wants to ensure that we have an efficient, effective and, as I have urged from time to time, integrated transport system. If he does not take those factors into account, but only the fiduciary duty of the local authority in terms of the balance between the ratepayer and the public transport user, he cannot achieve the transport policy that we are seeking. We shall continue to have congestion. One cannot without difficulty get into London or the House by car in the morning. Lorries, cars and vans are lined up everywhere. It is chaos.
      10.30 pm
      The Secretary of State has heard me rehearse this argument many times. My constituency is a rat run from Essex into London, and the Secretary of State should come to my area to see exactly what happens. We must persuade those who use private transport not to come into London and to park in my constituency but to use public transport, either the Underground or the buses. We cannot do that if the only way we can run the public transport system is by trying to find the balance that he will draw between the ratepayer and the user of public transport.
      The Secretary of State cannot draw up proper guidelines if he does not include those factors in the Bill. I hope that he will in the House clarify his guidelines. I asked him about it on Second Reading, and I have read most his comments in Committee, but I have yet to he persuaded—apart from his references to fiduciary duty—that he means what he says about the importance of gearing the public transport system to the needs of London.
      I speak only for London. I have heard hon. Members speak about other areas that have features common to my area, but London is a special issue. If the Secretary of State is to take political action, whatever he may think of the political masters at County Hall, that is not his job. His job is to help us in London to define a proper, integrated

      235
      transport system that will enable us to transport millions of people in the daytime efficiently, effectively and as quickly as we can.
      The right hon. Gentleman has a duty tonight, at this late stage in the Bill, to tell the House exactly what factors he is talking about besides those contained in the paragraphs to which I have referred. If he does not do that, those of us who have been trying to obtain assistance for transport in London for many years will feel that all that he has done is to play purely doctrinaire party politics, with no interest in London, and I shall vote against him.
      Miss Maynard: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) referred to amendment No. 20. He objected strongly to the fact that the balance between ratepayers and transport users was not correct. What he really means is that the people whom he represents, who have cars of their own, do not wish to pay a subsidy towards a good, cheap transport policy. But he forgets that, in many cases, ratepayers and transport users are one and the same.
      Mr. John Page: The hon. Lady is being very simplistic, because many of the ratepayers in my constituency travel to work in the centre of London every day. However, they object to the unfair way in which the distribution of the burden is placed on the ratepayers instead of the users.
      Miss Maynard: This is not the only Bill that affects local authorities. The Government have brought in many Bills to remove money and decision-making from local authorities. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consider the Government's responsibility for the problems faced by London rather than attacking the Opposition for the view that we are putting forward tonight.
      Amendment No. 22 is one of the most important amendments that we have discussed tonight, because it talks about taking the social and economic position into account. The Opposition believe strongly that the only people who can do that are the elected local representatives who live in the area and who are subjected to the electorate every four or five years.
      The Government are not only saying that they want to provide only a certain amount of money, which they are perfectly entitled to do, but they are also saying that they will allow us to contribute only a certain amount of money to public transport. We object to that strongly, particularly in South Yorkshire, where people have consistently elected the local authority over several years on a cheap fares policy.
      Sheffield is virtually a one-industry city based on steel. It has been decimated by the depression, by Government policies and by our membership of the EC. If any city ever wanted a cheap fares policy it is Sheffield, part of which I represent. South Yorkshire is based on heavy industry, which again is in a state of depression. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said, it is a low-wage area in comparison to many parts of Britain and so the cheap fares policy has been a tremendous boon to people who need such help. It has also been much more than that. It has dealt with the problem that London suffers from more acutely than any other city and to which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) just referred. One only has to walk outside the House to see the terrible problem of congestion, often
      236
      caused by one person in a motor car. Cars jam the streets and occupy parking places which must be found for them. Would not it be much more sensible to have a proper integrated cheap public transport system so that those cars are not on the road, congesting the city and fouling and polluting the air? South Yorkshire and Sheffield do not have such congestion and pollution. Equally important, we have fewer accidents. That is important from a human point of view. It is also important in that fewer accidents mean fewer people taking up hospital beds which are already under tremendous pressure.
      Because South Yorkshire is a low income area, we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, fewer car owners. Even when a family owns a car, it is usually the man who must use it, and the woman would be left stranded if it were not for the cheap fares policy. Women can travel about on the buses and do their shopping because the fares are so reasonable. That benefits not only them but the shopping area in the centre of Sheffield. There are so many benefits from such a policy.
      As I say, South Yorkshire and Sheffield rely more on public transport than perhaps other areas. The concessions that we have been able to give to children—a quarter of the adult fare—means that they are able to go to sporting and cultural facilities, and they have also been a great help to disabled and old people. In other words, we have tried to look after the people who cannot help themselves. Surely that is the kind of policy we ought to be pursuing.
      We have heard much from Conservatve Members about things being cost effective. It seems to me that, where the Government have pursued that policy by not subsidising fares but letting people try to meet the economic fare, buses have been either empty or there have been no buses at all. What is cost effective about such a policy? Surely it is much more cost effective to pursue the kind of policy which we are pursuing in South Yorkshire with cheap fares and full buses. Surely that is a much more sensible policy to pursue.
      The Bill is clearly aimed at Labour-controlled local authorities and particularly ones in South Yorkshire. The Government are really saying that they believe in democracy, providing that it produces the results that they want. But in South Yorkshire it has produced a Socialist local authority that pursues Socialist policies. So the Bill is being introduced in order, first, to curb that local authority, and, if that local authority cannot be curbed directly and persuaded by the Bill, the Government's friends in the courts will, they hope, deal with democratically elected Labour-controlled authorities.
      Miss Jo Richardson: I hesitated to intervene in the debate because I was not on the Committee which considered the Bill, and therefore I do not feel as expert as some hon. Members. However, I was drawn to make a contribution because I was impressed by amendment No. 22. In particular, I was impressed by the new subsection 3(d), which seeks to provide
      "the general, social and economic circumstances of the area, including the number of people unemployed, the average level of earnings and the level of car ownership"
      should be taken into account. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I talk about London in this respect, as it is the area that I know best, although the circumstances are relevant to all areas.
      Even with the GLC "Fares Fair" policy, which was so neatly knocked on the head by the Tory Government, all in inner London looked with envy at the policies of south

      237
      Yorkshire and Sheffield. I know that many people wished that their fare policy could have been used in London long before the "Fares Fair" policy was introduced.
      In London, as any hon. Member who looks across the river will know, we have 343,846 people unemployed this month. That figure is displayed on the top of County Hall. I hear from my unemployed constituents of the difficulties that they have, not only because they cannot afford to travel for pleasure, but in travelling around the capital to get a job. There are not many employment opportunities in Barking, and, if they are to be realistic about finding a job, my constituents have to travel to other parts of London.
      Even if these people are successful in getting a job in another part of London, they have to calculate whether the money that they will get will enable them to afford the fares to get to work every day. If one lives in Barking and travels to the centre of London to work, it will cost one £13·10 a week, which is about £50 a month, before one pays anything else.
      A young woman friend of mine who lives in north London in the same zone as Barking has to pay the same amount to travel. She tells me that she pays more on fares a month, as a single person, than on gas, electricity and food. That is a ridiculous comparison to make.
      The hon. Member for Harrow, East—
      Mr. John Page: Harrow, West.
      Miss Richardson: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I said east because I once fought Harrow, East, so I know the district well. I was taken aback to hear the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) say that so many of his constituents had it engraved on their hearts how much they hated the "Fares Fair" policy. From my memory of Harrow, East, and from the friends that I have retained there, I should have thought that the people in Harrow were pleased with the policy because it meant that they could travel to London to work, and for pleasurable and cultural occasions, without having to pay tremendous fares. I imagine that the fare from Harrow to London is about the same as that from Barking.
      The House should not have to forgive me for speaking about the problems of women living and working in London, because this is a subject that is not often brought up in the House. High fares and low standards of transport affect women disproportionately more than men.
      Of the 343,000 unemployed people in London, which is the figure displayed above County Hall, 91,400 are women. That is an unrealistic figure, as a large number of women do not register as unemployed and do not appear in the figures of the Department of Employment.
      10.45 pm
      Women earn on average, including London weighting, two thirds of a man's wage. Many of them in London, as elsewhere, are working part-time in low-paid, ghetto-type jobs, fitting in the difficulties of travelling across huge
      238
      areas of London and performing their home responsibilities. They are severely disadvantaged. In many cases, women have to ask their husbands for money before they can travel to work as they do not have sufficient money to be able to subsidise themselves. Women are unhappy to do that. They want some financial independence.
      London has approximately 150,000 one-parent families. The majority of those single parents are women. They suffer hardship from the inability to get jobs in areas in which they can afford to live or to which they can afford to travel.
      I am told that one third of registered drivers are women. Men are more likely to travel to work by car than women. Women are more frequent users of public transport. Women try to find jobs as near to their homes as possible because of their family responsibilities. That enables them to return during the day and afternoon to see that their children are at home. Women thus need to use buses for short distances more than men do.
      Just over 20 per cent. of one-parent families have a car, compared with 82 per cent. of two-parent families. That is a tremendous disadvantage to the women who comprise the majority of single parents.
      Cuts in the frequency and maintenance of transport cause other difficulties for women. Women are subject to violence on the Underground from time to time. I myself find it very difficult to gather up the courage late at night to go home from the House of Commons to Hammersmith on the Underground. I might find myself in a carriage alone or with one or two people whom I do not know. I do not often get scared, but I am apprehensive. I want frequent, well-staffed trains so that people are present to protect travellers from possible violence.
      There was a proposal to the effect that the London underground should start half an hour later in the morning and stop half an hour earlier in the evening in order to cut costs. That may sound perfectly reasonable on the face of it, but it would affect women severely because so many of them have to work shifts to fit in with their family responsibilities. Such a development might leave them with no transport at all or waiting for long periods at lonely bus stops only to find that there is no bus either.
      I am sure that all hon. Members have seen the very nice women who clean this building. We see them only because we are occasionally here all night. They come in at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. How will they get to work if the transport available to thm starts half an hour later? The majority of people who work in cleaning are women. They go to work early in the morning to clean big offices, Government buildings, hospitals and the House of Commons, and such a change in public transport availability would be very hard for them to bear.
      One of the aims of the GLC "Fares Fair" policy was to create a vehicle for London Transport recruiting—to provide a better service and at the same time more jobs. The reversal of that policy has had, and will continue to have, a serious effect on recruitment.

      239
      London Transport has always claimed to be an "equal opportunities" employer, and I accept that that is its intention, but it has a long way to go before that becomes a reality. At present, 53,470 men and only 6,270 women work on London Transport. As hon. Members may guess, a great proportion of those women work in cleaning, catering and the other typical "women's image" jobs to which they are usually confined.
      If we ever have a decent fares and transport policy, for the whole of London, as I hope that we shall under a Labour Government and a Labour GLC, I hope that it will give more women the opportunity to train properly for London Transport jobs as well as giving all the other people in the capital what they want in the form of a proper fares system and a transport policy that allows them to travel to and from work and conduct their personal lives in a civilised way.
      Mr. Race: First, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the amendment. I hope that my other hon. Friends will not mind if I single out my two women hon. Friends for congratulation, as they highlighted a very significant aspect of transport policy—the fact that it affects different people in different ways. One of the most significant groups to be adversely affected if fares are increased and services reduced will be women, who comprise 52 per cent. of the population. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), in her very lucid speech, set out a number of cogent points which the Secretary of State should take extremely seriously, although I suspect that he will not.
      Amendment No. 22 is of great significance. Not only does it try to single out considerations to which a transport authority should have regard before it submits a plan to the Secretary of State: it tries to draw out some of the really significant social factors that might occur in an area. It is up to that transport authority to say whether those factors occur in its area and whether any regard is to be had to them in terms of the grant that is given to the transport executive.
      If the GLC was so fortunate as to have amendment No. 22 in the Bill, it would be able to examine the social and economic condition of London and say "Here are some objective criteria by which we can justify reducing fares and improving the service." If we are to discuss objective criteria, it is important that the House knows exactly what is happening in London.
      One of the most significant factors in London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred, is unemployment. More than 340,000 people are now unemployed in the Greater London area—the largest concentration of people in the country. We must remember that it is not merely the number of unemployed that determines the prosperity of an area. Prosperity is also affected by the number of poor people in an area.
      One of the crazy things about the image of London and the south-east in northerners' minds is that they assume that all of the south-east and London is prosperous. They think that it is an area of great plenty as compared with parts of the north and Scotland. There is much truth in some of that, but there is also a great deal of nonsense in
      240
      it. There are parts of London where the rate of unemployment and the incidence of poverty are as high as anywhere in the country.
      Mr. John Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for stopping in full flow. Will he comment on what I believe to be a very important point? We have had a great advertisement for Yorkshire today. Does he realise that the chamber of commerce in Sheffield has said that if the rates increase, firms will have to lay people off and that 31 per cent. of the companies there will consider moving from Sheffield? He is trying to bring to London the disaster area problems that have occured there?
      Mr. Race: I should take more notice of the hon. Gentleman if I thought that he closely followed our discussions on these matters. It is true that rates in the great conurbations have risen substantially, although from the mid-1970s to now they have not risen faster than the rate of inflation. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports have made it difficult for local authorities to do other than raise their rates if they are to play fair with their electors.
      For example, the Inner London Education Authority must halve its expenditure if it wants to receive Government grants again. That is a ludicrous proposition, which no sensible councillor would countenance. It would presumably involve closing half of the schools and sacking half of the teachers. It is not possible to make simple economies that amount to half of an authority's expenditure. The penalties that have been imposed on local authorities, especially the ILEA, whose grant has been abolished by the Government, has made it inevitable that rates will rise. If the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) wants to prevent rates rising, he should stop supporting the penalties on elected local councillors who are carrying out their functions and local mandates.
      11 pm
      Mr. Martin Flannery: As a Sheffield Member of Parliament I get all the literature from the chamber of commerce there. Recently there was a threat from a major toy firm in Sheffield that it would have to close. It did not close. When we inquired about it, the firm admitted that it had said that only for the effect that it would produce. People are not moving away from Sheffield because of the rates. We who live there know that to be so.
      Mr. Race: I am grateful for the benefit of the superior knowledge of my hon. Friend about Sheffield. I should not dream of intruding on that.
      Many thousands of jobs have left the London area, partly because of deliberate plans to relocate industry in the south-east, and partly because of the enormous impact of interest rates and the slump policies of the Government on industry. It ill-behoves Conservative members to come bleating to the House, pretending that it is the nasty Labour-controlled local authorities which are responsible for getting rid of all the jobs in London. What hypocrisy.
      Mr. Matthew Parris rose—
      Mr. Race: I shall not give way again, because I must press on.
      I was trying to establish that one of the problems London faces and why amendment No. 22 is so important is that within the GLC boundaries there are substantial areas of high poverty. In Committee I quoted to the

      241
      Secretary of State for my borough of the number of people receiving supplementary allowances. I thought that I had better check on the current incidence of poverty in my borough, as the parliamentary question which I quoted then referred to April 1982. This very day, 1 February, I received a reply from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, showing that the incidence of poverty, as reflected in the numbers of people receiving supplementary allowances, had gone up yet again in the London borough of Haringey.
      At the Highgate office of the DHSS, the number of persons claiming supplementary allowances was 5,700 in May 1979, and that had gone up to 10,600 in December 1982. At the Wood Green office the relevant numbers were 1,400 in May 1979 and 4,500 in December 1982. At the Tottenham office there were 4,100 claimants of supplementary allowances in May 1979, compared with 8,900 in December 1982. A total of 11,000 households were in receipt of supplementary allowances in May 1979. By December 1982 that had gone up to 24,000, more than doubling the rate of poverty in a typical London borough.
      When making its transport policy the GLC ought to consider how many of those people will be able to use private cars to go about their daily business and lives. Not many of the people who are getting £25·50 per week, which is the rate of supplementary allowance for the single person householder, nor of those who have been made redundant—more than 8,000—and become unemployed in the London borough of Haringey over the last three and a half years will have the opportunity to use a private car. It is up to the GLC and to the metropolitan counties to say, "We have not only a high rate of unemployment but a high incidence of poverty."
      It is not just a question of the number of people in receipt of the poverty rates of benefit but of those still in jobs. It might interest the hon. Member for Harrow, West to learn that over the years 1970 to 1979, spanning both Labour and Conservative Governments, the proportionate position of the lowest paid workers in London dropped. The real wages of the lowest quartile of London workers dropped between 1970 and 1979, as measured by the family expenditure survey. That is astonishing. Those in London who are still working are becoming lower paid and so have less disposable income to spend on things such as tube fares, bus fares and so on. That is another factor to which the elected local authority must have regard when making its determination for transport.
      It is clear from the figures from the Greater London council London Transport travel diary panel that those who use public transport disproportionately are the elderly, the unemployed, students and adults in non car-owning households. I shall give one statistic—19 per cent. of all adults' journeys are on buses, but for the elderly the figure is 41 per cent., which shows that the elderly use the buses disproportionately more than the rest of the population. The unemployed also use buses disproportionately more than the rest of the population. The reason is obvious. They have low incomes. They probably have had a chequered history of employment. They probably had a redundancy in the family or a change in circumstances which made it difficult for them to build up the reserves necessary to buy a motor car. Those are the problems that a metropolitan county or the GLC should consider when making determinations about transport policy.
      Mr. John Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Race: I should like to, but I must conclude my speech.
      The plain facts are that not only are the unemployed, the poor, the elderly and students disadvantaged in our society and in desperate need of public transport to survive, but that people on the lowest incomes spend a disproportionately high amount of their incomes on public transport fares. In 1981, those who earned under £35 a week spent 1·3 per cent. of their household income on bus fares, according to the family expenditure survey, but in households with a weekly income of over £350 a week the proportion of household expenditure on bus fares was only 0·5 per cent. That is not a surprising statistic. It shows yet again that the users of public transport are mainly, but not wholly, those who have great difficulties because of their household income, poverty and disadvantage.
      However, that is not to say that the local authority must have regard only to the users of public transport. We must have regard also to all those who gain from good public transport because there is less congestion, fewer accidents on the roads, less lead in the air and a better life for everyone. That is exactly the consideration for a local authoritiy to bear in mind when it makes its plan before it goes to the Secretary of State.
      It is clear that the only authority that can make a proper determination of planning policy in the great congested urban area of London is the GLC. Who is to say what the transport planning problems of the whole of London are? The London borough of Harrow could not. My own borough could not. I do not know what the local demand is for improvements to the south circular. No doubt the hon. Member who represents that area holds some views about that. However, a London-wide body must make that determination.
      I refer not only to London-wide transport problems but to London-wide planning problems. I shall cite just one example from my constituency. Alexandra Palace burnt down, and my local council is now refurbishing it at a substantial cost, paid for by the insurance. Many people who did not use the palace before will now use it. Thousands of people may use it on one day. Obviously that change in the environment must be reflected in changes in public transport.
      Mr. Anthony Berry (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): Nonsense.
      Mr. Race: The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) says that it is nonsense to provide better public transport to Alexandra Palace. We should be glad to hear what he has to say about the subject. I am sure that his constituents will want to know that he does not favour a decent and efficient form of transport.
      Local councils must have regard to planning changes if we are to have a decent public transport system. Only they can do it. That is why amendment No. 22 is crucial.
      Mr. Eyre: I shall try to reply briefly to the points raised, because I know that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) is anxious to speak.
      As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) knows, clause 4(3) sets out the matters for which the authority is to have particular regard when assessing the executive's plan. They are; first, the cost of the provision of services and facilities, the level of demand and the

      243
      benefit to users; secondly, any advice given by the Secretary of State to the executive on the appropriate amount of revenue support, on methods of determining benefits derived from revenue support, on the form and content of the plan, and on the methods of determining costs, levels of demand and benefits to potential users; thirdly, the need to achieve a proper balance between the interests of ratepayers and users.
      I noted the great importance that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) attached to those requirements. I agree with his assessment in that respect.
      In response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Rotherham, I should add that the word "particular" is important for two reasons. First, the matters listed are those to which the authority should pay special regard. Secondly, "particular" makes it clear that if the authority wishes to have regard to other matters, it is free to do so. The omission of the word "particular" could mean that the authority was excluded from considering other matters. For those reasons, the amendment must be resisted.
      Amendment No. 22 was referred to by the hon. Member for Rotherham and was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), and would insert new paragraphs in clause 4(3) requiring the authority—when taking its decision on the plan—to have regard to matters such as the general social and economic circumstances of the area, the number of unemployed, the level of earnings, car ownership, local plans, and so on. However, the Government would expect a local authority to bear such considerations very much in mind when making decisions on proposals for the development of public transport in their area. They are obviously relevant to the duty to achieve a proper balance between the interests of ratepayers and transport users, imposed by clause 4(3)(c). As the Government would expect the authority to take these and many other matters into account, without an express requirement in the Bill, they are naturally not prepared to accept the amendment. The Government cannot accept the extension of clause 4(3) into a recitation of a massive list of what matters local authorities will have in mind. The speeches of the hon. Members for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and for Barking showed that one can continue to add matters that deserve consideration in this category. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) is concerned about the additional rates that his constituents will have to pay because of GLC policy. That relates to a point raised by the hon. Member for Wood Green.
      11.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Rotherham, and other hon. Members representing constituencies in South Yorkshire, made a number of claims about the transport system in that area. They must take into account the challenging point that during the period of transport policy in South Yorkshire that we are considering, it is claimed that the number of passengers rose by 7 per cent. In fact, the acquisition of additional transport operators has added to that total. However, that rise must be considered against the background of the important fact that at the same time there has been an increase of no less than 600 per cent. in subsidies. Is that enormous increase worth while, and can
      244
      it be justified by the benefits that have been obtained? South Yorkshire Members of Parliament must bear that question in mind.
      Miss Maynard: I wish to point out to the Minister once again that the majority of electors certainly think that it is well worth while.
      Mr. Eyre: The hon. Lady knows that domestic ratepayers pay only 19 per cent. of the cost. Therefore, their voting support is more easily commanded. The burden that falls upon the industrial and commercial ratepayers is not reflected because of voting arrangements.
      The hon. Member for Rotherham raised a point about planning. Nothing in the Bill prevents authorities from following proper policies. The Bill protects expenditure up to the PEL. It does not prejudice a higher level of expenditure where it is is a proper exercise of power, and nothing in the Bill prevents the carrying out of any duties.
      Mr. Crowther: I wish to clarify that point. Is the Minister saying categorically that the South Yorkshire county council, in pursuance of its duty as a structure plan authority, and committed to a cheap bus fare policy approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment, will not fall foul of this legislation if it goes well over the PEL?
      Mr. Eyre: I was explaining that the Bill does not prevent an authority from carrying out its duties. The various points raised by the hon. Gentleman need careful examination against that background.
      The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) raised the important question of cost-benefit analysis. My Department is developing the technique of assessing the benefits from any given level of subsidy. For some items it is easy to ascribe a cost benefit, but for others it is more difficult.
      The White Paper states:
      "Subsidy needs to show demonstrable benefits."
      That is the question for south Yorkshire. The techniques that we are developing are certainly of interest to authorities, and I shall shortly be making details available to them for their own use in assessing the best use of any given level of revenue support—in particular, in terms of the best balance between fares and service levels. I also regard this work as a useful tool at national level in looking at the value per pound of subsidy yielded in different authorities. This will be one of the factors that I shall have in mind in considering individual authority proposals.
      The scope of the model being considered includes a number of factors which can be readily measured and expressed in money terms. This is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who asked about benefits to other road users, to the main question of the hon. Member for Gorton and also to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) about road congestion. The scope of the model includes the level of revenue support and benefits from changes in service level, changes in fares, trip generation on public transport, transfer of passengers from private to public transport, and reduction in road congestion. The model then deals with other relevant matters. It will show that a great deal of thought is being given to these matters which have been raised in the debate, but I have explained to the hon. Member for Westhoughton why I reject both the amendments to which he spoke.
      Mr. Stott: In no way can I do justice to the debate in the time that has been allotted to me. We have to conclude our business by 11.30 pm and I ask my hon. Friends to forgive me if I do not deal with the points they made so succinctly.
      I should like to respond to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page). I can recommend to him as good bedtime reading the entire Committee proceedings on the Bill in which he will discover that the rates issue was debated fully and at great length. Interesting information and arguments are referred to in those proceedings. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that rates have consistently represented less than 1 per cent. of industrial costs. The increase in the business rate over the past two years has been broadly in line with the overall increase in industry's material and fuel costs, which is about 38·9 to 44·5 per cent. compared with a truly massive increase of 93·6 per cent. in the interest payments of industry and commerce.
      Within the business sector manufacturing has relatively the smallest rate burden. Commerce, the distributive industries, other services and the public utilities pay the highest, yet it is in those sectors that jobs losses have been relatively low. It is incorrect to assume, as the hon. Gentleman assumes, that the rate burden does what he says it does in respect of businesses. There is ample evidence to the contrary and we used arguments to demonstrate it on a number of occasions in Committee.
      The amendments are exceedingly sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), drawing on his vast experience as a member of the south Yorkshire county council in the days when the transportation policyx2014;
      Mr. Crowther rose—
      Mr. Stott: If I have my hon. Friend's job description wrong, I apologise. My hon. Friend has great experience in local government and set out his arguments cogently.
      The provisions of the Bill interlock and there is a common thread. We have been asking, probing and debating with the Secretary of State and Under-Secretary for the past three months on what guidelines which the Secretary of State will eventually issue will be based and how they will be implemented. We have had no satisfactory answer to our questions. In fact, we have all along contended that there is no need for the Bill because the existing legislation is adequate and properly serves the needs of the community.
      That was adequately demonstrated when Great Universal Stores took Merseyside county council to court and Mr. Justice Woolf adjudicated that the county council was acting properly within the provisions of the 1969 Act. Only last week a court in London adjudicated that the Greater London Council was acting legally within the Act. There is no reason for the Secretary of State to come before the House on the pretence that clarification of the law is required.
      Our amendments seek to ensure that when the plans are being formulated and submitted to the Secretary of State the local authorities shall have specific reference to certain crucial circumstances, as set out in amendment No. 22.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Miss Richardson) and for Wood Green (Mr. Race) have described the problems of unemployment. It is interesting that in the Merseyside case Mr. Justice Woolf made special reference to the subject. He stated:
      246
      "influence by such considerations as indicated by Mr. Coombes"—
      who was at that time chairman of the passenger transport authority—
      "in paragraph 11 of his affidavit and in particular subparagraph (h) which indicates that he took account of the high cost of public transport and the hardship that that would continue to bring to a sizeable proportion of the county population whose sole source of income is state benefits. Assuming the Council was so influenced, I do not see anything objectionable in law in this. The fact that the Prescott case made it clear that the Council should not adopt a policy of making losses by giving away rights of free travel does not mean that the Council are required to ignore the financial circumstances of the persons for whom the transport service is to be provided. It is no use fixing charges at a level which the customer cannot pay. As long as the Council's predominant purpose in adopting a policy is a proper one, it would not matter if in addition they took into account the fact that it would benefit a hard pressed section of the public."
      Those were the words of Mr. Justice Woolf in summing up the Merseyside case. They show that specific provision existed in the 1968 Act for the local authority to maintain a transport policy that had regard to the unemployed. There is no reason, apart from party political, philosophical dogma, for the Secretary of State to bring forward a Bill that seeks to change the law that was created in 1968 and that has been tested in the courts and a law that was created in 1969 that was tested in the court last week. The Bill would be infinitely better if the Under-Secretary of State would accept the amendment. If he does not do so, I invite my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
      Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 4, line 28, at end insert—
      '(d) the general, social and economic circumstances of the area, including the number of people unemployed, the average level of earnings and the level of car ownership;
      (e) any approved structure plan or local plan or any other relevant town and country planning considerations affecting the area for which the authority is responsible; all other matters referred to in section 9(3) of the 1968 Act. '.—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 293.

      Division No. 57]

      [11.28 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Adams, Allen

      Cant, R. B.

      Allaun, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Anderson, Donald

      Cartwright, John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Clarke.Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Bagier, Gordon AT.

      Coleman, Donald

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

      Beith, A. J.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Crowther, Stan

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cryer, Bob

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Bradley, Tom

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

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

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

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

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Deakins, Eric

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Buchan, Norman

      Dewar, Donald

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

      Dixon, Donald

      Campbell, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      247

      Dormand, Jack

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dubs, Alfred

      McMahon, Andrew

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McNally, Thomas

      Dunnett, Jack

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      McWilliam, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Magee, Bryan

      Eastham, Ken

      Marks, Kenneth

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

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      English, Michael

      Maxton, John

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Meacher, Michael

      Ewing, Harry

      Mikardo, Ian

      Faulds, Andrew

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Field, Frank

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Fitch, Alan

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Forrester, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foster, Derek

      Morton, George

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

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Freud, Clement

      Newens, Stanley

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Ogden, Eric

      George, Bruce

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Ginsburg, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Golding, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Gourlay, Harry

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Graham, Ted

      Palmer, Arthur

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Park, George

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Parker, John

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

      Parry, Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Pendry, Tom

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Penhaligon, David

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Pitt, William Henry

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Haynes, Frank

      Race, Reg

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Radice, Giles

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

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

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

      Richardson, Jo

      Home Robertson, John

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Homewood, William

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Horam, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Robertson, George

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Huckfield, Les

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Roper, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Ryman, John

      John, Brynmor

      Sandelson, Neville

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sever, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Kerr, Russell

      Silverman, Julius

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lambie, David

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Lamond, James

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Litherland, Robert

      Stoddart, David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Stott, Roger

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Strang, Gavin

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Straw, Jack

      McCartney, Hugh

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      McKelvey, William

      Tilley, John

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Tinn, James

      248

      Torney, Tom

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

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

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Wardell, Gareth

      Winnick, David

      Weetch, Ken

      Woodall, Alec

      Wellbeloved, James

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Welsh, Michael

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Wright, Sheila

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Whitlock, William

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Dr. Edmund Marshall and

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

      Mr. Harry Cowans.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Durant, Tony

      Alexander, Richard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Eggar, Tim

      Ancram, Michael

      Elliott, Sir William

      Arnold, Tom

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Eyre, Reginald

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

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Farr, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Best, Keith

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

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forman, Nigel

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Fox, Marcus

      Blackburn, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Body, Richard

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bright, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Brinton, Tim

      Gow, Ian

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Greenway, Harry

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

      Grist, Ian

      Buck, Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Budgen, Nick

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hannam, John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Haselhurst, Alan

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

      Hastings, Stephen

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawksley, Warren

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hayhoe, Barney

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

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Heddle, John

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Henderson, Barry

      Cockeram, Eric

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Corrie, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Hill, James

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Critchley, Julian

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Crouch, David

      Hooson, Tom

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

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

      Dover, Denshore

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      249

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Pollock, Alexander

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Porter, Barry

      Jessel, Toby

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Renton, Tim

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Knox, David

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lamont, Norman

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Latham, Michael

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lee, John

      Rost, Peter

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shepherd, Richard

      MacGregor, John

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Silvester, Fred

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Smith, Sir Dudley

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

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Speed, Keith

      Madel, David

      Speller, Tony

      Major, John

      Spence, John

      Marland, Paul

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Marlow, Antony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sproat, Iain

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Squire, Robin

      Mates, Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Stanley, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Steen, Anthony

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stevens, Martin

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mellor, David

      Stokes, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Thompson, Donald

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moore, John

      Trippier, David

      Morgan, Geraint

      Trotter, Neville

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Murphy, Christopher

      Viggers, Peter

      Myles, David

      Waddington, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wakeham, John

      Needham, Richard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Neubert, Michael

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Newton, Tony

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Normanton, Tom

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Onslow, Cranley

      Waller, Gary

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Walters, Dennis

      Osborn, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Watson, John

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Wells, Bowen

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Parris, Matthew

      Wheeler, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Whitney, Raymond

      Pawsey, James

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wilkinson, John

      250

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. John Cope and

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Ian Lang.

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order, [17 January] and resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the amendments moved by a member of the Government.
      Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 8, line 37, clause 10, leave out from 'and' to end of line 38 and insert
      'no such determination shall be made by an Authority unless they have been given guidance by the Secretary of State in relation to the determination and that guidance is taken into account by them in making the determination.'.—[Mr. David Howell.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 234.

      Division No. 58]

      11.41 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Alexander, Richard

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Crouch, David

      Ancram, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Arnold, Tom

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

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

      Dover, Denshore

      Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Durant, Tony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Eggar, Tim

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Best, Keith

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eyre, Reginald

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Blackburn, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Blaker, Peter

      Farr, John

      Body, Richard

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bowden, Andrew

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

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Forman, Nigel

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bright, Graham

      Fox, Marcus

      Brinton, Tim

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Fry, Peter

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Buck, Antony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Budgen, Nick

      Gorst, John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gow, Ian

      Butcher, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, Harry

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

      Grieve, Percy

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Grylls, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gummer, John Selwyn

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

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hannam, John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Colvin, Michael

      Hastings, Stephen

      Corrie, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      251

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Myles, David

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Neale, Gerrard

      Heddle, John

      Needham, Richard

      Henderson, Barry

      Neubert, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Hicks, Robert

      Normanton, Tom

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hill, James

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Osborn, John

      Hooson, Tom

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

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

      Parris, Matthew

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pawsey, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant

      Pollock, Alexander

      Godman

      Porter, Barry

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Jessel, Toby

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Renton, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Lamont, Norman

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Latham, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Rost, Peter

      Lee, John

      Rumbold, Mrs A, C. R.

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Luce, Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      MacGregor, John

      Silvester, Fred

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Smith, Sir Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

      Speed, Keith

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Speller, Tony

      Madel, David

      Spence, John

      Major, John

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Marland, Paul

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marlow, Antony

      Sproat, Iain

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Squire, Robin

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Stainton, Keith

      Mates, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mather, Carol

      Stanley, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Steen, Anthony

      Mawby, Ray

      Stevens, Martin

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stokes, John

      Mellor, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tapsell, Peter

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thompson, Donald

      Moate, Roger

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trippier, David

      Moore, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Morgan, Geraint

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Viggers, Peter

      252

      Waddington, David

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Wakeham, John

      Whitney, Raymond

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Wilkinson, John

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waller, Gary

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Walters, Dennis

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Warren, Kenneth

      Watson, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. John Cope and

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mr. Ian Lang.

      Wheeler, John

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Adams, Allen

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Allaun, Frank

      Ewing, Harry

      Anderson, Donald

      Faulds, Andrew

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Frank

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fitch, Alan

      Ashton, Joe

      Flannery, Martin

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Forrester, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Foster, Derek

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Beith, A. J.

      Freud, Clement

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      George, Bruce

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Ginsburg, David

      Bradley, Tom

      Golding, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gourlay, Harry

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Graham, Ted

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

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

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

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

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Hardy, Peter

      Buchan, Norman

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

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

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Campbell, Ian

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cant, R. B.

      Haynes, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cartwright, John

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

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

      Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Home Robertson, John

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

      Homewood, William

      Cohen, Stanley

      Horam, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Cowans, Harry

      Huckfield, Les

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Crowther, Stan

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      John, Brynmor

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

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

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

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Deakins, Eric

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dewar, Donald

      Kerr, Russell

      Dixon, Donald

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Dobson, Frank

      Lambie, David

      Dormand, Jack

      Lamond, James

      Dubs, Alfred

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Litherland, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Eastham, Ken

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

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

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      English, Michael

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      253

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Rowlands, Ted

      McKelvey, William

      Ryman, John

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Sandelson, Neville

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sever, John

      McMahon, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNally, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McWilliam, John

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Magee, Bryan

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

      Silverman, Julius

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Maxton, John

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Meacher, Michael

      Stallard, A. W.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Stoddart, David

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Stott, Roger

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Strang, Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Straw, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Morton, George

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Newens, Stanley

      Tilley, John

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Tinn, James

      Ogden, Eric

      Torney, Tom

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wardell, Gareth

      Palmer, Arthur

      Weetch, Ken

      Park, George

      Welsh, Michael

      Parker, John

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Parry, Robert

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Whitlock, William

      Pendry, Tom

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Penhaligon, David

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Pitt, William Henry

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

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Race, Reg

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Radice, Giles

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

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Winnick, David

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Woodall, Alec

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Robertson, George

      Wright, Sheila

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Roper, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Mr. Hugh McCartney and

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Ron Leighton.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 8, line 42, clause 10, at end insert—
      '(4) For the purpose of section 2 above in its application to an accounting period of an Executive ending before 1st April 1984 there shall be disregarded any deficit or potential deficit to the extent to which it is or is to be covered by the appropriation of any reserves of the Executive available for the purpose if, at any time before or after the passing of this Act but before the Secretary of State gives his guidance to the Authority under subsection (2) above, the Executive have notified the Secretary of State of their intention to appropriate those reserves for that purpose.'.—[Mr. David Howell.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. David Howell.]
      11.54 pm
      Mr. Booth: In the 11 weeks since Second Readings, we have had to attempt three major exercises. At the Bill was produced simultaneously with the White Paper, we have not only had to examine the Bill within the truncated
      254
      timescale allowed by the guillotine but have had to conduct the debate on the White Paper and the consultation with metropolitan authorities and the GLC which would have been carried out before proceedings commenced on the Bill if the normal timescale had been observed in producing the White Paper and introducing the Bill.
      The White Paper "Public Transport Subsidy in Cities" set out three aims for the Bill. It says that the Bill will remove
      "uncertainties about the role and legality of subsidy … ensure better value for money since Authorities will be encouraged to seek greater efficiency by reviewing and if necessary reforming management structures. And it will develop further opportunities for the private sector to provide urban passenger transport and ancillary services".
      No year could be allowed to pass by the Conservative Government without some piece of legislation with the aim of privatisation and public asset stripping.
      On Second Reading, the Secretary of State also set out three aims for the Bill, but the last differed from that in the White Paper and, in our view, was clearly vindictive.
      He said that the Bill
      "clarifies the law on subsidy support for public transport"
      and will
      "improve the efficiency and value for money performance of our public transport systems in cities".
      Finally, he said that it was a Bill
      "to discourage city authorities from the reckless course on which some of them have been set, with their excessive commitment to high rates, which destroy jobs with deadly efficiency, and to ultra-low fares which destabilise our transport systems".—[Official Report, 15 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 41–2.]
      We have examined those claims to the extent possible in Committee proceedings drastically curtailed by the guillotine and we find that in practice the Bill fails in all those aims.
      According to the Government, the Bill will clarify the law after the appalling judgment by the Law Lords 15 months ago which destroyed the GLC "Fares Fair" policy and Mr. Justice Woolf's judgment on the Merseyside cheap fares policy. The metropolitan authorities made it clear that they would prefer to live with the Woolf judgment which gave them a clear legal basis on which to operate. The GLC was the only authority effectively covered by the Lords judgment, so if there was any need for legislation it was for a simple Bill to create for the GLC exactly the legal position of the metropolitan authorities. The GLC would have asked for no more from the Government. What it got, however, was not just a grave worsening of its own situation but a wrecking of the legal situation of metropolitan authorities as well.
      Local authorities and their passenger transport authorities must have powers to make decisions on fare levels and general transport policy. Instead, the Government have introduced a Bill more in the spirit of the Law Lords judgment than with that of Mr. Justice Woolf's judgment. Far from clarifying the law, the Bill is an invitation to hostile individuals, companies and Conservative local authorities to challenge the GLC and metropolitan authorities in the courts if the authorities exceed the unattainably low public expenditure levels that can be set for them by an anti-public transport Conservative Secretary of State. It is likely that there will be more rather than fewer court cases under this Bill as opposed to the legislation that preceded it. The judges will have to resolve more conflicts between the Secretary of State's guidance and local authorities' statutory duties under the 1968 and 1969 legislation.
      Mr. Stevens: Anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman talking about an anti-transport Secretary of State might be deluded into supposing that subsidies to transport under the present Administration were lower in the United Kingdom than elsewhere. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, they are higher as a percentage of gross national product than in many developed countries such as the United States, France and Australia. I hope that he will agree that it is misleading to talk as if my right hon. Friend is anti-public transport. He clearly is not.
      Mr. Booth: I do not believe that it is misleading. I did not mean to imply that I considered that the actions of the Secretary of State for Transport were out of character with those of his Conservative predecessor. Both of them have consistently pursued policies detrimental to public transport. If one examines the overall support of transport by the Governments of almost any European country, one will find that they have a commitment to sustaining public transport that goes right against the policy that is being pursued by the British Government.
      If the Bill is passed, the judges will be asked to make more of the same type of political judgment that the Law Lords made. The Bill is asking the courts to limit the local electoral mandate in public transport. It is a sad day for local democracy and the House when we are called upon to pass a Bill that circumscribes the actions of local democracy in an important public service. It lowers the value of the House as a guardian of local democratic rights by defining a law that prevents those democratic rights from being exercised properly.
      I shall now deal with the second aim of the Bill as declared by the Secretary of State—value for money. The Government say that the Bill will improve efficiency in public transport by forcing local authorities to review and reform local management structures, and by making them put services out to tender. One of the victims of the guillotine was proper consideration in Committee of clauses 7 and 8 which deal with management structures and tendering.
      It is worth drawing attention to the fact that we are not alone in examining the Bill. Others have possibly examined parts that we have not debated in more detail. One example is the Chartered Institute of Transport, the director general of which wrote to the Secretary of State on 18 January 1983. With regard to this part of the Bill, he said:
      "it is greatly to be regretted that the White Paper gives such prominence (para 3) to the two 'red herrings' of reforming management structures and private sector participation … We recognise there is validity in the encouragement of more accountable units, but the existing powers provide quite sufficient leverage on Executives to adopt an appropriate business and management structure."
      When outside bodies have reviewed the management structures of PTAs, they have usually reported favourably on them. A case in point is the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the west midlands. As for privatisation, the private sector is only interested in profitable routes and their ancillary activities. Any change would be at the expense of less-used services such as off-peak, weekend and night services. I also fear that any such change would be at the expense of the work force in lower wages and worse conditions of employment.
      256
      The third aim of the Bill has now been discovered to be one of sheer political spite against local authorities. The Secretary of State gave the game away on Second Reading when he attacked what he called
      "the reckless course on which some of them have been set."—
      [Official Report, 15 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 42.] My hon. Friends and I would call it a determination to sustain and improve transport services, to maintain their ridership and to raise the quality of services.
      The Bill is an attack on the success of Labour metropolitan authorities which have run, or tried to run, low fares policies. The Secretary of State knows that transport in big cities needs subsidies. The subsidy level in Britain—here I part company with the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens)—is usually lower than in big cities abroad. The subsidy in Paris is about 56 per cent. of operating costs compared with 25 per cent. in London.
      The Secretary of State also knows that low fares encourage ridership and are popular with the general public. He is opposed to low fares because they are effective in increasing public transport usage and because they have won public acclaim for Labour authorities.
      Even more, the Bill is an attack upon local democracy. Yet more power is being taken from local government by central Government. Local government is increasingly being run from Whitehall. The Bill does not clarify the law. It will provide more work for lawyers. It will open the door yet again to privatisation and asset strippers. It will undermine local democracy for the sake of bashing Labour metropolitan authorities, which are winning support for good public transport services.
      Further, the Bill represents ministerial interference in an attempt to prevent elected local representatives from shaping the services which they know are needed for their area and which have the support of local voters. It will make no contribution to the real need to prevent the collapse of public transport. If the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, it will be in the teeth of our opposition and in the clear knowledge that our aim must be to repeal it.
      12.7 am
      Mr. Parris: This is an awkward Bill, transparent enough in its purpose, but oblique, if not opaque, in the manner of its accomplishment. I can see my right hon. Friend's dilemma. He is faced with run-away subsidies by authorities which send the lion's share of the bill to him and to the unfranchised business community.
      There are two logical choices open to him. He could make the local voter pay for his bus service, through rates or fares—that would be his choice, not Whitehall's—or he could take control of public transport away from the local authority, pay for it centrally and control it centrally. My right hon. Friend has shrunk from the choice. So he must. It is part of a pressing and wider constitutional question of which transport is only one aspect. It has faced successive Cabinets and they have reacted by shuffling tiers and boundaries as other people shuffle their feet.
      My right hon. Friend's unhappy lot is to apply this sticking plaster Bill. It is a Bill which wants to take the reins of local transport planning but does not want to say so, and falls a little short of doing so. We are left with a rather confusing triangular paper shuffle between passenger transport authorities, passenger transport

      257
      executives and central Government. It is a Bill which wants to reduce local transport subsidies but does not quite say so, though it will probably succeed in doing so.
      It is a Bill which wants to offer protection from legal challenge to those who wish to take it. That purpose it does bear on its face and will achieve. Less certain is the status of the subsidy which goes outside the Bill's protection. My right hon. Friend has half implied that this uncertainty is a weapon of government. That is a doctrine of which I am a little doubtful.
      In short, it is a Bill to which one offers the same welcome as one might give to the finger of the little Dutch boy in the sea wall. One is relieved to see it in place without being absolutely certain that it is the right instrument for its purpose.
      12.10 am
      Mr. Robert Parry: I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Being a Merseyside Member, I should like to address myself mainly to the situation facing the communities on Merseyside. I did not serve on the Committee, although I served on the last two transport Bill Committees. I should like to place on record my thanks and the thanks of my Merseyside colleagues and the people of Merseyside to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who kept an eye on the proceedings on behalf of the Merseyside people. I assure my hon. Friend that his efforts have been greatly appreciated.
      The misconceptions of the Government lie in their argument that the need for subsidy is due to temporary problems in falling passenger levels. However, the fact is that rising fares and cuts in services have caused a greater fall in bus travel than the increase in private motoring on Merseyside during the past 10 years.
      I refer to the High Court hearing brought against the Merseyside county council by Great Universal Stores. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) quoted the judge at great length. I shall quote an important sentence. The judge said that
      "It is no use fixing charges at a level which the customer cannot pay."
      I agree. After receiving hundreds of letters of protest from constituents and commuters—I am certain that many other of my hon. Friends have also received such letters—it is clear to me that the general public also agree with the judge's view. The judge found in favour of the county council and judged that the county's subsidies on public transport were not illegal.
      The Labour party, before the 1981 county council elections, included in its manifesto a pledge that it would bring in fair fares. Notwithstanding the fact that the Labour party got a massive majority, after regaining control of the council it considered the proposal afresh on its merits before it decided to implement the present fare levels.
      The Government seem to ignore the fact that in areas such as Merseyside massive unemployment and falling populations had led to a drop in bus travel before the new fares were approved. The new fares brought back many commuters on to the buses. If the Bill goes through and the county is forced to increase the fares again, we will go back on the old merry-go-round. Eventually, we will start losing many passengers and commuters on the buses.
      As has been said by many of my hon. Friends, the poorest of our community will suffer through the Bill. The
      258
      people who will suffer could be the unemployed, the low-paid, the pensioners and the disabled. The Government recently published the figures from the 1981 census. It showed that the highest level of unemployment in 623 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wale s was in mine, with nearly 45 per cent. unemployment. The census also showed that of all the constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales, mine, in inner Liverpool, was one of the highest for non car-ownership. If the Bill becomes law, thousands of Merseyside people will have to go on their bikes. That is what Ministers often tell us.
      This Tory Government appear to be hell bent on destroying the infrastructure and economy of all our regions, including Merseyside, Tyneside, Clydebank and South Wales, through their deliberate monetarist policies and their inflexible approach.
      I shall deal briefly with the provisions concerning the writing off of debts due from the National Dock Labour Board. Most of the debate has concentrated, rightly, on transport, but I have several important points to make about the debts that have been written off on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company or the port of Liverpool. The amount of money being written off involves the severance of registered dock workers under the Jones Aldington agreement. Although we, and in particular the port of Liverpool, appreciate the Government's gesture, they must realise that the dockers have, as a result of a voluntary agreement, given up jobs in their thousands to try to make the ports of London and Liverpool competitive.
      In 1982 alone, 809 registered dock workers, and 997 non-registered workers, accepted severance in Liverpool. On 15 December, in a reply in the House, the Secretary of State said that the Government were not prepared to make any further grants available to the two ports after the end of 1982. I must inform, advise and remind Ministers of the additional costs that have been caused to many British ports, especially Liverpool, through dredging and conservancy. I led a deputation to the previous Secretary of State for Transport. We pointed out that those in the industry, including the dock workers and the Transpor and General Workers Union, had advised us that continental ports receive subsidies and grants from their Governments. However, our Government will give nothing to the ports that need them if they are to remain competitive against foreign ports.
      I should comment on the application by the promoters of the development of a new container terminal at Falmouth. The Under-Secretary will remember that Members of Parliament for Merseyside, my colleagues and the national and local officers of the TGWU had a meeting with him just before Christmas. I remind him that we sincerely hope that a statement will be made in the near future to the effect that the Government will not give the application any support. It would seem to be crazy, and to be the economics of the madhouse. Over the years, the Government have made grants amounting to tens and millions of pounds to the port of Liverpool. If the application for Falmouth is accepted, it could sound the death knell for the terminal at Seaforth. That would be the end of Liverpool. It is crazy to consider that application when it could mean the end of the great city and port of Liverpool.
      12.18 am
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the achievement of the Bill in introducing a more businesslike procedure into the organisation of transport in the metropolitan counties. I also congratulate them on the courteous way in which they conducted debates and discussions both in the Chamber and in Committee, despite the exaggerated and extreme attacks that have been made on the Bill by Opposition Members.
      It is not for me to comment on the Opposition's tactics, but the unfairness of some of their attacks was clearly revealed in the comments of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). He said that because of the guillotine, we had been denied the opportunity to discuss clauses 7 and 8. The list of amendments shows that the Opposition did not table amendments to clause 7. Had they not taken so disproportionately a long time in rehearsing the same tired arguments that we heard in Committee, there was no reason why we could not have discussed the amendments tabled to clause 8.
      It was a pity that a short, fairly straightforward, Bill was subjected to a guillotine. It was also a pity that the way in which the guillotine operated meant that the Bill was not discussed equally in each of its clauses and sections. Again, the responsibility for that lies entirely with the Opposition, who devoted a disproportionate amount of time to clause 2—and even to clause 1, which is only explanatory—spending hour after hour in repetitive discussion about individual metropolitan counties. If the time that was given to the Bill—well over 100 hours of discussion—had been spread evenly over the clauses, there was no reason why the Bill should not have been discussed fully, to the reasonable satisfaction of both sides of the House.
      Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the amendment paper for today and examine amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35? They are amendments to clause 8, dealing with the question of tendering. There was not time to debate them. We had to withdraw a number of amendments even to get as far as we did under the guillotine.
      Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention demonstrates the difficulty of Conservative Members in having any rational dialogue with Opposition Members. I clearly said—no doubt it will be recorded in Hansard tomorrow—that the right hon. Gentleman complained that we had not had discussions on clauses 7 and 8. I said that the Opposition had not tabled any amendments to clause 7. The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen, so he should not intervene. The record will speak for itself tomorrow.
      We have established a businesslike relationship between the transport authority, the transport executive and the Secretary of State. In a normal business, the job of the management would be to deal with the management function, and the job of the board of directors would be to carry out the overall supervision and receive reports from management. That will be the relationship between the authority and the executive. But they must, of course, at all times have regard to one other major factor in addition to that of the needs of the local electorate, that
      260
      being the overriding importance of the national interest. The Opposition entirely failed to address themselves to that matter.
      One grave omission in the hour after hour of repetitive discussion led by the Opposition is that they have spoken about fares and the frequency of operation but have missed one vital point—the actual quality of the service offered. That is the one thing that would draw passengers pack to public transport. It is disproportionately expensive to bring them back by subsidy. The right way is to offer a better quality of service—a matter to which the Opposition have manifestly failed to address themselves.
      We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the way in which they have presented the Bill and defended it against unfair and exaggerated attacks. The House should be grateful to them, and, eventually, the country will be also.
      12.25 am
      Mr. Crowther: I am happy to assure the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Giffiths) that there is no better bus service in this country than that in south Yorkshire. If he cares to come to find out how good it is, instead of sitting here criticising, he will perhaps learn a great deal. Of course, having a good service involves paying for it. It is not had for nothing. The people of south Yorkshire have chosen the way in which they wish it to be paid for. The tragedy is that the Bill will overturn their wishes, expressed time after time through the ballot box.
      I was rather nauseated by the hon. Gentleman's sycophancy in congratulating the Ministers on getting the Bill through the House. With their majority, they could hardly fail to do so. I have found it a sad and depressing experience. As we have said many times, the Bill strikes at the very heart of local democracy, but it does so in a unique way.
      We have seen many attacks on local authorities during the present Parliament. We have seen many instances of the Secretary of State for the Environment punishing ratepayers by withholding grants. The Bill is unique because at least the Secretary of State for the Environment has not chosen to put councillors in peril of being surcharged and made bankrupt for carrying out the wishes of their electors. That is what the Bill does. The Secretary of State made that crystal clear in the White Paper, even if it is not spelt out in the Bill. My hon. Friends have drawn attention to that in our long debates on the Bill.
      I have always had an inexpressibly deep attachment to the principle of local democracy, which, I remind hon. Members, is a great deal older than Parliament. I am possibly the only Member of the House who can claim to be representing the town in which he was twice elected mayor. I am rather proud of my involvement in local democracy, and I hate to see this type of attack being made on it and the old traditions being whittled away by the Government.
      It is manifestly absurd to pretend that the Secretary of State is better qualified than the elected representatives to decide on the level of service that is to be applied in any area, whether it be transport of any other service.
      Mr. Stevens: Does the right worshipful Member agree that the tradition which has been whittled away and which the Bill seeks to reintroduce is the tradition that local authorities voluntarily accept the spending constraints recommended by the Government?
      Mr. Crowther: If the hon. Gentleman had known anything about the history of local government he would not have made that remark. The tradition has been that authorities are elected and carry out the wishes of those who elected them. They do not have Secretary's of State breathing down their necks and telling them what they can do. That has been happening for the past three years and I find that tragic.
      No one pretends that elected authorities are always right. Sometimes they make the wrong decisions, but that is part of the business of democracy—the right to be wrong so long as one has been elected. If an authority makes a decision that the electors do not like, in the long run the electors will throw it out. I trust sincerely that in the long run the electors will throw out the Secretary of State, along with the rest of this rag, tag and bobtail Government, who have already been in office far too long and have done a great deal of damage to us.
      The Bill will have serious consequences in all the metropolitan counties, but in south Yorkshire it will be nothing short of disastrous if the so-called guidance, which the Secretary of State has already indicated in his White Paper, is followed. I have tried to find out from the Under-Secretary what the Government imagine the law will be with regard to an authority such as South Yorkshire, which, in order to carry out its statutory duties, must exceed the guidance figure laid down by the Secretary of State.
      The Under-Secretary of State assured me that no authority would be prevented from carrying out its duty. However, he stopped short of saying that in carrying out this duty the South Yorkshire county council would still be protected against being taken to court. If it is the Government's wish that the county council should be allowed to carry out its duty, the Secretary of State should double his proposed guidance figure, because £80 million rather than £40 million will be needed for the county council to carry out its proper planning function.
      There has been a great deal of debate. I have uttered more than 10 words on the subject. I shall therefore not pursue the matter further. This is a disgraceful Bill and it should be consigned to oblivion, along with the Government who introduced it.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Bevan: There is sincerity on both sides of the House in the attitudes of hon. Members towards transport. A difference arises when one tries to put in perspective the mix that should benefit from subsidy. The Opposition believe in unlimited and general subsidy. My right hon. and hon. Friends concede that there has to be a subsidy for public transport, but the public do not separate themselves into different compartments. The traveller is the same man who pays rates and who contributes towards the education of his children. He is possibly the same man who receives benefit as an old-age pensioner or as a disabled person in concessionary fares.
      The concessionary fare is unaltered. So are the benefits for old-age pensioners especially in the west midlands, on the railway and the buses. My right hon. and hon. Friends have stated that these matters are not affected. We are therefore left debating the quantum of the subsidy. In three years, the subsidy has increased from £200 million to £400 million. That is a considerable sum. If the subsidies requested generally were allowed, the sum would amount to £700 million next year. The public, I am certain, will
      262
      say that this is too much. Their attitude in the west midlands is that the executive already runs a good service on a low subsidy of £25·4 million. It rose substantially from £19·6 million the previous year. If a demand is made for the subsidy to rise to £40 million, the public will say that it is too much when tested against a background of what has to be spent on education. It is axiomatic that, just as the metropolitan county councils can precept upon the rate of the district authority, that size of increase would incur about £40 million in extra subsidy and fines. It would prevent the district council from putting another £4 million into the education of the traveller's children.
      We have a good service which should be allowed to continue. We should not pay absolute homage to all the demands of the metropolitan county council transport authorities. Their only function is to run transport. We cannot bisect that function from the other functions of local authorities. Nor can we bisect that function from the overall necessity to reduce or contain public expenditure for the greater good of the public. The man who has to educate his children is the same man who at the end of the day pays the rates bill.
      There should have been a fifth box on the pink form which was sent out by the West Midlands county council, and if it had said "If you pick the other four boxes and say that you do not want fares to be increased, and services cut, you want the Bill altered and so on, and do you want your rates to go up by this amount to cover the unrestricted continuous demands of the West Midlands county council?" I am certain that the ratepayer would have put a large tick in that box.
      The ratepayer would have agreed, as we shall agree, even though some of us had doubts about some of the clauses, that the Bill is designed to protect a local authority from legal proceedings and protect the ratepayer from unwarranted expenditure.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has it wrong. The Bill does not protect anyone, and it is extraordinary to hear him argue that.
      We must remember that the Bill was not introduced in order to improve transport; it was started as an attack on the GLC.
      Mr. David Howell: What?
      Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State says "What?". On Second Reading he told us that he introduced it in order to clarify the position arising from the Law Lords judgment. I told him then that I did not believe he understood what he was doing—
      Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman said that was started as an attack on the GLC. That is wholly untrue. When he continued, he said something different.
      Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State may say that it is wholly untrue, but we heard what he said on Second Reading. I challenged him then. One does not want to rehearse all the arguments, but that is where it began. It was nothing to do with improving transport.
      Many problems for many people in different parts of the country have arisen from the Secretary of State's proposals for getting the GLC into shape. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) made it clear that Merseyside, which has had a first-class transport system,

      263
      is now likely to have to increase fares by 40 per cent. because the Secretary of State wanted to attack the GLC. He cannot justify what he has done.
      The Under-Secretary said that the model that they will work on to determine the various factors involved to reach the guidelines that the Secretary of State will produce will take in this, that and the other. May I remind the Under-Secretary that Greater London has a greater number of travellers than anywhere else. Our travel-to-work area is greater than anywhere else. We are dealing with millions of people in London. How can he suggest that the model which is being proposed for the country as a whole is suitable for London? Similarly, one cannot have a model that is suitable for London and apply it to the rest of the country. To state that the Department is working on a model which will then be the national norm is an example of why London hospitals, local government, schools and transport have suffered so much. A national norm is applied to the capital which is not normal. I asked the Under-Secretary to spell out some of the factors to be included in the guidelines but he did not do so. If he suggests that traffic congestion and accidents are relevant in the model, why have they not been included in the Bill? It is no good saying that there were too many other factors to include them in the Bill, if they can be included in the model.
      The Bill is bad because it was not designed for transport. It was designed to be petulant and to force some silly little confrontations with local government. This Government will go down in history as the only Government for years who have tried to fight local government and do their best to destroy it. If anyone remembers the Bill, it will not be for its contribution to transport but for the way that the Government have attempted to destroy democracy in local government.
      12.40 am
      Mr. Flannery: I come from south Yorkshire, and the issue at stake for me is whether, after this Bill, we shall have a thriving and living local transport system or whether we shall strike it such a blow that its death will become imminent for all local people. The vehicle for achieving the latter is the violation of local democracy, which is what the Bill proposes.
      Central Government are completely responsible for high fares, not local government. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) talked absolute guff about subsidies, as though the Conservative party is against subsidies. Farmers receive two-thirds of their money from public subsidies. The Conservative party subsidises the wealthy on a grand scale.
      Mr. Bevan rose—
      Mr. Flannery: No, I am not giving way. I did not make a fool of myself by talking such nonsense. I am talking about reality. When people say such things, they should use their thinking capacity even slightly to get at the truth.
      It is not high local rates but the brutal economic policies of the Government that are creating a desert in our area. If Conservative Members do not know that, they should come to see the thriving transport system in our area. Some talk as though the subsidies mean everything, but we never hear about the ordinary humane benefits of a good
      264
      transport system. Old people, who used to have to sit at home, are now travelling about on a grand scale. The unemployed can visit their relatives because of the low fares. All children can travel cheaply. Those human benefits that cannot be costed in the terms in which the Conservative party always talks about the subject are the result.
      The Government know that, if they land in difficulty, a group of judges will always bale them out. In the Tameside case, it was said that the Tory authority had included in its manifesto, and therefore had to carry it out, a threat to destroy comprehensive education. The Master of the Rolls said that, but he reversed his decision in the GLC case and said that everything included in the manifesto need not be carried out. We had double standards from the tame judges.
      Local democracy in south Yorkshire is such that each year this policy is put before the electorate, which votes in many Labour members and only a handful of Tory members. There is only one Tory Member of Parliament in south Yorkshire. The blow now being delivered is aimed at south Yorkshire as well as at the GLC. Many people in my area will be watching this debate. They will stigmatise the Government for what they are—a Government who are for the rich and against ordinary people, who want higher fares on a grand scale, who talk of subsidies, and who have increased prescription charges 600 per cent. since they took office. That is why the ordinary people would throw the Bill out if they had the opportunity and would have cheap transport in every area.
      12.44 am
      Mr. Les Huckfield: I rise to speak briefly, in view of the shortage of time. For those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, the more we go into the Bill the worse it becomes and, most worrying, the less clear it becomes. It is least clear to the Secretary of State. In every debate in Committee, it became less clear with every piece of paper that he was passed to read out. Even today we had the insertion of yet another Government amendment on the point of retrospection and that underlines the fact that the Government are still not clear about the legal intentions and interpretation of the Bill.
      Local transport authorities will now have to make calculations on rates and precepts on figures and other calculations which may come into being if the Bill is enacted, yet because of the way in which the Secretary of State has introduced his amendment on retrospection they could be forced to take into account the calculations in the Bill.
      As I have said before, it is intolerable to expect locally elected councillors to make sensible transport decisions when they will be asked to take into account simple calculations which may become law if the Bill is enacted. That is the kind of legal precedent that the Secretary of State is making.
      The Secretary of State cannot say how the figures in the guidelines in the White Paper are calculated. A deputation from the West Midlands metropolitan county council went to see him before Christmas to probe in depth how he had arrived at the calculations on which his guidelines were based. The simple fact that emerged was that the Secretary of State and his officials simply did not know. The truth is that the guidelines upon which local authorities are expected to make their precepts and take into their

      265
      calculations are based on sheer political malice and spite. Local authorities are asked to take into account guidelines which are based purely on the Secretary of State's politics.
      The matter gets worse because the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State keep telling us that once the Bill is on the statute book the balance will be about right. But they have already got a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the West Midlands metropolitan county council which went into the whole question of balance between the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive. It also went into the relationship with Government Departments. Even before the Bill, the commission said that the balance was about right. All the experience that we have of the relationship between the passenger transport executives, the passenger transport authorities and the Department of Transport shows that even without this legislation the relationship is working well, so why disturb it? Why touch it? Why upset it?
      Because with every sitting of the Committee the legal interpretations became more complex, one is led to conclude that every time the Secretary of State opens his mouth we go deeper into the legal jungle. Nothing that he has said has clarified the Bill. Certainly some of the things that the Under-Secretary of State has said have not clarified the Bill at all.
      We are now entering an area where not only are the legal consequences unclear but the levels of fare increases and changes which could be occasioned by the Bill are not clear either. So we are entering into a period of utter legal and economic uncertainty and it is all caused by the Bill. One only hopes that the Lords will see a point of principle in order that they can reject the Bill. I only hope that Conservative Members will see some sense and recognise that there are some good features in the arguments that we have put forward. If they cannot, I hope that they will pass the arguments on to their friends in another place.
      12.50 am
      Mr. Stevens: Right hon. and hon. Members will long since have forgotten the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I rise to point out that in his peroration he made an error of fact.
      The hon. Gentleman told the House that the GLC was carrying out the programme set out in the Labour manifesto, but it introduced a "Fares Fair" policy which went more than one-third further in terms of cost cutting than the manifesto recommended. This demonstrates the difficulties that my hon. Friends have had, both in the House and in Committee. One is facing people whose love of dialectical materialism leads them to exaggerate and twist words in a way that makes response almost impossible.
      12.52 am
      Mr. David HowellAs we come to the end of our debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, it is right that I should intervene, as I have not yet had the opportunity to do so.
      No one disputes the case for subsidy for local transport operations, and subsidy, as has been recognised by the Government, on a scale larger than anything contemplated, recognised or practised in the 1970s. Nor can anyone dispute, and nor has anyone disputed, the enormous growth in the pace of that subsidy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan)
      266
      said, the subsidy was £200 million three years ago, £400 million this year, and if the bids were allowed to proceed unchecked next year we should see a growth to £700 million of subsidy on current public transport operations in the metropolitan county areas.
      It is the business ratepayers who will be the missing guests at this subsidy feast. We have heard a great deal from right hon. and hon. Members during the discussion of the Bill, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, but many have evaded the fact that the subsidy has to be paid for, and largely paid for not by the ratepayers who vote, but by the ratepayers who do not vote. Furthermore, it has been suggested—
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I hope that it is not a point of order that is an intervention.
      Mr. Cryer: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the record of the Committee sittings is available to the public, who can there see that time after time the Opposition placed on record their concern with rate expenditure and demolished the argument about the business ratepayer?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that.
      Mr. Howell: The concern is noted. The business ratepayer pays for a substantial part of these subsidies.
      Furthermore, it is argued that this is just the policy of the present Government, as though it were not the case, as it is, that previous Governments, especially the Labour Government, argued strongly against excessive subsidies. When the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mi. Rogers) was Secretary of State for Transport—he is now a Social Democrat—he argued strongly against excessive subsidies.
      The Opposition have taken a different view today. Over a year ago, after the Bromley judgment, they demanded a reinstatement of the "Fares Fair" policy. That policy was called in the courts, hasty, ill-considered, unlawful and an arbitrary use of power. The Opposition want the hasty, ill-considered and unlawful use of power to be reinstated in Greater London. The Government make no apology for rejecting that proposition.
      We recognise that there is a need for legislation. The GLC has argued strongly that there should be legislation. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities did not seek legislation, but the Merseyside judgment did not go to appeal and the west midlands had to change its policies in the face of legal threats. There is no doubt in the minds of those who recognise the enormous growth in subsidy that the dangers of legal challenge are present and could increase if the Bill were not enacted. The need for clarification and stabilisation through a change in the law has been present all the time.
      The difficulty has been the misleading and inaccurate propaganda put about—largely outside the House, at the expense of ratepayers, and based on assertions without any foundation. A prime example of this concerns concessionary fares. The aspect of the campaign against the Bill that has caused me most distress is the untrue assertion that the Bill threatens concessionary fares. This suggestion, which was without foundation, was printed, distributed and put around in a way that caused distress, anxiety and worry to the elderly and the disabled. I do not know what kind of opposition that is supposed to be. It certainly does not reflect the values that this House ought to support.

      267
      The second charge—and it is a serious one—is that the Bill is an attack on local democracy. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) repeated that charge in this debate, but it is not correct. The authorities remain free to set the level of grants and fares.
      It is a travesty of local democracy to argue that business ratepayers can feel protected through the ballot box. We have heard again and again the assertion that the electors should decide and choose. The electors are not the same people as the ratepayers. It is the business ratepayers who largely finance these policies. Local democracy is whittled away when many ratepayers do not have a vote in the expenditure of their money. We therefore make no apology for refusing to protect unlimited subsidies. That, apparently, is what the Opposition wish to do, but we have refused to do that in the Bill.
      The Bill protects a very substantial level of support. There have been repeated questions about how the initial guidance will be set and how the process will be organised. I have been accused of not seeking consultation. That is untrue. Consultation was sought with the Association of Metropolitan authorities as long ago as July, but most unwisely, instructed its members to refuse to consult the Government on how the planning procedure should work.
      The Bill offers a substantial level of protection to metropolitan authorities seeking to pay local transport subsidies. That protection did not exist before, but it is now being provided. Those authorities that wish to work within the protected expenditure limits will be protected and safe from legal challenge. The legal stability will be present, which previously was lacking.
      Secondly, the Bill institutes sensible procedures so that ratepayers will know far better than they have known in the past what value for money they are getting from the colossal sums being spent. Passenger transport executives can seek private tendering for transport services as well. I believe that that is a desirable improvement.
      Thirdly, the Bill aims to place a limit and restraint on the explosive growth of public transport current subsidies. It does so because of the figures that I mentioned earlier and because business ratepayers, who have no vote, have suffered colossal rate increase and great damage has been caused to employment. At a time when it should be the aim of all hon. Members to encourage employment, machinery has been in action which has undermined employment by increasing business rates, which are now the largest single cost to business and a direct attack on employment.
      For that reason, the Bill is urgently needed and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 229.

      Division No 59]

      [1.0 am

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Alexander, Richard

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Best, Keith

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ancram, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Tom

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Blackburn, John

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

      Blaker, Peter

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

      Body, Richard

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      268

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Hannam, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Hastings, Stephen

      Brinton, Tim

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Heddle, John

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Henderson, Barry

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

      Hicks, Robert

      Buck, Antony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Budgen, Nick

      Hill, James

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butcher, John

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hooson, Tom

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hordern, Peter

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

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

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

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Corrie, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Critchley, Julian

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Crouch, David

      Knox, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lamont, Norman

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lang, Ian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Dover, Denshore

      Latham, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Durant, Tony

      Lee, John

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Loveridge, John

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      MacGregor, John

      Farr, John

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

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

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McQuarrie, Albert

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

      Madel, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Major, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Marcus

      Marlow, Antony

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Fry, Peter

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mates, Michael

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mawby, Ray

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mellor, David

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gow, Ian

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Greenway, Harry

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Grieve, Percy

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Grylls, Michael

      Moore, John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Morgan, Geraint

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      269

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Sproat, Iain

      Myles, David

      Squire, Robin

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stainton, Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Neubert, Michael

      Stanley, John

      Normanton, Tom

      Steen, Anthony

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stevens, Martin

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Osborn, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Stokes, John

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Tapsell, Peter

      Parris, Matthew

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Donald

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Pollock, Alexander

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, Barry

      Trippier, David

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Trotter, Neville

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Viggers, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Waddington, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wakeham, John

      Renton, Tim

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Waller, Gary

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Walters, Dennis

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rossi, Hugh

      Watson, John

      Rost, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Wheeler, John

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Whitney, Raymond

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Silvester, Fred

      Wolfson, Mark

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Smith, Dudley

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Speed, Keith

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Speller, Tony

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Spence, John

      Mr. Carol Mather.

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

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

      Adams, Allen

      Campbell, Ian

      Allaun, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Anderson, Donald

      Cant, R. B.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cartwright, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

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

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Coleman, Donald

      Beith, A. J.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Cowans, Harry

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Crowther, Stan

      Bradley, Tom

      Cryer, Bob

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

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

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Buchan, Norman

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

      270

      Deakins, Eric

      McKelvey, William

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dewar, Donald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dixon, Donald

      McMahon, Andrew

      Dobson, Frank

      McNally, Thomas

      Dormand, Jack

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dubs, Alfred

      McWilliam, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Magee, Bryan

      Dunnett, Jack

      Marks, Kenneth

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Eadie, Alex

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

      Maxton, John

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      English, Michael

      Meacher, Michael

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mikardo, Ian

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ewing, Harry

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Field, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Forrester, John

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Foster, Derek

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

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

      Newens, Stanley

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Freud, Clement

      Ogden, Eric

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      O'Neill, Martin

      George, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Golding, John

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Palmer, Arthur

      Graham, Ted

      Park, George

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Parker, John

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Parry, Robert

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

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Hardy, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Penhaligon, David

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Pitt, William Henry

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Race, Reg

      Haynes, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

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

      Richardson, Jo

      Home Robertson, John

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Homewood, William

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Howells, Geraint

      Robertson, George

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Huckfield, Les

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

      Roper, John

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ryman, John

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sandelson, Neville

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Sever, John

      John, Brynmor

      Sheerman, Barry

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Silverman, Julius

      Kerr, Russell

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Lambie, David

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Lamond, James

      Snape, Peter

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stoddart, David

      Litherland, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Strang, Gavin

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Straw, Jack

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      McCartney, Hugh

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Tilley, John

      271

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

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

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Winnick, David

      Wardell, Gareth

      Woodall, Alec

      Weetch, Ken

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Welsh, Michael

      Wright, Sheila

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Whitlock, William

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. George Morton and

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Mr. Norman Hogg.

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

    EMPLOYMENT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. John Golding be discharged from the Employment Committee.—[Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  North-East Kent (Enterprise Zone)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
  1.12 am
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The purpose of the Adjournment debate is to commend to the Government one or two new initiatives and new ideas designed to improve the employment and economic situation in Thanet and north-east Kent. Perhaps I should explain that in our area we sometimes get mildly irritated by officialdom's tendency to classify us as part of the prosperous south-east. The reality is that we are something of a Cinderella corner of England in which there are coastal towns and villages whose unemployment rates are among the highest in the kingdom. If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they may give precise figures for their constituencies.
  For my part, I simply place on record the bleak statistic that in the Ramsgate and Broadstairs travel-to-work area the overall unemployment rate is well above the national average at 15·8 per cent. and for adult males it is 19·8 per cent. Although there are flickering signs of hope for job seekers, such as a slight pick-up this year in the number of advertised vacancies, and encouraging developments among companies specialising in the new electronic technologies such as Racal in my constituency, nevertheless only the most sanguine of optimists could suggest that there are in reality good prospects for a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate in the foreseeable future.
  That is why the time may be ripe to explore the possibility of new initiatives. My first proposal for stimulating economic activity in Thanet and north-east Kent is that the Government should consider establishing an enterprise zone in the area. The whole idea of enterprise zones was the brainchild of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and it is one of the success stories of the Government. A number of enterprise zones have been established in various parts of Britain, with beneficial results for jobs, factories, new small businesses and economic activity generally.
  Some enterprise zones are now in the process of being made operational, among them one in north-west Kent, an area where the problems and opportunities differ little from those in north-east Kent. In view of the lifelong industrial experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, I shall leave it to him to develop the case for an enterprise zone in our area. Suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly support the idea and his specific suggestions.
  I shall concentrate on my second proposal for stimulating employment in Thanet, which is that Ramsgate should be designated as a free port. That is not a way out idea or pipe-dream. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, a plan for introducing the concept of free ports into Britain is now under active consideration by Ministers at the Treasury and the Department of Trade. In general terms, it is not appropriate in this short debate for me to rehearse all the broad arguments in favour of free ports, except to say that it is astonishing that we in Britain

  273
  have waited so long before even thinking about introducing that concept, which has been so successful in other parts of the world, into our own country.
  However, in specific terms, I will argue that Ramsgate would be an ideal location for one of Britain's first free ports. Already it is one of the cross-Channel gateways to Europe. Ramsgate has a large underutilised harbour, a large underutilised airport at Manston and a modern hoverport, which, unfortunately, since last year's merger between HoverLloyd and Seaspeed, has fallen into near disuse. All those sites have land, buildings and facilities with plenty of spare capacity and far too much empty space.
  However, if Ramsgate were to become a free port, in no time those facilities would hum, bustle and jump with new commercial activity and new jobs. How would such a transformation come about? As the House knows, a free port, sometimes called a duty-free zone, is created simply by designating an area of land in or around a port into which goods can be imported free of all customs and tariff duties. The area of land is treated for foreign trade purposes as if it were a foreign territory. Imported goods that come into the free port and are then exported to another foreign country leave the free port still without paying customs or tariff duties. If the imported goods leave the free port for a destination in Britain, they are taxed as they leave the free port as if they had arrived straight from a foreign country.
  How might that help commerce and employment in Ramsgate? First and foremost, a free port at Ramsgate would become a significant international transit centre for imports. One could be certain that a number of service industries would spring up, such as warehousing, packaging, sorting, freight handling, insurance and shipping. In addition to those flourishing new service industries, all of which would create jobs, the Ramsgate free port would attract manufacturing industry into its boundaries. Given that foreign materials and components come into the free port free of all duties, a manufacturer of finished goods for export would have lower input costs than almost anywhere else in the country.
  In that way a free port at Ramsgate could be a magnet for new investment, attracting within its free trade and deregulated boundaries manufacturing industry that might not otherwise have developed at all.
  The pattern of free ports all over the world has been to attract service and manufacturing industries into their boundaries. A British free port at the gateway of Europe in Ramsgate is an exciting, yet realistic, vision. Perhaps it would take some time for a Ramsgate free port to pick up at the level of activities in Hong Kong or Dubai, yet I believe that it would work well and succeed, and bring jobs and economic activity to a town that badly needs them. For that reason, I commend my idea to the House.
  1.14 am
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I support every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) has said.
  The Minister will remember that Thanet was an industrially assisted area for some years. During that time we obtained a considerable quantity of industry. We were then dezoned. In November 1982, therefore, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry
  274
  whether he would consider reintroducing Thanet to the list of industrially assisted areas. He told me that it was not proposed to do so.
  In those circumstances, we feel that an enterprise zone might well fit the case. I understand that enterprise zones offer limited benefits in small areas, and in this case would apply to the free port suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East, to Margate and to Herne Bay. Those three areas are complimentary to the great city of Canterbury. The benefits include an exemption from rates on industrial and commercial property, and 100 per cent. allowances for corporation and income tax on capital expenditure on industrial and commercial buildings, and would be of immense value, together with the tax relief that investors can receive for small businesses.
  I can see no reason why tourism should not receive the benefits that accrue to the manufacturing and industrial areas of the other 12 enterprise zones that have been set up. Therefore, there is no reason why that cannot be achieved. Thanet has severe constraints on land. There is agriculture, and an infrastructure that exists to enable us to create a considerable number of jobs. In Margate, there is an urgent need for a marina. The same is true of Herne Bay and of the port in Ramsgate. There is an urgent need for conference centres in Margate, and in the Kings Hall, Herne Bay. In addition, we must increase caravan sites. A caravan site at Reculver could easily be extended and trees could be planted to ensure development.
  Much could be done to improve the beaches, which would in turn lead to rapid expansion. Therefore, special consideration should be given urgently to the promotion of the tourist industry in the Thanet towns and in Herne Bay. It has an immensely important role to play in the future economic development of those towns. The main problem about industrial development in Thanet and Herne Bay is that despite the many unemployed in the area, it has never received proper consideration as an enterprise zone or as an area for special grant. As a result, our locality always competes with the business start-ups in Devon, Cornwall, South Wales and the north of England, which have had the advantage of grants, offering them the facilities for business, enterprise and investment. In the event of the Thanet towns becoming an enterprise zone, assistance could be given both in that way, and from the EEC for the promotion of enterprises. It could al so he given in the form of environmental grants. The European commissioner for tourism, Mr. Contageorgis, told me that with Government policy as it is, no grants could he forthcoming unless the area became an industrially assisted area, or an area receiving special grants. Unemployment in Margate is severe. Male unemployment is running at 27 per cent. Unemployment in the area is, in general, just under 20 per cent. Due to the lack of assistance, the grave problem that we face of trying to modernise has been set at nought.
  Any concessions to subsidise the buildings, or to give special rate concessions would rapidly raise the tone and standard of this district, and would enable us—for the first time—to obtain the advantages that have been given to so many areas in the country.
  1.23 am
  Mr. David Crouch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) for letting me complete the Kentish trio of speakers. I shall be brief.
  There is a pocket of unemployment in the coastal towns of north-east Kent. Whitstable, Thanet and Herne Bay are typical examples of such pockets of unemployment. The rate of unemployment in Whitstable and Herne Bay, taken together, is now over 20 per cent. In Canterbury, it is about 12 per cent., which is the rate for the whole of Kent.
  The pockets of unemployment are not a new problem in north-east Kent. We have had the problem for many years. Tourism has declined and nothing has taken its place. In my constituency there is an industrial estate between the two towns of Whitstable and Herne Bay, and another at Swalecliffe. But they are tiny. There are few jobs to be found there—about 150 vacancies in Whitstable and Herne Bay with about 2,300 people out of work. People must look for work elsewhere. They look to Canterbury, which has 2,600 people out of work with 330 jobs on offer. There is no industry in Canterbury. It is not an industrial town but a cathedral town with retail trading, service industry and tourism. It flourishes on those industries. One other industry is education, which attracts people to work in the great variety of educational opportunities that exist there.
  There is not much hope in Thanet, as has been illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). There are nearly 7,500 people out of work with fewer than 200 jobs on offer. Ashford and the Medway towns could be places to seek work, and they are the permitted industrial growth points in Kent. But Ashford has recently seen the closure of its railway workshops, and Chatham is facing the closure of its dockyard. London is the only hope of finding a job, but the price of £1,000 for a rail season ticket is not feasible for the school leaver.
  Our constituents are entitled to a better chance in life. We should not drive people away from home to work when they could be working in their own towns. We should aim to produce self-sufficient communities rather than dormitory towns and commuter centres. Canterbury does not need special help. It is self-sufficient with tourism, shopping, entertainment and education. But Whitstable, Herne Bay and Thanet are different—they need special treatment. They lack job opportunities. They are not centres of attraction but problem areas. The Government could put that right at a stroke.
  We need to attract industry to those towns. A factory or an office in the country, by the sea, with good labour available, excellent educational resources, good road and rail communications—they could be better, but that is another matter—most of the channel ports and an international airport at Manston. Why have not businesses gone there already? It is because they have been directed to go elsewhere—to Ashford and Medway, the industrial growth points. I want the Government to stop the rot that has set in in north-east Kent and give the towns enterprise zone status. It would be one of small sectors in those areas—not a continuous belt. It would be the blood transfusion that they need. The towns are tailor made for such treatment. They would fit the Act which introduced the great innovation of enterprise zones. They would show
  276
  immediate results without surrounding towns being harmed. The other towns would not be affected as they stand on their own feet. I have tried to show that in the case of Canterbury.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister seriously to study the proposal. If he cannot answer in the affirmative tonight, which we do not expect, I hope that he will take it on board from three hon. Members serving an area that is really worried about its future. Such an initiative would help to revitalise a part of England that has been forgotten for too long.
  1.28 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The Government are always glad to receive new ideas or new initiatives, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). They compose a formidable team to represent the interests of the part of Kent that they serve. There was a salutary reminder that within the southeast there are pockets of relatively high unemployment. I looked at the figures for parts of north-east Kent, and they are much higher than the average for the south-east.
  I wish to refer at the end of my reply to the imaginative proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East for a free port at Ramsgate, and I shall deal initially with suggestions for an enterprise zone. Some of the initiatives described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West would have to be processed, in the first instance, by the district council rather than by my Department. Some of his other suggestions were, I think, directed at the Department of Industry. I am sure that my colleagues in that Department are aware of his views.
  I wish now to deal with the concept of the enterprise zone. The idea is to try to bring activity to relatively depressed areas and to achieve this through a judicious mixture of freedoms and incentives. Hon. Members are aware of the tremendous promotional fillip that a zone gives to an area. We have done our best through the local authorities to ensure that progress is not inhibited by bureaucratic delay or lack of foresight. It is perhaps less well known that there has been a high level of activity in many zones since they were announced. It is only just over 18 months since the first zone was established in Swansea and already the successes are there for everyone to see. In the most successful zone, Corby, almost all the land is now taken. Here, as elsewhere, the benefits are being felt well beyond the zone and throughout the town as a whole.
  It would be idle to pretend that all the activity in the zones is new firms or that the activity would not have happened without the zones. Some of the jobs are provided by firms which have moved, not because of the zone—it still would not be worth their while financially—but because they had to move anyway to expand and chose to locate in the zones. Even in these cases, especially in older urban areas, we would expect that many of the jobs would have been lost to these areas without the zones. But, in addition, a number of the firms setting up in the zones are new. We know that the small industrialist who wants to build and occupy his own factory is particularly encouraged by the freedoms available to him.
  It is, I am sure, evident from what I have said that we have been keeping a close watch on progress in the zones. The response was enormously encouraging. It showed that

  277
  we were right to provide this opportunity. We invited more bids and received them from 50 authorities, both Labour-controlled and Conservative-controlled. These bids were of a high quality. We decided, after considering all the cases, that we should increase the number of new zones for England from the seven that we had originally envisaged for the second round to nine. In addition, there were to be two new zones in Scotland and one each in Wales and Northern Ireland.
  I come now to the heart of the debate. We received applications, as I am sure hon. Members knows, from authorities in Kent but Thanet district was not among them. We agreed that the two bids—a joint one from Gillingham and Rochester and one from Gravesham—should be combined into a single zone with segments in each authority. We hope that the zone will be promoted and operated jointly. Thanet could not be considered for an enterprise zone because it did not make an application to us. I am sure that my hon. Friends will ensure that their remarks tonight are made known to their local authority so that if the policy of enterprise zones is extended there will be an awareness of the benefits that could accrue to north-east Kent.
  The decision on north-west Kent was reached after paying attention to the difficulties facing the economy of the area and the impact from the closure of Chatham dockyard with the consequent loss of 7,000 jobs. We were therefore pleased to grant the area a zone when it not only submitted a bid but, in meetings with us, showed considerable enthusiasm and willingness to work together for the good of the area. I hope that the north-west Kent zone will be a success. I expect it to benefit from its excellent location close to London and to the prosperous part of the south-east.
  I wish now to refer to the foreboding that has been expressed about the possible impact on the areas surrounding the enterprise zone. We have had strong and well-argued representations from, for example, Swale which is concerned that the existence of a zone in a neighbouring authority will siphon off all the new activity and sterilise its own developments. Some of those fears have been echoed in speeches in this debate. I sympathise. However, the evidence is that a successful zone stimulates growth well beyond its borders. The industry and commerce attracted to the north-west Kent zone should generate orders for other local firms and services. The parts of north Kent represented by my hon. Friends will undoubtedly benefit from this growth and opportunities will be created for some of those made redundant by the dockyard rundown.
  The unemployment figures give cause for concern. The modifications to the first Kent structure plan alteration have now been published. It sets out the strategy for dealing with the problem of unemployment in the area. The alteration sets out policies to encourage growth in manufacturing industry and service industry and in this respect seeks to ensure that a readily available supply of land for industrial and warehousing development is available in the urban areas.
  I was also delighted to find that Thanet district council has produced a draft urban plan for consultation. This allocates nearly 19 hectares of land for industry as well as setting out policies to guide decisions on the establishment and expansion of industrial premises together with policies to retain industrial land and premises.
  278
  We have given increased priority to roads in the southeast. Between one third and one half of the trunk roads programme is now being spent on projects in the southeast. As my hon. Friends will know, the M25 is being built as a top priority, two sections of the M20 have now been finished and the A2 has been improved. The Government will assume complete responsibility for the A249 from the junction with the M2 to Sheerness once the current improvement scheme is completed and statutory procedures have been implemented.
  There is a proposal for a bypass to Iwade on this route in the future and we will be seeking the public's views shortly. Kent has done very well in the past three transport supplementary grant settlements. In 1982–83 the whole of Kent's bid for current and more capital expenditure was accepted for grant. This was far greater than for any other shire county. In the 1983–84 expenditure allocations announced in December, Kent again received the highest amount of accepted expenditure amounting to £41·7 million, attracting a transport supplementary grant of £2·7 million.
  We have recently made it clear that we would be looking again at the question of trunking the Thanet way, the A299. In particular, we wish to ensure that we are taking decisions on the very latest information, reflecting the recent developments such as the growth of traffic through Ramsgate port. In addition, just before Christmas discussion took place between shipping interests, Thanet district council and the Department of Transport concerning a proposal to carry out a major £12 million expansion of Ramsgate harbour.
  The main thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks was that a free port should be established at Ramsgate. He illustrated the considerable benefit that would result not just to the economy in Ramsgate but to the United Kingdom economy as a whole. As my hon. Friend said, we have recently set up a working group on free ports. The terms of reference make it clear that its task is to examine in principle whether the establishment of free ports would be beneficial to industry and commerce in the United Kingdom.
  We decided that the approach must be to look first at the main issues involved. It would therefore be premature to consider claims of individual locations at this stage. But if it is decided to introduce free ports, I can assure my hon. Friends that all bids for such facilities will be carefully considered, including of course the case for Ramsgate. What attracted me about the picture that my hon. Friend painted was that we were talking not of jobs that would be diverted from other parts of the United Kingdom but of the generation of new jobs and the ability to compete or, equal terms with some of the other free ports in the world. I am sure that my hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and at the Treasury who are considering this question will read with interest what my hon. Friend has said and will take into account his representations when they reach a decision on the case for free ports as a whole.
  I hope that what I have said in response to the interesting debate provoked by my hon. Friend demonstrates our commitment to north Kent and to Thanet. The enterprise zone about which my hon. Friends have spoken is not the sum total of Government commitment to the area. I have mentioned our other actions, including the substantial investment in road infrastructure. The enterprise zone to the west provides a significant opportunity to the area to diversify its industry

  279
  and to provide the jobs it so badly needs. North Kent has a great deal of potential. I hope that the measures I have
  280
  mentioned and perhaps some of the measures that have been anticipated by my hon. Friends will help north Kent to realise that potential.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Two o'clock.

TRADE
  Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association
  Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association
  Export Credit Guarantee Department
  Export Credit Guarantee Department
  Domestic Electrical Appliances (Imports)
  Domestic Electrical Appliances (Imports)
TRANSPORT
  British Rail (Chairman)
  British Rail (Chairman)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Maryport Harbour Commissioners
  Maryport Harbour Commissioners
  Departmental Cash Limit
  Departmental Cash Limit
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Newham (Banking Facilities)
  Newham (Banking Facilities)
  Dwellings (Water Supply)
  Dwellings (Water Supply)
  Rents and Rates
  Rents and Rates
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Management Information System
  Management Information System
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Trident
  Trident
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Michael Whitney Straight (Interview)
  Mr. Michael Whitney Straight (Interview)
  Mr. Derek Bentley
  Mr. Derek Bentley
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Church Schools
  Church Schools
  Elderly Persons (Immune Systems)
  Elderly Persons (Immune Systems)
  Scottish Arts Council
  Scottish Arts Council
  Universities (Part-time Course Fees)
  Universities (Part-time Course Fees)
  Graduates
  Graduates
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Electronic Bugging
  Electronic Bugging
  Cable Television (Wales)
  Cable Television (Wales)
  Plastic Bullets and CS Gas
  Plastic Bullets and CS Gas
DEFENCE
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Nuclear and Conventional Force Levels
  Nuclear and Conventional Force Levels
  Falkland islands (Mines)
  Falkland islands (Mines)
  West Germany (Force Costs)
  West Germany (Force Costs)
  Management Information System
  Management Information System
  Falklands Garrison
  Falklands Garrison
  Greenham Common (Missile Base)
  Greenham Common (Missile Base)
  Gibraltar Dockyard
  Gibraltar Dockyard
  Theatre Nuclear Missiles
  Theatre Nuclear Missiles
  Faslane Base
  Faslane Base
  Nuclear Deterrence (Publications)
  Nuclear Deterrence (Publications)
  Guards Division
  Guards Division
  Frigates and Destroyers
  Frigates and Destroyers
  Defence Capability and Deployment
  Defence Capability and Deployment
  Nuclear Tests (Radiation Compensation)
  Nuclear Tests (Radiation Compensation)
  RAF Leuchars
  RAF Leuchars
  Nuclear Missiles (Levels)
  Nuclear Missiles (Levels)
  South Atlantic (Military Presence)
  South Atlantic (Military Presence)
  Agile Combat Aircraft
  Agile Combat Aircraft
  Royal Fleet Auxiliaries (Overhaul)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliaries (Overhaul)
  Nimrod
  Nimrod
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Martin Baker Ejector Seats
  Martin Baker Ejector Seats
ENERGY
  Onshore Licences
  Onshore Licences
  Lung Disease (Benefits)
  Lung Disease (Benefits)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Doctors
  Unemployed Doctors
  Manpower Services Commission (Women's Interests)
  Manpower Services Commission (Women's Interests)
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Graduates
  Graduates
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy (Prices and Levies)
  Common Agricultural Policy (Prices and Levies)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Vetting Procedure
  Vetting Procedure
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United States (Arms Control Negotiating Team)
  United States (Arms Control Negotiating Team)
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  British Embassy, Dublin
  British Embassy, Dublin
  Middle East
  Middle East
WALES
  Foreign-owned Plants (Closures)
  Foreign-owned Plants (Closures)
  Hospitals (Dyfed)
  Hospitals (Dyfed)
  Gipsy Caravans
  Gipsy Caravans
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National No-smoking Day
  National No-smoking Day
  Housewives' Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Housewives' Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Senile Dementia
  Senile Dementia
  Health Care (Decision-making)
  Health Care (Decision-making)
  Family Medical Practitioners (Training)
  Family Medical Practitioners (Training)
  Social Services Committee (Medical Education Report)
  Social Services Committee (Medical Education Report)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Day Centres
  Day Centres
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Opren
  Opren
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Pharmaceutical Products
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Registrars of Marriage (Consents)
  Registrars of Marriage (Consents)
  District Health Authorities
  District Health Authorities
  Haringey Community Health Council (Budget)
  Haringey Community Health Council (Budget)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Local Offices (Casual Staff)
  Local Offices (Casual Staff)
  Tavistock Institute Report
  Tavistock Institute Report
  Turning Point (Grant)
  Turning Point (Grant)
  ROMA Project
  ROMA Project
  Communication Aids (Resource Centres)
  Communication Aids (Resource Centres)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Payments (Interest Charges)
  Tax Payments (Interest Charges)
  Capital Outflow
  Capital Outflow
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Independent Television Companies (Corporation Tax)
  Independent Television Companies (Corporation Tax)
  Social Security Staffs (London Weighting)
  Social Security Staffs (London Weighting)
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Argentina (Loan)
  Argentina (Loan)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Civil Service Catering
  Civil Service Catering
  Football Clubs (Taxation)
  Football Clubs (Taxation)
  International Loans
  International Loans
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure

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

Redundant Farm Buildings: Circular 22/80
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how successful the directions to local authorities in Circular 22/80 have been in allowing farmers to let redundant farm buildings for other uses
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, Circular 22/80 gives advice to local authorities on how the Government expect them to handle planning applications. It asks local authorities to look sympathetically at applications for the reuse of redundant buildings, including farm buildings, by small-scale businesses. It is our understanding in general that local authorities are reponding positively to this advice. In cases where this does not appear to he so, there is of course, the right of appeal.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him to advise the House whether the Development Commission is able to make grants in aid of suitable projects to CoSIRA and other bodies?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. The Development Commission has a redundant farm buildings scheme under which CoSIRA will, in worse off rural areas, provide grants of up to 35 per cent. of the cost of conversion for craft and light industrial use, but I am afraid that I must tell the House that take-up so far has been disappointing.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the people who come and look at these buildings have rather short-term ideas, which leaves a problem on the rating side if a farmer applies for change of use? Does the noble Lord have any ideas for some sort of short-term, rating system which would help because, from my experience of this matter, there is a lot of short-term use of these buidings?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government would accept what the noble Lord says—that there is a certain amount of short-term use of this sort of building-but I am afraid I can give him no answer on what alleviation in the rates for these purposes we might consider. So far as I know, this is a problem which has not been considered up to now, but I certainly take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend give the date of the circular he mentioned? Is he aware
676
that there are still local authorities which would rather see some of these buildings fall down than that they should be converted into workshops or living space?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary is 28th November 1980. May I ask him to repeat the second part?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is he aware that there are still district councils which would rather see buildings fall down than that they should be converted into useful workshops or accommodation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not aware of that; and if it is true, I would regard it as most deplorable.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would the Minister care to say the purpose to which disused cowsheds might be put? Is he aware that I frequently slept in used cowsheds in France in 1915 and that I can assure him that they are most desirable for any other purpose?
Lord Skelmersdale: The Government are not responsible for the tabling of Questions, my Lords, only for answering them.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, would my noble friend be kind enough to tell me whether the farms of the Ministry of Defence and their buildings are included in this?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid I have no idea, my Lords, but I will find out and write to my noble friend.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the trouble usually is the quite arbitrary refusal of planning permission by planning committees and planning boards, as in the case I referred to his department from the Lake District some time ago, in which case, I am glad to say, the Minister reversed the decision of the planning board? Would he look at this matter to see whether he could persuade planning boards to be rather more flexible in allowing planning permission for the change of use of farm buildings?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, and that is exactly the purpose of the circular we are discussing. As for the question of reversal, it is, of course, within the applicant's rights to apply to the Secretary of State, first, if the planning permission has not been decided within eight weeks and, secondly, if it is turned down.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, would my noble friend assure the House that the Government will give further thought to publicity for the Development Commission's scheme of grants in view of the low take-up to which he referred?
Lord Skelmerdale: Yes, my Lords.

Local Authority Nuclear-Free Zones
2.42 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local authorities have established so-called nuclear-free zones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the Government have received representations on this from about 70 local authorities.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Has he any information that some councils are declaring their areas nuclear-free on the assumption that defence against nuclear arms is useless anyway and therefore they can economise on the expense of civil defence?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that the reason why local authorities do this is unnecessary, because of course the Government are elected with a responsibility for maintaining national security. So far as civil defence is concerned, the Government indeed appreciate the work done in civil defence and give all encouragement to the excellent work that it does for the civil population in any emergency.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is rapidly growing concern among many people on matters of nuclear warfare? He might ponder on whether listening to a few million voices on the topic would be more productive than would be lecturing through a million pounds worth of propaganda.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed the Government are aware of, and share, the disgust at nuclear weapons, but as the noble Lord is equally aware, we do not take the path of unilateral disarmament, but rather that of multilateral disarmament. So far as the last part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I would refer him to the responses yesterday of my noble friend Lord Belstead.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Minister say whether an up-to-date list of these local authorities is being conveyed to the Soviet leadership, so that they can take full account of it in their targeting?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, an up-to-date list of those who have informed the Government is kept at the Ministry of Defence. Its circulation I am not aware of.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether the CND has arranged with its sponsors that the nuclear-powered Sputnik that is about to descend upon the earth will not arrive in one of the so-called nuclear-free areas? Secondly, if it were to arrive in a part of the United Kingdom, perhaps it
678
should land in Devon, where we at least have a certain body of volunteers—much criticised and attacked by the CND—who are trained to monitor such arrangements.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Lord that the sea seems to cover more of the earth's surface than does the land, and fortunately these objects have a habit of falling into the sea. I should like to pay tribute to the civil defence in the noble Lord's area and to wish it all good fortune.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, if I heard correctly, the Minister said that 70 authorities had reported to the Government. Is he aware that the actual number is 138? Will he confirm that they represent four-fifths of the population of Britain, including not only Greater London, but the whole of Wales, and is not that fact significant in terms of the opinion of the people of this country?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the actual number which have informed the Government is, I believe, 73. I know that there is press speculation on the total, varying between 138 and 140, who have portrayed this to the press. The noble Lord exaggerated when he suggested that the figure represented four-fifths of the population. Normally local authorities are elected by less than half of the population of their areas, and these particular edicts represent the views of only a percentage of those who have voted. The noble Lord might like to look at some recent opinion polls which show that the unilateralist cause has slightly subsided.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is extremely sad that so many people should be so deluded into thinking that this declaration of a nuclear-free zone can have any benefit for them or anybody else?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, my Lords; my noble friend has a very good point there.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I understand that in the area of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, the Devon County Council, under Conservative control, is banning the CND from using accommodation? Does he think that that is one way of answering some of the genuine fears that people have?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is a free country, and if that is the county council's wish, it should do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the statistics to which reference has just been made are not representative of any view on this specific issue?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government are elected with a responsibility for maintaining national security, and it is upon them that responsibility rests.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government are elected by only a minority of the population, and equally is it not very undesirable

679
for central Government to seek to force their views on elected local authorities? Is it not particularly undesirable for a non-elected House to seek to enforce its views on elected members of local authorities?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, central Government have for a long time had responsibility for defence. That has applied not only to the present Government but to previous Governments, and I should like to remind the House that a previous Government supported an independent deterrent, as do we.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that local authorities are normally elected by a minority of the electorate?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I tried to bring out that point in an earlier reply.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, as the noble Earl has just told us that this is a free country—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I should like to suggest that we hear the question of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and then, in view of the fact that we have had quite a long run on this Question, move on to the next one.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I just want to follow what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said. He said that this is a free country, so what I want to ask is, if this is a free country, can we all pick our nuclear-free zones—every one of us?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, we all indeed can. We respect it, but will the enemy?

Divorce Law
2.49 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the position in the current law of divorce of a person who does not consent to divorce because of his or her belief in the indissolubility of marriage.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the present law is based on the legislation of 1969, as consolidated in 1973. The ground for dissolution is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and thus excludes the religious beliefs of the respondent. Irretrievable breakdown is proved by first establishing one of five states of fact. The first three are based on the fault of the respondent, and therefore can hardly be dependent on his religious beliefs. The fourth is conditional on consent. Only the fifth remains, and that is conditional on five years' separation. Parliament in effect decided on a free vote that in these circumstances it would be wrong to deny
680
either party the right to remarry after decree. Neither party is bound to do so. It is customary for these questions to be decided on a free vote of each House.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his useful reply. May I ask whether it is not right that we should try to bring back to marriage all the moral and spiritual incentives so that the health of mind and body of our children and also of us men and women is restored and we are saved from the great sadness, wretchedness and unhappiness which we know exists and which people like myself come across so often? Is there not a probability that in the next decade, if things go on as they are, there could be five million children of one-parent families rather than the present one million? Is it right that the present system contributes to the maintenance of that situation?
The Lord Chancellor: My, Lords, personally—but I speak, of course, from this place as a member of the Government—I respect the sanctity of marriage as much as my noble friend, but I think that he should ask himself one or two simple questions. We live in a society in which there are Moslems who have an establishment of four wives—and they can divorce any one of them by talaq—of Jews who, if they enter into a religious marriage, have one wife—and who can dissolve the marriage by gett—of atheists, who may not believe any of the things which the noble Lord and I believe, and also of people who have, one, two, three, four or five successive marriages, dissolved, all of them, by divorce.
One has to ask oneself what Parliament can do in legislation of this kind. It cannot depend solely on the religious views held by the Church of which both my noble friend and I are members.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, was not the legislation passed in 1969 the outcome of prolonged parliamentary discussion in both Houses and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, was not the ultimate outcome the result of a free vote? On the whole, has this not provided satisfaction to the community and is it not the case that there are many second marriages—thereby not confirming the observation of Dr. Johnson that a second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. I try to stick to facts. What he says about the legislation is entirely correct. I think it is true—indeed, I know it is true—that second marriages are not infrequently more happy than first marriages. Having said that, I would also agree with him that you cannot go on tinkering with the law of marriage and divorce every 10 years. Marriage, whatever its values and whatever doctrine apples to it, is not something with which one ought to tinker from time to time; it ought to have a certain degree of durability. It is bad for the law to be messing about with fundamental institutions. I agree with all these propositions. As the noble and learned Lord will probably remember, I have referred various questions to the Law Commission and made public speeches to the Family Division and to family lawyers on the

681
subject; and there is before the other place a Private Member's Bill which has Government support.
May I say that I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Milverton for his reference to children? This is uppermost in the minds of every decent man and woman who approaches this rather painful subject. Of course, the number of children involved is increasing and will do so until the level of divorce reaches a plateau. The courts—and really I can answer only for the courts and for the Government—have laid it down for a very long time—since, I think 1925—that, in handling questions in relation to children, the welfare and the interest of the children are the first and paramount considerations.

Cashless Pay
2.55 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect they expect "non-cash pay", which they favour, to have on the mutual disclosure of their incomes between husband and wife, and on the arrangements between them about housekeeping money.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, as cashless pay would always be accompanied by a payslip, it is difficult to see how it would have any appreciable bearing on the matters to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in common sense a man is more likely to share his weekly pay packet with his wife if he has pound notes in his pocket than if he does not have pound notes in his pocket? Before going further with the proposal of cashless pay, will the Government make sure that they have up-to-date statistical knowledge of the number of wives in the country who do not know what their husbands earn, wish that they did and fear that things might be worse if cashless pay were introduced generally?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, a variety of views have been expressed on this subject. Some people take the view, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does, that the fact that the husband will no longer bring home every Friday a pay packet containing his wages in pound notes and coin of the realm, will prejudice the wife's position. There are other people who take the view that because the husband will always have a pay slip and, in addition, the bank will render a monthly statement showing in that statement the amount of pay he has received, the wife's position will be improved. These are all matters of speculation. I think that, as Terence said, "Tot homines, quot sententiae".
Lord Derwent: My Lords, can my noble friend say what on earth this Question has to do with Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend raises an important point. Her Majesty's Government are in favour of cashless pay, which, in the sense that it would avoid the handling by employers and employees of large amounts of cash, would represent a significant improvement in respect both of the work involved and of the security risks. It would also encourage the spread of banking. Indeed, the number of working people with bank accounts has increased dramatically in the last 10 years. Apparently about 71 per cent. of all people at work now have bank accounts. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the National Economic Development Council. It was supported on all sides not only by the Government but also by the TUC.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it would still be possible for a man to be paid in cash if he so wished?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords, we have taken the view that this is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I press the Secretary of State for an answer to part of my earlier supplementary question? Is it the Government's intention to arm themselves with proper statistical information about the opinion of wives on this matter?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the issue has been discussed at great length in public. Very few views of the kind that the noble Lord has expressed have been put forward. In fact, the tendency is for people to stress the opposite point of view; namely, that with the pay paid through a bank it will be more possible for the wife to see what the husband is receiving, if, in fact, the husband is prepared to make that information available.
Lord Spens: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government going to abolish the Truck Acts in order to do this? If so, when?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is not necessary to abolish the Truck Acts if this is done by way of voluntary agreement, which is what we have in mind. The general question of the future of the Truck Acts is one of the numerous matters which are under careful consideration.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the industrial situation in the water industry.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening and, as is now usual on a Tuesday, it will be between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. The Report stage of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment, the Report stage of the Merchant Shipping Bill, together with

683
three Northern Ireland orders—Financial Provisions, Milk and Quarries, respectively—will be taken.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Support financing of community services in Scotland]:
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 33, after ("district") insert ("or islands").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a drafting error. In Scotland, the local authorities empowered for the purposes of Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 to provide housing accommodation are, in terms of Section 1 of that Act, islands and district councils. It is therefore intended that the proposed new Section 16A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 should enable health boards to make support finance payments to both islands and district councils as housing authorities to assist them in providing accommodation to meet the special needs of the elderly, disabled and infirm. As drafted, the proposed new Section 16A(1)(c) refers only to district councils; this amendment would insert a reference to the three islands councils as well. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I see no reason why we should not support this particular amendment; it is an obvious one. But I take this opportunity to register a very strong protest at the large number of amendments tabled by the Government at this Report stage. Of 117 amendments, nearly 90 are Government amendments. In addition, there are four new clauses and two new schedules, which were tabled last Tuesday and were not available to noble Lords until Thursday. Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has done me the courtesy of sending me a very large number of papers, Notes on Clauses. One amendment about voluntary bodies promised me by the noble Lord in his letter of 9th January has not even been put down.
I protest on behalf of the House in this sense. Here we are faced with very complicated amendments and new clauses. We are on Report stage and, as noble Lords know full well, on Report stage, except for the mover of an amendment, one can speak only once. Therefore we have been robbed of the detailed examination that takes place on the Committee stage. When I state categorically that the bulk of these large amendments were put down last Tuesday, noble Lords will recall that that was the day on which the Report stage should have taken place. But it was postponed because of certain situations arising which naturally engaged the attention of the House, and indeed the country.
Therefore I make this protest, not from this Box but on behalf of the whole House, that the House is not being treated properly by the department. I am not
684
going to involve the Minister too much, but he has to carry the can, as we know full well. This is a scandalous way in which to treat the House. One cannot pass much comment at this stage on the individual large amendments. It can only mean that, unfortunately, on Third Reading there is the possibility of there being a large number of amendments. My attitude is that on Committee stage we should consider as much as possible of the detail on amendments. On Report stage we should deal with only those where at least there is a faint hope that the Government might agree, or someone feels so strongly about an amendment that they wish to take the matter to a Division. On Third Reading we should be as moderate as possible. That is the general spirit of co-operation that one extends in this Chamber. On this occasion, unfortunately, the situation is different.
Those of us w ho work in Opposition from these Benches know full well that we are not surrounded with advisers writing our speeches. We have to paddle our own canoe, and it is not easy. Noble Lords opposite, when they are on this side, know this, although perhaps their central office is more generous than my particular organisation, they having far greater resources in terms of money than we ever get. However, that is beside the point. I protest; not from this Box, but on behalf of the whole House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I do not propose to speak on the substance of this amendment with which my noble friend Lord Lyell is concerned. I take what the noble Lord says in the spirit that it is meant. It is true that some of these amendments were tabled at rather a late stage, for which I apologise. I offer a general reason, which may not necessarily apply in each and every case. The reason is that we have been very busy consulting on some of the proposals which have been put forward, not only by the Government but by noble Lords opposite and by other Members of the House. It is often not possible until a late stage to table amendments which reflect the results of such consultation. The noble Lord complained that certain amendments which I had foreshadowed in a letter to him had not been tabled. I am happy to say that the noble Lord is not correct. The ones he refers to are Nos. 25 and 28 on the Marshalled List, which I hope he will find satisfactory when he sees them.
The Government have tried very hard to approach this Report stage—and I speak for myself, at least—in a constructive frame of mind, as the noble Lord will discover. Later today, I intend to accept at least one of the proposals put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and one or two proposals that come from other quarters of the House. So I feel that my record in that respect is well capable of examination.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; certainly the amendment is down and it is one of the late ones. But instead of being on Clause 1, he has put it down under Schedule 5. He has led me up the garden.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Jegermoved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
(" . Where a child is in the voluntary care of a local authority any denial of parental rights, including rights of access, must be referred to a juvenile court at which either parent shall have the right to be heard and represented.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a child is in the voluntary care—and I emphasise "in the voluntary care"—of a local authority, any denial of parental rights, denial of access, must be put before a juvenile court at which either parent shall have the right to be heard and to be represented. There are all sorts of reasons why a parent asks for a child to be taken into care. It could be a mother's illness or death; it could be homelessness—and I must tell your Lordships that these cases, sadly, are increasing. There might be a marital breakdown of such severity that neither parent can care for the child. There are many complex reasons. But I must emphasise that we are not talking about children who are neglected or abused or taken into care for their own protection. I understand there are about 40,000 children in voluntary care today, so we are not talking about a small minority.
I realise that if this amendment were accepted there would have to be amendment of the Child Care Act 1980 and possibly of other legislation. But it seemed to us that the occasion of this present Bill should not pass without your Lordships setting some changes in the context of this Bill: otherwise it might appear that your Lordships are quiescent, self-satisfied and passive about the present situation, and I do not think that is true.
This matter was discussed at Committee stage on 9th December on a proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to amend Section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980. The noble Lord's amendment was defeated by 84 votes to 65, although it had the support of Members from all parts of the House. It may be argued that at present a parent has the right to object at a juvenile court—a right to object within 28 days of the parental rights order being made. This puts the onus on the parent of going to court within the given period. This amendment would make referral to the court statutory so that the writ of the social services committee could not run without the confirmation of the juvenile court.
It might be maintained that this amendment is unnecessary because the parent can oppose a resolution by the service of a counter-notice upon the authority. But how is a parent to know this, and how would they cope with it, or even know what a counter-notice is?—especially as in these cases parents are very often distressed, disadvantaged, lacking confidence and lacking support. It is said by some who oppose this amendment that the parent should get that support from the social worker. That is very difficult for the parent to accept because it is the social worker who would have moved the order in the social services committee; it is very hard for a parent in this situation to look for help in opposing the social services committee when that social worker will have been responsible for recommending that parental rights be assumed by the local authority. The mother or father might well presume that the social worker would be supporting the authority in court. It would certainly
686
put the social worker in a very difficult position if he or she were to support the parent in court, in defiance of his or her own authority.
Under the present law, once the social services committee has passed a resolution assuming parental rights, a formal notice must be sent to the parent and must inform him or her of the right to object within 28 days. But 28 days seems to me to be very little time. I am not sure whether the parent would have received the letter. The parent might have moved or might have been transferred from one hospital to another. Parents might even have a language difficulty in many cases in understanding an official document, and even those who do not have a language difficulty may well find some problems in understanding those documents.
We are talking in the main about people who are often the least articulate, with the least initiative, in this very difficult situation. In this amendment we are endeavouring to do something to help them other than just sending a letter telling them they have 28 days in which to appeal to a court. I must emphasise to your Lordships that at present I understand there are no absolute rights to legal aid, which might well be a disadvantage to some of the poorest people involved.
Some professional social workers may well feel that in the interests of the children they should be able to protect them from irresponsible or, in some cases, dangerous parents. But surely the juvenile court would be equally sensitive to these problems and in such cases their judgment would be in support of the local authority. This procedure would protect social workers from harassment by parents or other relatives who feel they have been harshly dealt with. I have discussed this with some social workers who feel they would gain added confidence from knowing that the court had upheld their judgment, that their decisions were not invidious and therefore, if the court had decided against them, that must be accepted without their taking responsibility for decisions which might well be opposed by families later on.
I also think that parents who have lost their case might well be sad but they would find a judgment of the court at which they could appear and be represented to be more acceptable than the decision of a local authority committee at which they were not present. I believe we are naturally a law-abiding community and, by and large, people would prefer to feel that the law had made its judgment on their case rather than a committee of unseen bureaucrats in the town hall in their absence.
These changes have the support of the Magistrates' Association, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Council for One-Parent Families and the Family Sub-Comittee of the British Association of Social Workers—but not yet the council of the association, I must make clear. That council will be meeting later this year.
I am sure the House would want to express its appreciation of the heavy burden borne by our social workers—often with too heavy a case load, a problem which seems likely to increase under present policies. They are having to deal with desperately difficult and sensitive situations, but I know of no social worker—and I know many—who would claim total infallibility. None of them should see this amendment

687
as an attack on their profession; it is an attack on the system.
On 9th December, in col. 303, the noble Minister said that consideration was being given to these problems to find out whether any changes were needed. I quote:
"We may conclude that changes or further safeguards are necessary. If that is our conclusion I have no doubt we shall want to use the opportunity of this Bill to bring forward proposals in another place".
That was said on 9th December. It is now 1st February, so I do not think it is unfair to ask the noble Minister whether he has had time to come to any further conclusion about these proposals. I beg to move.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, this amendment is of very great importance and I hope that every Member of this House who is or has been a parent will envisage the situation of the parent. Suppose that your wife is taken ill and you are left at home with one or two children with whom you cannot cope. Your first reaction is that you are very glad that there is a local authority place or some kind of place where your child can be in residence during this crisis at home. Then comes next week and you think you will go and see the child, but you find that you are denied access to your own child. Imagine this, and imagine yourself in that situation when you have young children at home. Your immediate reaction to that would be, "They have no right to do this", and by that you mean that only a court of law can have a right to do it. This amendment would make it obligatory that denial of any access to the child should be subject to the approval of a court of law.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The noble Baroness reminded the House that at the Committee stage I moved an amendment which would have prevented a denial of parental rights to parents of a child in voluntary care without recourse to the courts. It would no longer have been possible for that to be done by administrative means through a parental rights resolution. As the noble Baroness said, there was wide support for that amendment in all parts of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the present procedures were not ideal, and also said that the Government had not ruled out the possibility of change, although he opposed the amendment itself.
He spoke of possible amendments when the Bill reached another place, and he referred to consultations about the possible establishment of a code of practice. A code of practice would undoubtedly be an advance, although, of course, that was not what the amendment proposed, which went much beyond that. I felt that on that occasion during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had not made any firm commitment to take action and had not, therefore, met the point of the amendment. So we divided, and the amendment was lost by the comparatively narrow margin to which the noble Baroness referred.
As I understand it, this amendment, although much more loosely drawn, would produce a similar result and, for that reason, I support it. I hope that the noble
688
Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be able to commit the Government firmly to the introduction of amendments in another place. The British Association of Social Workers, to whom the noble Baroness referred, have told me that they would prefer no change in the law until family courts have been introduced. That is an understandable point of view. I, too, support the establishment of family courts, and I urge the Government to set them up. But I do not feel that we can leave the matter with which this amendment is concerned to be dealt with at some unspecified date in the future, and it would be very encouraging if the Government would say that there will be definite proposals for amendment when the Bill reaches another place.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, while understanding the feelings of the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I am not at all clear about the law in relation to this amendment. If a child is accepted into care under Section 1 of the Children Act, that means that the child is accepted into care at the request and demand of the parents. At any point in time the child can be withdrawn from care, and no local authority can stop that. If a child is in care under Section 1 at the request of the parents, and if a local authority refuses either to allow the parents access or to allow letters to pass, the parents can withdraw the child at a moment's notice. That is under Section 1 of the Children Act.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had to do with the assumption of parental rights under Section 2 of the Act. I am not sure whether in this amendment we are talking about Section 1 or Section 2 of the Children Act, but if it is Section 1, which means voluntary care, then it does not really apply. Under Section 1, if parents want to withdraw their child they can do so, and they sometimes go to a voluntary organisation and ask for help.
Secondly, I am also somewhat confused about this amendment, because if a parent is ill, or if there is a death in the family, and the parents ask for the child to be accepted into care, it will be a terrible shock to find themselves in court. That would be something which they had never foreseen or envisaged when their child was accepted, but not taken into care, and when there was no question of Section 2 rights, as was the case with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I am afraid that I find it quite impossible to accept this amendment legally, although I understand the feelings of the noble Baroness who moved it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I say a brief word in opposition to this amendment? The approach must surely be what is in the best interests of the welfare of the child, and not how we can best protect parental rights. It was not my initention to speak on this matter, but as I was engaged in a case involving the Lewisham Borough Council which went to your Lordships' Appellate Committee, which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and where these issues which are under discussion arose for decision, may I be excused for saying this brief word?
I have not looked it up for many months, but that was a case where the child was put by the mother into

689
voluntary care and the mother, having put it into voluntary care, was on any showing irresponsible and an improper person to have further custody of the child. Indeed, handing it over to the mother would have endangered the child. The Court of Appeal held that the local authority had to hand that child over to the mother; so we took out wardship proceedings in the High Court, went to your Lordships' Appellate Committee and your Lordships overruled the Court of Appeal. That still stands as authority.
Like my noble friend Lady Faithfull I am concerned about this matter, and I am not seeking in any way to be obstructive. But I am not convinced as to the use of putting what is called the onus on the local authority, which I suppose would mean that you would, perhaps, add to the drafting that after the denial of parental rights the local authority shall forthwith refer to the juvenile court.
I do not know about your Lordships, but I am not happy with the use of the word "parent". There might be a grandmother or someone who had care of the child but who was not a parent. But points of drafting are not particularly attractive. I merely mention them because they could lead to wider points of principle. What seems to me to be the point of principle at stake is that, by and large, since the Lewisham Borough Council case the law is reasonably satisfactory to protect the welfare of children. There is no sufficient case made out for this amendment, and it would perhaps he preferable to wait until the establishment of the family courts. For those reasons, as at present advised, and subject to anything further that I hear in your Lordships' debate, I would be disposed to oppose the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, very often in your Lordships' House the intervention of lawyers is an annoyance. But sometimes I think we find that their experience, and the way in which they can point to that experience, does help the House. I hope this is such an occasion, because we have drifted from principle to some sort of examination of the legal position, and whether that is satisfactory. As always, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for giving us the benefit of his experience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, talked about whether this amendment applied to Section 1. If it applies to Section 1 that is the very case that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was talking about; namely, a parent voluntarily giving a child into the care of the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, then went on to say that that was a case which he thought was sufficiently cared for at the moment by the law, and he took us through the various stages of the case that reached your Lordships' Appellate Committee. It is to just that sort of case that my noble friend is referring.
It is the case of a child being handed over in certain circumstances—be it illness, be it death, be it some tragedy of some kind—to a local authority. The sole question for the House indeed, for the lawyers in the House, too is whether one leaves the extraordinary case, as it may be, of refusal of access—the normal human right of a parent in relation to a child and a very essential human right—to a committee, to a local
690
authority, to an officer's recommendation to a local authority. When one is dealing with such a fundamental refusal which, quite apart from the liberty of the subject, can produce such emotional reactions from both parent and child, should not a juvenile court look at such an extraordinary case and deal with the matter judicially? Is there any doubt in your Lordships' minds that a juvenile court would not have, as a prime consideration, the welfare of the child, but would at the same time ally with it the right of the parent? Is this not a judicial and completely independent decision that ought to be taken away from the local authority that is already involved in the decision; namely, that this fundamental right should be withdrawn?
My Lords, if I may say so, I regarded the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as so helpful because I think it answered the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, by saying that this is just the case, under Section 1, however rare it might be, where a court decision ought to be applicable and not that of a committee of a local authority, well advised or otherwise by an official.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for clarifying what she seeks to achieve by virtue of this amendment. The matters which she and others who have spoken have raised are of the greatest importance, and, as I shall explain, are under urgent consideration by the Government.
Before I go on to that I should perhaps say that the drafting of the amendment presents certain problems. It is far from perfect, I fear, but I should not seek to argue against the principle of the amendment just on the basis of its drafting because that can be put right either at a later stage or in the other place. Despite the drafting, I can give an assurance to your Lordships that we are very well aware of the concern felt in this House, and indeed outside it, about some aspects of provision for children in care. The question of the law and procedures regarding parental rights resolutions was debated at some length by your Lordships on 9th December, when I endeavoured to explain to your Lordships the Government's considered view.
We are by no means satisfied that the present system is entirely satisfactory. Nor are we convinced that the law should be changed to bring before the courts every case where a local authority feels it needs parental rights over a child in care, regardless of whether there is any conflict between the authority and the parent over the matter. We believe that the practice needs to be improved so that the procedures are operated in a way that ensures that parents' rights do not go by default or are not lost for want of the right advice at the right time. I gave your Lordships an undertaking on 9th December that we would be exploring the possibility of drawing up guidance on good practice. Work on this is now in hand and has the support of the local authority associations and the Association of Directors of Social Services. We are also considering whether we need to bring forward in another place one or two small changes to the legislation.
I turn now to the question of access to children in care. We have this matter very much in mind at the moment, and I am grateful for the views of your

691
Lordships. I am certainly concerned about the difficulties which I know can face parents who find themselves at irreconcilable odds with a local authority about access to a child in care. It is important and reassuring to remember that in most cases the question of access will be agreed without serious problems between the authority and the parent. In most cases, indeed, the local authority will be anxious to encourage access between a parent and a child, which is so important if their family is to be reunited. Further, I am sure that we would all wish to recognise the very difficult job and heavy responsibility which a local authority is expected to take on when a child is placed in its care. I am sure that where arrangements can be made by agreement and any difficulties resolved by negotiation this must be the best way forward for the family as a whole.
Again, we shall be considering carefully whether guidance from my department can help to ensure good practice in this field. I would not wish to see these matters referred routinely to the courts. Having said that. I certainly sympathise with those of your Lordships who feel that, when all attempts to agree have failed, parents should have the right to seek redress through the courts. It would be my hope that this would be a final resort rather than in the first instance, and we are urgently considering whether there is any measure which we can bring forward in the other place to achieve this without putting unreasonable burdens upon the local authorities and the courts.
The law relating to children in care is very complicated and fragmented, and, partly for historical reasons, there are inconsistencies; but the law generally provides that where a child is in the care of a local authority then that authority has a responsibility for the child's upbringing as long as he remains in its care—and a very heavy responsibility and a very difficult task that can often be. The law gives the authority the necessary powers to make decisions about the child's upbringing. These decisions must be made within the framework of legislation which provides, most importantly, that a local authority should give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the child's welfare throughout his childhood.
The law provides that, in special circumstances, the courts may issue directions about decisions affecting a child in care; for example where a child is made a ward of court. But in the majority of cases where the local authority stands in the role of the parent it has the responsibility for making the decisions as a parent would. If the natural parent believes it is no longer right or necessary that an authority should have the care of a child, the parent has a right to ask the court to bring the care order or the parents' parental rights resolution to an end. That is very broadly the position which is now being challenged.
I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward, especially those in relation to the question of access. We believe that the position of parents who are denied access to their children needs further consideration. but the implications of a more general change in favour of the referral of the decision to the court also need careful consideration. I very much
692
doubt whether at present there is any consensus of opinion that the courts and the adversarial nature of proceedings in the courts provide the best forum for effectively planning a child's upbringing and future.
I said at the earlier stage of the Bill that we were considering whether we could bring forward further proposals, perhaps during consideration of this measure in another place. I suppose it might have been possible, by speeding up that consideration but, worst of all, by truncating the consultation process, to act more quickly, but again that would have incurred the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. Had we done that, it would have necessitated putting down more amendments quite recently. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has already pointed out that we have put down quite a number. I hope your Lordships will agree and accept that the Government take this matter very seriously indeed and that we hope to bring forward further proposals in the other place.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. May I say straight away to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who has such experience of these matters that I tried to anticipate her criticism of its legality by saying that there would have to be subsequent amendments of the Child Care Act 1980 and that these would take on board her problem about which section of the legislation was being referred to. I cannot agree with the noble Baroness's reference to the strain that this would put upon parents of having to go to the juvenile court. This seems to be an argument for the abolition of the juvenile courts. Parents often have to go to the juvenile courts. I am not sure that the strain of a court appearance in a juvenile court where the issue can be discussed is as much of a strain as a parent receiving a letter saying that a committee has passed a resolution denying his right of access to his own child. To be told this by people with whom you may not have come face to face, by means of an official, bureaucratic document, seems to me to be the most traumatic experience of all.
I appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as did my noble friend Lord Mishcon. However, I take issue with him on one point. He referred to the fact that a parent might be denied parental rights because a social worker thought that that parent was irresponsible. I doubt whether there are many parents in this House who can claim that they have never been irresponsible. It is a very subjective judgment of the kind which parents deeply resent. It is especially resented when a slightly older woman is in the care of a younger social worker. Not so long ago I had such a woman come to me and say, "Who is that bit of a girl? She's never had a baby in her life—not that she admits to, anyway. Now she's telling me that I'm irresponsible". These are delicate and difficult matters, but I should have thought that to go through the courts is one way of reducing to a minimum these subjective judgments.
I would remind the House that 3,000 of these parental rights resolutions go through local authorities every year. This means that we are talking about 3,000 children. It is not good enough for noble Lords to think that if it is under Section 1 the parent can get his child

693
back. Once a resolution has been passed, the whole situation changes. There have been cases where children have not even been allowed to receive presents from their parents because a resolution of denial has been passed.
I appreciate all that the noble Lord the Minister has said and I am glad that the Government are giving urgent consideration to the matter. Nevertheless, I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment, defective though it is legalistically, for which I apologise. The noble Lord the Minister made one statement which seems to contradict the intention. He said that he would not wish matters to be automatically referred to the courts. The purpose of the amendment is that they shall be referred automatically to the courts so that there will be no invidious decisions about one case going to court and another case not going to court. It would be a difficult decision to make. I am not sure who would make the decision as to which cases went to court and which did not. If it is for the parent to take the initiative in going to court, that contradicts the intention of the amendment, which is to save the parent the onus of initiating proceedings. I am sorry if I have failed to persuade the Minister that these parents are often the least confident and the least able to initiate proceedings. We are seeking to make it obligatory so that neither side has to take the initiative.
For these reasons, with all my thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for the crumbs of comfort and good hope which he has given us this afternoon, I am afraid that I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Amherst, E.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Amulree, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenamara, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Balogh, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Beswick, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blease, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blyton, L.

Hayter, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hunt, L.

Brockway, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Collison, L.

Kagan, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Kaldor, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kennet, L.

Denington, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Donaldson of

Kirkhill, L.

Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

694

Lee of Newton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of

Savile, L.

Hastoe, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Serota, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shinwell, L.

Longford, E.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stamp, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stedman, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Macleod of Fuinary, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McNair, L.

Stone, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strauss, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peart, L.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Plant, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whaddon, L.

Porritt, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Marylebone, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Allerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Avon, E.

Hill-Norton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hives, L.

Bellwin, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Ilchester, E.

Blake, L.

Kilmany, L.

Boyd Carpenter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Burton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Caccia, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lovat, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McFadzean of

Cockfield, L.

Kelvinside, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macpherson of

Crathorne, L.

Drumochter, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Derwent, L.

Mills, V.

Digby, L.

Milverton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mountgarreot, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reilly, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Garner, L.

Romney, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Rugby, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, L.

Glasgow, E.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Just, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gray, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Seebohm, L.

695

Shaughnessy, L.

Tranmire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Soames, L.

Trumpington, B.

Somers, L.

Ullswater, V.

Spens, L.

Vickers, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Ward of Witley, V.

Terrington, L.

Westbury, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Water Industry Dispute
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the industrial action in the water industry.
"Since my Statement last Monday there has been some increase in the number of people advised to boil water, as a precaution. This figure is now approximately 5½ million. About 20,000 properties are without their mains water supply, but arrangements have been or are being made to provide supplies from standpipes or tankers. Some properties that had lost supplies have been reconnected.
"The quality of effluent from some sewage treatment works has deteriorated, but so far without serious effects on rivers. No significant pollution incidents have been reported. I am glad to tell the House that so far it has been possible to avoid or avert risks to public health.
"In my previous Statement, I expressed the hope that agreement would be reached that day at a meeting of the Water Industry National Joint Industrial Council. I would remind the House that both parties to the dispute had already agreed a procedure with ACAS for reaching a settlement, involving negotiations under an independent chairman, mediation by the chairman and, in the last resort, arbitration.
"An independent mediator was appointed by ACAS. He made a number of specific recommendations, which were subsequently accepted by the employers. They therefore made a further offer, reflecting his recommendations.
"They offered an increase of 7·3 per cent. to run for 16 months from 5th December 1982 together with an increase in the service supplement for manual employees with more than five years' service. The mediator, in paragraph 8 of his report, suggested further talks about increased earnings opportunities through bonus schemes and greater efficiency. I have placed in the Library copies of the agreed procedure, together with the mediator's report.
"Although the unions specifically requested mediation and agreed the mediator's terms of
696
reference, they rejected the employers' offer based on his recommendations. On Saturday, they announced the continuation of strike action, without any reference to the agreed procedure for the resolution of this dispute, which, as a last resort, provides for arbitration. ACAS met the employers' side yesterday. There have been further discussions today. I understand that ACAS is seeing the unions this evening.
"Mr. Speaker, the whole House will hope that the efforts of ACAS will enable this damaging dispute to be brought to the earliest possible conclusion. In the meantime, I know that the House will also be anxious to see that the emergency cover continues to be provided and that hardship and distress are not caused. Whatever the dispute, there cannot be any justification for actions which hurt those least able to help themselves.
"There are clearly two main options to achieve an end to the dispute and an immediate return to work. Either the recommendation of the mediator is further pursued of urgent discussions on the various ways in which the earnings opportunities of water workers can be improved, or, if this course is unacceptable, then the terms of the national agreement regarding arbitration should be followed. The way is there. It must be taken.—
That is the end of the Statement, my Lords.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. I understand that ACAS met the employers' side yesterday and that certain options were put forward. Perhaps two of the most important options were the rapid implementation of ways of improving earnings and of extending, improving and developing the industry's productivity scheme. We hope that those options will be discussed by ACAS with the unions this evening.
It would be wrong of me to enlarge very much on the Statement, because the last thing one wants to do in a crucial dispute of this description is to cause recrimination on either side. But I think it is important to draw to the attention of the Minister that there does seem to be some feeling in some circles that perhaps consultation is not fully taking place, that there are what we might call off-the-cuff meetings with certain waterworks chairmen. If that is the case, we hope the Minister will see that it does not continue, because obviously any conflict makes the job of the negotiator much more difficult.
I think it is important to remember that the trade unions in the dispute took their decision on a secret ballot in which 81 per cent. of the members participated; with the decision to proceed with the national strike by a majority of four to one. They as a union are as concerned as anybody else that people are being deprived of their water supplies, that there is a danger of pollution, though I think it must go on record that the guidelines laid down by the trade union are being fully carried out by the workers in the industry. If they were not perhaps there would be greater public anxiety than exists at the moment. I do understand that there is public concern. I think what is

697
important is that we should recognise, or perhaps the Minister should recognise, that there appears to be some kind of Government intervention in the arbitration. Those of us who watched television at the week-end saw Sir William Dugdale on a programme; I think I took down what he said, to the effect that the employers were reliant upon Ministers for the strategic decisions in the dispute. However one interprets that, one would feel that for Sir William Dugdale to make that statement shows there is some kind of pressure from some source in government. Any statement of that description obviously leads to the belief that an improved offer could be made by the arbitrators if only the Government gave their blessing.
Therefore, one would agree with the Minister that there are two main options open. One would hope that these workers in the industry, unaccustomed to militancy, will be able through the arbitration service to get a satisfactory negotiated settlement. One recognises the problems, the difficulties and perhaps health hazards that may arise if the dispute goes on for a very long time. What is important is that the settlement is one agreed on honourable terms and that the consumers have a restoration of a pure water supply at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for having repeated this Statement. Before now I have made it plain that we cannot subscribe to the Government's policies, or, in our view, lack of policies, in the field of pay determination. For my part, as dispute follows dispute in one public service after another, I feel more and more confirmed in the view that there is an urgent need, in place of the present series of ad hoc arrangements applying in turn to particular public services, at least to seek agreed long-term procedures for pay determination over the widest practicable area in these services.
However, it is the current dispute on which we must express our view today, and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, I am most anxious to say nothing which could in any way hinder the obviously needed urgent settlement of the dispute. As the Statement says, the ACAS formula to which both the National Water Council and the unions recently subscribed, provided that in the last resort there should be arbitration. In the field of industrial relations at least, is it not of the essence of arbitration, as opposed to conciliation or mediation, that its outcome should be accepted by both sides in a dispute? In the light of the hardship which is being suffered by an increasing number of people, and with the serious damage to industry that is drawing ever nearer, are we not rapidly approaching that position of last resort?
4.6 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is interesting, is it not, that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, complained that she was concerned that there was too much Government intervention, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was concerned that there was not enough Government intervention. I think we will have to get the two acts together.
May I say on the points raised, first of all, that in the main the guidelines for emergencies are being
698
followed, but there are, especially in Wales, situations where that is not so. But in the main I would accept what the noble Baroness says; I think that is right. On the extent to which there is Government intervention in arbitration and the comments made by Sir William Dugdale on television, which I also saw, I do not think anything can be drawn from that; I think he was expressing the generality of what has always pertained in this type of situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that if the Government would give the go-ahead the arbitrator could see that more money be given. The whole point of arbitration is that the arbitrator must decide on his or her own. What the Government are saying is that agreements clearly laid down, signed by all sides, are that the matter should go to arbitration, and we are still saying that that is the position. We have had the situation where a mediator called in and approved by both sides gave his ruling; the employers decided to accept it but the trade unions would not do so. Now we are saying that arbitration is an agreed procedure and that that should be the next step, and hopefully that is what will come about if there is no settlement.
Like both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I, too, have no wish to say anything to exacerbate the situation. I said negotiations are taking place this very day, and to add to that could not be helpful. Clearly, everybody in your Lordships' House wishes to see a speedy end to this situation. It is always those who are on the receiving end who are worst affected, and there is no one in your Lordships' House who does not want to see them quickly put into the position where they are not having to boil water, or whatever it may be.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 3 [Abolition of regional plans for accommodation for children.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 11, at end insert ("and, without prejudice to section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, may do so jointly with one or more other local authorities")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 76 together. These amendments make clear, through a permissive power, that it will still be open to local authorities to combine in groupings to plan and provide residential facilities for children in their care. Your Lordships will recall that at an earlier stage my noble friend Lady Faithfull tabled amendments to provide for the continuation of children's regional planning in those regions where a majoirty of local authorities so wished, but then withdrew them pending discussions with me.
As I said then, I can appreciate my noble friend's concern, although there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent collaboration. However, the matter is put beyond doubt by these amendments. We believe that the concept of planning has often proved most valuable in the past, and it is our intention merely to

699
remove the statutory obligation for it and not to otherwise discourage it. We have therefore taken this opportunity to make a small amendment to the Local Government Act 1972 also to enable authorities to pay the expenses of any committee that may be set up for the purpose of collaborative planning. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 3A I should point out that there is a misprint in the first line. The word "and" should be deleted and the word "shall" should be substituted, so that it would read:
"Handicapped and mentally impaired children shall".
Baroness Masham of Iltonmoved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("(6) Handicapped and mentally impaired children shall as far as possible and practicable remain in their own home area whether in a children's home or foster home.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Deputy Speaker for bringing this error to the notice of your Lordships. In moving this amendment, I bring to the notice of your Lordships the sad problem that so many of our children have to go into care for social reasons. It may be for short periods but sometimes it has to be for long periods. A percentage of these children will be handicapped in some way. They may have a physical or mental defect. Very often the fate of these children is that they are placed in large impersonal hospitals. Sadly, there are still children who, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, knows, are residing in such institutions. I know he feels that they should not be there, as the noble Lord has stressed this point in your Lordships' House on several occasions.
It is good practice to try to keep all children, especially handicapped ones, as close as possible to their home environment and attending the schools where they are known and understood. Good social work practice, I am told, is to try to find suitable foster homes or, failing that, residential homes where they will be understood and can still be part of the community. It would be very interesting to know from the Minister approximately how many handicapped children have to be found homes by the social services departments each year. I bring this amendment to Your Lordships' notice in this Bill as, with the Warnock Committee behind us, many people are now aware that integration, rather than segregation, of all children who are handicapped is what the aim should be. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I warmly support this amendment. The noble Baroness has gone into a great deal of detail and I think she will agree with me that this is quite an emotive subject. Let us face the fact that the great majority of handicapped and mentally impaired children are possibly, at least in my opinion, the most loved children. I think that no one would dispute that. Therefore, it is only humane, reasonable and decent that, so far as possible, they should be placed in homes or establishments near their homes. This means that there is greater opportunity
700
for their parents and brothers and sisters to visit them and to keep in touch. I do not think that any noble Lord will disagree with that. I hope that the House will give the amendment the fullest support. I cannot see how the Minister can disagree with the point made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Of course, this clause does refer to children in care. I would be grateful if the Minister could help us because, for instance, on the figures produced by the Department of Health and Social Security, there are, in fact, 20 children in the North who are being cared for in mental hospitals when there are vacancies in homes that could care for them. I know that discussions arc going on at the moment, but this is one of the reasons why the noble Baroness and I felt it was important that this should be discussed in your Lordships' House. Not only do we believe in the principle of it, but we are also worried about how, in practice, it works out. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I also strongly support the amendment. In the country districts it is sometimes difficult to find housing accommodation for the children who are described in the amendment. On the other hand, speaking from experience, I had considerable success in getting people with a cottage, perhaps a husband and wife living in a rural area who had some training and knew how to do it, to look after these children in small groups. It is not necessary for children to go into a big home or, indeed, even into a hospital if one can make a local arrangement whereby there is a smaller house or cottage in which to put, say, half a dozen children with two people who are either husband and wife or two social workers to look after them. I believe that it is perfectly possible to bring that about. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, because it is very important and will be most useful in all conditions.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I want to say at the outset that the intention behind the amendment is wholly admirable, but I am afraid I have to say that the Government think it would be inappropriate to include it in legislation. The amendment embodies a principle of good child practice to which I am certain all social services departments subscribe. But it is not easy to legislate for good professional practice and my noble friend recognises this because she has included the qualification "as far as possible and practicable". Incidentally, I am not quite certain that if ever the courts came to look at that particular clause they would find it easy to interpret.
The principles of good child care practice are disseminated in a number of ways, not least by the officers of my department's social work service who work in the various regions of the country and are in direct touch with the social services departments. The amendment could not effectively improve the position for handicapped and mentally impaired children.
I add two further points. First, the new Section 31 of the Child Care Act, to which it is proposed the amendment should be added, is concerned essentially with abolishing the present requirement for statutory

701
regional planning for children's accommodation and transferring the function, together with matters related to the management of community homes, to local authorities. In that context, the proposed subsection would in any case be inappropriate.
The second relevant point is that, as drafted, the amendment seems to suggest that handicapped and mentally impaired children should not live in their own homes but elsewhere in their home area. I am certain that that was not the intention of the noble Baroness.
I was asked one or two questions by the various noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken. I shall, if I may, write to my noble friend Lady Faithfull in answer to the particular point that she raised in so far as it is one for my department. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, also asked me about the numbers of children who might be involved in these arrangements. Again I do not have the precise figures in front of me, but I remember that there are at present about 2,000 mentally handicapped children of every kind—that is to say, not those particularly who are subject to a care order—who are still in institutions of one kind or another. It is most certainly the Government's policy that that situation should be brought to an end just as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood referred to the desirability of smaller units for these particular children. I must say that I could not agree with her more. I have in recent months visited a great number of those facilities and I am to visit more in the weeks to come. I certainly agree with her that, so far as mentally handicapped children are concerned, those types of units involving, for example, six or eight children are infinitely the best and the Government are doing what we can to support their creation. As I say, the large institutions in which some children unfortunately still find themselves are no place for those children to grow up in and the Government are doing everything we can to bring that situation to an end.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord the Minister can claim that he has made a case out against this particular amendment. If he has done anything at all, it is to damn it with faint praise. He began by commending a good deal that was in the amendment and said that most of what is proposed is being done at present. If that is so, why can it not be embodied in the Bill? I should like to get from him, if it is possible, one concrete reason why the Government should not accept the amendment, because everything that the noble Lord has said has really supported it, and it has been dismissed, if I may say so, without any just cause. I know that the noble Lord has reservations about the interpretation of "possible and practicable" but I think we all know what we mean by those words. If the amendment is as good as I think the noble Lord would claim it is, and if he has any reservation in his mind as to the meaning of those two words in this particular Bill, could he not take the amendment away and come back with some suggestion at Third Reading as to how this particular amendment could be met?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I should like to say that there is more than one concrete objection to this amendment as I endeavoured to point out in my remarks just now. First, there is the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred—namely, the interpretation of the words:
"as far as possible and practicable".
Those are not words which are known to the law in the normal sense, but, as the noble Lord says, doubtless they could be changed in some way.
The other objection to which I drew attention in my remarks was that the amendment actually seems to say that handicapped and mentally impaired children should live not in their own homes but elsewhere in their home area. I am certain that that was not the intention of the noble Baroness but it is, I fear, the meaning of the words as she has tabled them. I say again that the principles behind the noble Baroness's amendment are wholly unexceptionable. but I am convinced that this is not an appropriate way to put the practice into legislation. In general, good practice is not enshrined into legislation and I do not think that it would be desirable to do so on this occasion. However, as I have said, the thoughts behind the amendment are certainly very good and valid ones and I would be quite willing to take the matter away and consider it further with a view possibly to bringing something forward at the next stage. I would not want to be committed to do that but I shall certainly commit myself to reconsidering the matter between now and Third Reading.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken. because they have so much experience. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. because he has got from the Minister what I wanted him to say. This amendment was drafted in rather a hurry. Last Thursday I visited a large mental hospital which was bigger than your Lordships' House. It looked very threatening and very frightening even to somebody like myself who is very used to visiting hospitals, and one wonders what it must have seemed like to a child going there, because there was a children's ward in that hospital.
I know that the Minister feels exactly the same way as I do about these children. I am very grateful that he has said that he will go back and look at the matter again and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I would be satisfied with that. It was certainly the intention that the children were those children who were in the care of the local authority. With those comments I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Children and Young Persons]:
4.25 p.m.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 23, line 5, leave out ("repeal") and insert ("repeals—
(a)")
Page 23 line 7, leave out ("is") and insert ("and
(b) of sections 34(4) and (5) and 34A(6A) and (6B) of that Act by the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978.
are").

703
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I were to speak to a considerable number of amendments together with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I should like, with your Lordships' leave, to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 13 and also four right at the end—Amendments Nos. 94, 95, 98 and 100. All these amendments are related and their effect is to tidy up the references to custody in the adoption law of England and Wales and of Scotland respectively, and to restate more effectively some related provisions which go, as we say, across the border between England and Wales and Scotland.
Let us consider first Amendment No. 13, which is on page 4 of the Marshalled List before us today. Your Lordships will see that it corrects several misleading references in the adoption law of England and Wales by changing them to "actual custody" which is what is meant. The amendment also inserts a definition of "actual custody" in the Adoption Act 1958. The person with "actual custody" of a child is the person with whom the child has his, or indeed her, home, and the term usually applies to the prospective adopters during the period while the adoption hearing is pending.
A court in England and Wales can order a child to be returned if he has been unlawfully removed from someone's actual custody. Amendment No. 8 extends this power to cover the case of a child removed in contravention of Scottish adoption law, where the unlawful removal has occurred in England or Wales. Amendment No. 9 makes two consequential amendments to statutory definitions, and Amendments Nos. 8, 94, 95 and 98 effect various consequential repeals.
The equivalent amendments to Scottish adoption law are made by Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 10 and 100, in this case substituting where appropriate "care and possession" for references to "custody" which we have had up to now. All these amendments hang together. I hope that your Lordships will have seen your way through the complicated list of amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 23, leave out lines 20 to 27 and insert ("paragraph—
"(b) by a parent or guardian of the child in relation to whom no resolution under section 16 of this Act is in effect with respect to the child and who has given the local authority not less than 28 days' notice in writing of his intention to do it.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and I hope that it will be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak also to Amendment No. 11, as these amendments modify parallel provisions in Scotland and England and Wales respectively. I am advised that it is possible for a child who has a legal guardian to be made the subject of a parental rights resolution by the local authority and that this is not adequately taken into account in the drafting of paragraphs 3 and 34 of Schedule 1. The amendments that we propose remedy this deficiency by making it clear that the arrangement by which a guardian can give 28 days' written notice of removal of
704
a child from a local authority's care, where the child has been in care on a voluntary basis for the preceding six months, applies only to those guardians in respect of whom no resolution is in force. These amendments are, therefore, of a technical nature and do not affect the existing right of parents over children in care. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 23, line 35, at end insert—
("5A. In section 42 of that Act (application from reporter to sheriff for findings)—
(a) in subsection (6) at the beginning there shall he inserted the words "Subject to subsection (6A) of this section,";
(b) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2)(c) of this section, where, in the course of the proceedings before the sheriff, the child and his parent accept any of the grounds in respect of which the application has been made, the sheriff may dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to that ground unless he is satisfied that in all the circumstances such evidence should be heard, and deem that ground to have been established for the purposes of this section."; and
(c) in subsection (7) at the end there shall be added the words—"except that where any of the grounds for the referral are accepted by the child's parent, whether or not accepted by the child, then, notwithstanding subsection (6A) of this section, the sheriff may dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to that ground if he is satisfied that in all the circumstances it would be reasonable to do so." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments relate to Scotland, where sheriffs are obliged to hear evidence in every case referred to them from a children's hearing. The amendments would relieve them of that obligation in certain circumstances, and stem from a Court of Session decision in 1981.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 sets out a list of grounds on which a child may be deemed in need of compulsory measures of care. These grounds range from the commission of an offence by the child to truancy, lack of parental care, falling into bad associations or other circumstances which indicate that he or she may be at risk. Such a child may be referred to a reporter to a children's panel; and if he considers that the child should receive compulsory measures of care, he will refer the child to a children's hearing.
The 1968 Act provides that, if a child or his parents do not accept the grounds on which the reporter has referred the child to a hearing, or if the child is too young or is otherwise unable to understand the grounds for referral or an explanation of them given by the hearing, the case is to be referred to the sheriff for a finding on whether the grounds are established. The Court of Session has recently held that the sheriff is required to hear evidence in every case regarding the particular grounds on which the case was referred to him before he can be satisfied that the grounds have been established.
This may in certain circumstances be unnecessary and result in a waste of time and resources in two ways: first, where a child or his parents, having objected to the grounds initially, change their minds when they appear before the sheriff and inform him that they are ready to accept the grounds; secondly, in certain instances where the case has been brought to the sheriff because the child cannot understand the grounds of

705
referral or an explanation of them. There will, however, be cases where, for example, the ground of referral is parental ill-treatment of a very young child. The child's ability to understand the ground may not have any bearing on the matter, and acceptance by the parents of the ground would in itself be sufficient.
The changes relating to Section 42(6) proposed by the amendment would enable the sheriff to dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to a ground of referral, in cases of acceptance of the ground subsequent to the application to the sheriff, unless he is otherwise satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case evidence should be led in respect of that ground.
The changes relating to Section 42(7) proposed by the amendment would enable the sheriff to dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to the ground of referral where, notwithstanding a child's inability to comprehend the ground, or an explanation of it, the sheriff is satisfied that in all the circumstances it would be reasonable to do so. Again, if he is not satisfied, then evidence would require to be led.
Neither of the amendments would require the sheriff to dispense with the hearing of evidence, but they will enable him to do so if he is satisfied that it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case. The bodies representing sheriffs-principal, sheriffs and reporters to children's panels have been consulted about the proposed amendments, and they are all in favour of them. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, very briefly, we Scots Lords are more used to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on these occasions and we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with joy to the northern part of our island—it will do him nothing but good. I merely wondered, if I heard the noble Lord correctly, what he meant by "falling into bad associations". It may be that this is some legal matter which is already well-established. I shall keep talking until such time as the succour arrives. "Bad associations" might mean all kinds of things. It may well be that this is some sort of particular legal phraseology which we Scots, and especially those among us who are sheriffs, understand perfectly well. But "bad associations" seems to be an imprecise term. If it has specific legal significance, of course, its imprecision would be removed and my doubts, such as they are, would be dealt with; and I see that they will be very rapidly dealt with, due to the exigencies of Whitehall. Can I be enlightened on this?—because I seek only information and nothing else.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, assuming that no other noble Lord wishes to intervene at this point and that I am, therefore, winding up this short debate on the amendment, I would point out that the words which the noble Lord does not like very much originally appeared in Section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I have in front of me Section 32(2) and in paragraph (b) of that subsection we find the words:
"he is falling into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger".
The noble Lord, in fact, raises a serious point, and I suspect that these days tragically very often the phrase "bad associations" refers to those who are associated with others concerned, for example, with
706
the sale and distribution of drugs, which I am certain the noble Lord would regard as a proper reason for action under the provisions that we are now considering. But, of course, in the event, these things are interpreted by the courts. Having said that, I think that the noble Lord has raised a serious point. I hope that I have given him at least one example that he would regard as appropriate, and that your Lordships will agree these amendments.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I do not expect the noble Lord the Minister to reply to this point, so he need not think the procedure of the House is being upset. However, I have waited for some other Peer who is much more concerned with this matter than I to speak, and in the absence of any speaker I would enter this caveat. I find it rather disturbing that we are now at the Report stage of the Bill and have just been given these quite important amendments. I am amazed that, for example, we are asked to amend Scottish law. My experience in this House has taught me that the Scots prefer amendments to Scottish law to be made through Scottish Acts of Parliament, but perhaps this was embodied in the original Act.
The Minister has given a very reasonable explanation. but here you are cutting out a process which has been in use, and must have had some particular value; and I do not think it is a good enough reason, when you are concerned with children, to say that it will save time and money. I have not had time to study this. I would simply enter this caveat, that I do not like the way in which, nowadays, we are constantly being given quite important amendments at the Report stage of a Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, answer, answer!
Lord Lyellmoved Amendments Nos. 8 to 11:
Page 27, line 18, at end insert—
("26A. Subsections (4) and (5) of section 27 and (8) and (9) of section 28 of that Act (restrictions on removal of child) shall cease to have effect.
26B. In section 29 of that Act (return of child taken away) after "28", in each place where it occurs in subsections (1) and (2), there shall be inserted ", or section 27 or 28 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978".")
Page 27 line 44, at end insert—
("28A. In section 72(1) of that Act—

(a) in the definition of "adoption order", after "21" there shall be inserted ", 27 and 28"; and

(b) at the end of the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption" there shall be added "and, in section 27(2) includes an order under section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (order freeing a child for adoption made in Scotland)".")

Page 28, line 17, at end insert—
("32A. Subsections (4) and (5) of section 27 and (8) and (9) of section 28 of that Act (restrictions on removal of child) shall cease to have effect.
32B. In subsections (1) and (2) of sections 27 and 28 and in section 29 of that Act (restrictions on removal of child) for the word "custody" wherever it occurs there shall be substituted the words "care and possession".
32C. In section 29 of that Act (return of child taken away) after "28", in each place where it occurs in subsections (1) and (2), there shall be inserted ", or section 27 or 28 of the Adoption Act 1976".
32D. In section 65(1) of that Act—

(a) in the definition of "adoption order", after "20" there shall be inserted ", 27 and 28"; and

707

(b) at the end of the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption" there shall be added "and, in section 27(2) includes an order under section 18 of the Adoption Act 1976 (order freeing a child for adoption made in England and Wales)".")

Page 28.line 33, leave out from beginning to ("notice.";") in line 41 and insert—
(" "(a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) by a parent or guardian of the child in relation to whom no resolution under section 3 of this Act is in force with respect to the child and who has given the local authority not less than 28 days' notice in writing of his intention to do it."." ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I move Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, which were consequential upon Amendment No. 4—to which I spoke earlier—together with Amendment No. 11, which was spoken to by my noble friend. With leave, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 en bloc.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 29, line 27, after ("child)") insert ("—

(a) at the beginning of the said paragraph (i) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"; and

(b) ")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 45 as well. Your Lordships will recall that I agreed in Committee to reconsider the charging arrangements for the parents of children in care in the light of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Discussions have now been held with the local authority associations, and as a result the Government have decided that some amendment to this Bill would be desirable. We hope that these amendments will be welcomed by your Lordships, including, of course, the noble Lord himself.
Amendment No. 12 is consequential upon Amendment No. 45, which has the effect of exempting the father and mother of a child in care from liability to make contributions in respect of his maintenance where they are in receipt of supplementary benefit of family income supplement. These benefits, when paid to parents of children in care, do not include any component towards the upkeep of the child, and it is therefore reasonable to exempt these parents from any liability. It is indeed sensible to exempt such parents, who can readily verify their receipt of benefit, from liability to contribute. To do so will simplify the job of local authorities in deciding whether contributions are required, and free the parents concerned from any worry in this matter.
It may be asked why we are not extending exemption to those parents who are in receipt of housing benefits. We have considered this aspect, but have concluded that housing benefits are a much less reliable guide to the ability to pay contributions because of the variety of circumstances which can lead to receipt of housing benefit, and the different levels of income that may be involved. Those householders on
708
very low income would be likely to be in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement already, and if so would automatically be exempted under this amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, naturally I am very pleased with the noble Lord, and I sincerely trust that he is not suffering a hangover from earlier exchanges. I am a very generous person, and accordingly thank him very much indeed.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 30, line 7, at end insert—
("Interpretation
42A. The word "actual" shall be inserted before the word "custody", wherever it occurs in—

(a) sections 34(1) and (2) and 34A(1) and (2) of the Adoption Act 1958;

(b) sections 30(1) and (2), 41(1) and (2) and 42(1) and (2) of the Children Act 1975; and

(c) sections 27(1) and (2), 28(1) and (2), 29(l) and (2) and 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Adoption Act 1976.

42B. In section 57(2) of the Adoption Act 1958, for the words "care or possession", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "actual custody".
42C. The following section shall be inserted after section 57 of the Adoption Act 1958—
"Actual custody.
57A.—(1) While a person not having legal custody of a child has actual custody of the child he has the like duties under this Act in relation to the child as if he had legal custody.
(2) The following, namely—

(a) any reference in this Act to the person with whom a child has his home; and

(b) the reference to legal custody in subsection (1) above,

are to be construed in accordance with Part IV of the Children Act 1975.
(3) This section does not extend to Scotland.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the main amendment, to which I spoke in connection with Amendment No. 4 earlier. I beg to move.
Clause 6 [The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work]:
Baroness Faithfullmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Grants for the training of social workers shall be mandatory and funded either by local education authorities or from central funds.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, as your Lordships know, states:
"Grants for the training of social workers shall be mandatory and funded either by local education authorities or from central funds."
I spoke at some length on this subject at Committee stage. May I therefore briefly cover the ground I covered then in order to get the arguments straight? First of all, let us look at the residential sector. In this country only 14 per cent. of the residential social workers working with children in care in children's homes are trained, and only 3 per cent. of those working in homes for the handicapped and the elderly are trained.
I would submit that in our society the children are the most vulnerable. A well-known member of the

709
Parole Board, when we were discussing questions of parole which had nothing to do with this Bill, happened to mention to me that a great number of the cases that he dealt with on the Parole Board were of men and women in prison who had in their childhood been in children's homes. I would say that those who work in children's homes and in community schools for education do a magnificent job of work. I have to say, too, that in my experience as a director of social services I was fortunate in having a number of well qualified university staff on my staff. If we were to look at the figures we should see that very few of the children who were cared for by well trained, experienced people, who could work in partnership with the field child-care staff, later went into approved schools, borstals, or prisons. I cannot say too strongly how important it is that the needs of the handicapped and the elderly should also be taken into account, and the fact that there should be only 3 per cent. of these staff trained is a sad indictment of our society.
What is the present position with regard to training? There are three methods whereby social workers, whether field staff or residential staff, can be trained. Method 1 is that central Government grants are available through the Department of Health and Social Security for those attending postgraduate social work courses. Until recently everyone who was accepted for a recognised training course and who applied to the Department of Health and Social Security was given a grant. Last year, because of current expenditure restrictions, some who applied were not successful in obtaining a grant.
Method 2 is by means of non-graduate courses of two years' duration which are found in both universities and the higher education sector. Students successful in obtaining a place on such a course can apply for a local authority discretionary award. The number and availability of awards varies enormously from one authority to another, and it is an inefficient way of ensuring the best candidates for this type of social work. May I slightly elaborate? The position is that a local authority which is cutting back its expenditure to some considerable degree is sometimes—not always—the authority in the very area where there is much need and where there are great difficulties. Those authorities are often the ones who do not send or second social workers on courses, and yet they are the very authorities that need social workers. Likewise, a number of people have talked about the quality of social workers. Under this method of accepting only those people wishing to train who are seconded from local authorities there may be many good potential students excluded from obtaining a grant and secondment.
Method 3, as it stands today, concerns a minority of students who are currently seconded for training by their employing authorities on salary, normally with the condition that they will give two years' service to the authority on completing their training. This means that the local authority is therefore paying somebody to do the work while at the same time paying the students on their course. If there were to be mandatory grants they would not be paying twice for each student who is seconded. It would therefore considerably save public resources.
710
The Minister will say that residential social workers have the opportunity of having what is called the Council for Social Services qualification, which is in-service training, and that is true. That training is very good and I support it, and it was a great step forward when that training was set up. However, I would add that in our residential establishments we need both types of trained workers, those with the CCETSW and those with the certificate awarded by the Council for Training and Education in Social Work.
Let us now look at the university position. To train as a social worker, from the point of view of the universities and colleges of higher education, is expensive. The reason why it is more expensive than training ordinary students is that during the holidays social work students are given practical placements in local authorities with voluntary organisations in offices. They must be supervised and the supervisor from the university who visits them must consult with them and with the authority as to the work they are doing, how they are doing it and whether they are getting satisfactory training. Therefore it is expensive, more expensive than the training for most students.
However, something alarming is happening. It is that when students are seconded from a local authority a number of them have been told that after all, come the summer, they cannot be seconded. I have been to see, and written to, several universities about that. One university with a course for 40 students tells me that at least six and possibly eight students dropped out too late for them to take on students for the following session. It is very important that we keep the good courses going at the universities and colleges of higher education. If students are going to drop out and it is too late to replace them, and if it is very expensive, with costs being cut, we must be careful to look forward to see that we do not lose those colleges of further education and university courses. In Committee on 9th December my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the Minister, said:
"In principle the Government would not oppose the designation of courses of professional and vocational training for mandatory awards".—[Official Report, 9/12/1982; col. 314.]
However, he added that the £8 million required was too much to merit inclusion in the Education (No. 2) Bill. So let us consider the question of costs. I understand from the social services directors that they have worked out a formula according to which it would be unlikely to cost more than £2·8 million. That is an over-estimate. By the same token, I have also consulted other professional bodies, who disagree with the Association of Directors of Social Services and maintain that it would cost less. There are in Britain between 250 and 300 vacancies for training. Each training costs roughly £3,000 per year per student. On that calculation, it would not cost much above £1½ million. Those, therefore, are the two estimates, one for something over £2 million and one for about £1½ million.
Another argument which is given, and may be given again, is that if mandatory awards were given to social workers other people would ask the Government for mandatory awards. It is, therefore, a question of where the priorities lie. In my view, there are very few priorities which stand higher than that of caring for the most vulnerable children in our society, bearing in

711
mind the cost of a failed child at a later stage in life. In humanitarian terms, it is appalling to think of: in business terms, it is far better to spend money looking after children at an early stage than at a later stage, when they are in trouble. I hope the Government will feel able to reconsider the matter. I am the first to support my party on its fiscal policies. But when it comes to such a small amount which means so much to the children of the country, the handicapped and the elderly, this is money well spent. I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I strongly support everything my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. Oddly enough, I have had a long association with the training of social workers. Indeed, it was in 1929 when Dame Eileen Younger, as she became, and I started to get training for social workers. That was originally in connection with youth leaders, but it went on to involve the training of all the other types as described by Lady Faithfull.
It took a very long time to persuade the social work departments of universities—they did not even exist then in a great many universities—that this was the type of course which should be given; one which would be of great value to the social work of the nation, and indeed to all those whom my noble friend mentioned. from the old to the mentally handicapped and younger children. It took a long time, as I say, but in the end we succeeded. When I say "we", I do not mean we alone, because there were a great many keen people in universities. It began in the London School of Economics and spread to other universities all over the country.
Now there is no question but that training is available for all those who want to be part of the social work departments of local authorities and voluntary organisations. This has made a tremendous difference to the way in which children and elderly people are cared for. It is improving all the time because we are learning the different needs of these people and how they can be catered for in the training syllabuses.
I feel strongly that we are discussing a vital matter. Nobody would consider employing other professional people—be they nurses. teachers or whoever—who were not trained. Indeed, such people would not even get jobs and, of course, they would not be able to do the job. Yet for many years people went into the social work world simply because they thought they had a gift for it or were keen to do that sort of work. Nobody provided them with the training they needed.
That training is now available and it has taken a very long time to come right through to all the university courses and be regarded as something of tremendous importance. That it is so important today is based on the fact that far more responsibility is put on social workers in departments of local authorities and elsewhere than was the case 20 or 30 years ago.
Social workers have tremendous responsibility. One sometimes reads in local newspapers of certain social workers who have failed to do what was expected of them. As your Lordships know, bad news is always news for newspapers, and so we always hear of the failures rather than of the successes. The number of failures today is very small compared with the
712
enormous number of successes, following training of social workers.
I feel tremendously strongly that what is proposed in the amendment is something that we should do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said, the amount of money involved would possibly be £2.8 million, or less. All of that amount could be recovered if it were possible to prevent children or elderly people from having to go into institutions, or otherwise having to be cared for throughout the rest of their lives, the cost being met by public funds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the delinquency aspect. It is a well-known fact that very often what happens to a child early in its life leads it on to become a delinquent and to get into the criminal world. I beg the Government to accept the amendment. It would do enormous good not only for the Government, but also for the whole community, coming within the ambit of social work. I very much hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I found the concluding passages of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, very compelling, the more so since, as an engineer, I am not on the whole terribly sympathetic towards social work. None the less, she said things which seemed to me sensible and worth listening to, and I believe that part of her speech alone should make the Government think very carefully about the nature of her amendment. I would go a little further than that; and I speak here from a basis of almost abysmal ignorance and as one who seeks information rather than anything else. I understood that at one point in her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, suggested that the present arrangements led to things being paid for more than once—in fact, twice. That cannot be terribly sensible. Even an engineer can see that paying for things twice over is not a very good idea.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is correct—and I am sure that she is—that argument itself, quite apart from the compelling humanitarian argument with which she ended her speech, should lead the Government to take the closest possible heed of her amendment. If her argument is that her proposal is good in itself, and that it would also prevent something being paid for twice, I am sure that the Government must be interested in some way. I am, and I am sure the Government must be, too.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister a question. Is he aware that nowadays many people leaving universities and polytechnics, having read English, history, or a similar subject, have no chance of getting a job? Would it not be wise to train some of these people, who are very bright, in social work and community care? "Community care" is now becoming a bad term because people are beginning to ask, "Where is the care?" I think I am right in saying that in this country there are more children in care than there are in any other European country, and perhaps in any other country in the world. I know from my health work that the problems of the elderly are becoming really acute, too. If our social workers were trained, they would be much more efficient and would be able to effect

713
savings rather than make so many mistakes. Therefore I would support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like again to support my noble friend, Lady Faithfull, as I did in Committee. She has mentioned the remarks reported in column 314 of the Official Report of 9th December, and I should like to quote briefly from my own speech at the time. I said:
"I would suggest to my noble friend that although that may appear to be an added expense, it may in fact be an economy in the long run, because trained people can do more work than untrained people".
In answering me, my noble friend—and I hope that he will forgive me for making the point—referred to the remarks of mv noble friend Lady Faithfull, and went on to say:
"I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that [the figure] was estimated as an additional £8 million a year in 1980…".
My noble friend the Minister was talking about that aspect, and, if I may say so, did not really respond to my point that trained people are more economical in the long run. That I believe is a basic fact which any of us who are involved in training, or in employing trained and untrained people, would be able to quote as part of ordinary, practical experience. So I hope that this time my noble friend will reply to that question.
I now turn to another point. My noble friend the Minister referred to a figure of £8 million as being the factor against the proposal, but from what my noble friend has said, we now know that the figure is nearer £2·8 million. I understand that the figure was arrived at by the directors of social services after consultation with my noble friend's department; so it is not entirely out of the air, as it were. In terms of present-day finance it is a figure which I should have thought was manageable, the more especially because it may in the long run lead to savings—savings in the numbers of people who will need to be employed, if there are more who are fully trained, and savings in the outcome, in that there will be less trouble from people who are in care and are being looked after. Indeed those kind of savings could be far in excess of a figure such as £2·8 million, when judged over a period of a few years.
So once again I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give much more sympathetic consideration to the amendment. The amendment has received support from both sides of the House, and I should have thought that it would justify my noble friend testing the feeling of your Lordships if my noble friend the Minister cannot give her the satisfaction that she seeks on this proposal.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and her amendment. I do not speak as an expert on the subject of the amendment, but I can give some account of what I have seen from my own observation. Generally speaking—I think that this is a criticism that is fairly widespread—people believe that social workers in general are fairly useless and do not really perform a valuable duty. I think that that observation applies only to those social workers who are not trained. I have seen a social worker appear with a
714
delinquent child before a school headmaster. The social worker argued in such a fashion as to criticise, in front of the pupil, the headmaster's whole position in regard to exercising his duties. The social worker was trying to get the pupil back into the school. I think that that kind of example is widespread in certain circumstances, and therefore I would support my noble friend Lady Faithfull in all that she has said today. If she does not receive a constructive and conciliatory reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench, and so has to divide the House on the issue, I should be inclined to go into the Lobby in support of her amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, very briefly I should like to say once again, as I said at the Committee stage, that we on these Benches support the amendment that has been put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. In the couse of her remarks she presented what I considered was an unanswerable case for mandatory grants for the training of social workers. When we discussed the question in Committee it was clear—and the point has been quoted again today—that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was not opposed, and said that the Government were not opposed, to the concept of mandatory grants. The question is one of pure expense. So far as I can see, that is the only problem, the only reason why the Government have up to now been disinclined to accept the proposal. But if the figure that we have heard mentioned today—£2.8 million, or even less—is correct, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it is a very manageable figure. After all, we do not spend a very great deal on the personal social services—about £2 billion, as compared with £30 million on social security, £114 billion altogether. Even in this field, the whole scale of expenditure is not large. This would be a small addition to a total which is not great at the present time.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my noble friend has reminded your Lordships, she moved a similar amendment during Committee. Since then, she and I have met to discuss the matter, she has discussed it with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Education and Science, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, and she has also discussed some of the technical details with my officials. I applaud her tenacity, but I am afraid that—despite the account she has given your Lordships—nothing has emerged from these discussions which makes it possible for the Government to support her amendment.
I shall come in a moment to some of the particular points raised by my noble friend and others, but first it may help if I recap some of the background. Local education authorities make awards under Section 1 of the Education Act 1962, which specifies the categories of courses which may be designated for mandatory awards. As a result, some students undergoing social work training receive mandatory awards—those reading for a first degree, for example. I think that this was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Masham when she said that all those students learning English or something else and who could not get jobs should be given mandatory awards to read some social services

715
subject instead. The answer is that they already receive mandatory awards. But the majority of students—and I recognise this—are on non-graduate or post-graduate courses and do not qualify for this form of support. Instead, they are supported either by discretionary awards from the local education authority—and, incidentally, I understand that local authorities have been giving quite a number of these discretionary awards lately—or by secondment from their employer; or, if they are post-graduate students, by central Government, chiefly my department. Incidentally, I understand that last year my department in giving grants to students undertaking basic training in social work, that is the CQSW, did so to no less than 90 per cent. of those who applied to us.
The types of training which should attract mandatory awards were fully debated in Parliament during the passage in 1980 of what was then the Education (No. 2) Bill. The Government's position then and now is that in principle we support the designation of professional and vocational training courses but that the practical obstacle, at a time when we are pledged to contain public expenditure, is the cost. And it is not simply the cost in respect of social work training which the Government has to keep in mind. Social work is my noble friend's burning concern; and it is all we are concerned with in Clause 6. But the Government have to take a wider view. It has been explained to my noble friend that there are currently other contenders for mandatory awards and that the DES could not single out social work training.
Even if we leave aside the difficult questions of the relative merits of different contenders for mandatory award status. the plain fact remains that we could not afford the additional cost that would arise. My noble friend has argued that in the discussion she has recently had with the central council concerned with these matters. it has been proposed that the additional cost would be small. The assumption is that even if social work students had mandatory awards and, as a result. the demand for places on social work courses rose, the central council would nevertheless restrain the growth in courses because of its responsibility to regulate supply and demand and to uphold the quality of training. The estimate of £3 million which my noble friend quoted is presumably based on that assumption, but I have to emphasise that it is only an assumption that growth in courses could in practice be restrained to a very low level. But for this assumption, my noble friend invites the Government to take on a potentially open-ended financial commitment.
The fact is that if the demand for social work is as great as my noble friend suggests, the pressures upon the central council to allow the growth in the courses that I have referred to would be very great. I must say in plain terms that I do not believe that the central council could contain the growth of courses as the figure implicit in my noble friend's speech suggests.
My noble friend said during the Committee stage that the allocation of money to mandatory awards for social work training was a question of relative priorities. She repeated that point today. I agree with her. But priorities are not easy. The money allocated by DHSS to the training of social workers might
716
otherwise go direct to health authorities for the care of patients, and a difficult balance has to be struck. The same question of priorities arises within the social work training field itself, which makes me doubt whether my noble friend's amendment is right in principle, even if we could overcome the practical difficulty of cost.
Mandatory awards would benefit students undertaking training leading to the CQSW qualification. This is generally recognised as the basic qualification for field social workers, and it is also important that there should be CQSW-qualified staff in the day and residential services. But in the day and residential services, employing authorities also attach considerable importance to staff gaining the Certificate in Social Services—CSS—and rightly so because it provides a valuable combination of theoretical and practical in-service training. directed towards particular tasks in social care and jointly managed by employing authorities and the colleges in their areas. People on CSS courses are supported entirely by secondment from their employing authorities, and mandatory awards would not be appropriate. Another priority is specialised post-qualifying training, undertaken by people after they have attained CQSW or CSS level. This very important class of training qualifies people to act as special sources of knowledge and skill within social services departments, but it would be difficult to cover the diverse range of courses by a system of mandatory grants.
In 1981 some 3,361 students received the basic social work qualification, the CQSW. and 593 the CSS qualification. In that year my department spent £4·1 million on the support of students—more than ever before. We expect the final 1982 figures to show a slight increase in people receiving the CQSW award and a large increase for the CSS award. I do not pretend that this represents an ideal situation, but neither is it a situation of dire emergency. If more money were available to spend on social work training. my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has all the necessary powers in Section 63 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to make payments to students, employers, or training establishments, outside the system of mandatory awards controlled by the DES. If more money were available, it is by no means certain that mandatory awards would represent the best or the most discriminating use of it. The simple fact is that the money is not available for this purpose. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not see tit to press her amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he answer one question? He intimated that the amendment of the noble Baroness would lead to an open-ended commitment and he also intimated that his department's activities had led to a rise of some £4 million in grants to students. Perhaps I am wrong in my recollection there. Can he tell me whether he has made any estimate of the additional cost to the department representd by acceptance of the amendment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may have permission to speak again, I should like to say this. The additional cost that would flow from my noble friend's

717
amendment would fall upon the Department of Education, not my department. But the amount of that additional cost would depend upon the number of students who came forward to claim their mandatory awards. My noble friend has suggested that the central council responsible for these matters would restrict the number of students coming on to these courses for reasons about which I am not entirely clear. At another point in her speech she explained what a shortage there was of people of this type. If our estimates of the numbers who will come forward for these courses attracting mandatory awards are correct, and if, as we fear, the central council is not able to constrain the growth of these courses as they say they will, then the additional cost at today's prices would be something in the order of £13 million or £14 million.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate? Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who asked whether there is duplication, that what I meant by duplication is that if a local authority seconds somebody to a course then they pay for the secondment; they pay for the course. But at the same time they have to pay for the person who has taken their place. That is the duplication.
I should like to make one point that I did not make before. We have in the House two noble Lords who are doctors. I am told by my medical friends how much they value working with qualified social workers in the hospitals and outside in the community.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on that point, may I confirm that doctors greatly value the help, assistance and guidance that they get from qualified and trained social workers. Perhaps I may add that they do not so much value the help that they sometimes get from social workers who have not been trained.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his intervention. Taking the various points that my noble friend the Minister has made, it is the cost that he is most worried about. We all vary in our estimates as to how much it would cost. There are between 250 and 300 vacancies on courses in this country. It is quite true, therefore, that if the awards were mandatory those places would probably be filled. That is one point. The second is that if it were mandatory they would be filled by the best students, because at the moment the discretionary awards do not necessarily go to the best students, they go only to the students which the local authorities are prepared to second.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would allow me to intervene yet again? Is not my noble friend turning logic on its head in that particular proposal? Is it not the case that discretionary awards do go to the best applicants? Surely, if grants are mandatory, as my noble friend seeks, the local education authority has no alternative but to give grants to all who meet the qualifications, regardless of whether or not they are the best students.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot agree with my noble friend the Minister, because the decision as to who should take the course
718
does not lie with the local authority; it then lies with the training establishment, which will only accept the best students. As it is at the moment, the courses must accept those students who apply on discretionary awards, and in a local authority there may be a number of very good students who would like to apply but whose authority will not give them a discretionary award. I think the noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to speak.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made exactly the point that I was going to make. The giving of discretionary grants varies very much in different parts of the country, so that the best may not necessarily get the awards.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, one of the strong points which my noble friend the Minister made was that this would open the doors to an enormous number of people wanting to train. But it is not an open-ended affair. If there are only a certain number of courses and only a certain number of places, then it is not open-ended. One can only have the number of students who apply. One cannot have an open—ended situation. I would suggest at the moment—rather sadly, I have to say—that I would not want there to be more courses because there are not enough good tutors and good lecturers at the moment. We have some very good ones and we have some excellent courses. But our profession is growing. We must grow slowly but surely, and with the best people. We cannot mushroom and grow simply because there are going to be mandatory awards.
The final point is cost. My noble friend the Minister and I disagree on what it would cost the country. I still suggest that it would not cost more than £2.8 million at the outside. Other people who have done their sums slightly differently have said that it would cost less. But in fairness to the Minister, I think that one must stick to the £2.8 million, which is the higher figure of the two. Again, it is a matter of opinion as to what are our priorities. I end as I did my first speech, by saying that I consider that children, and the wellbeing of vulnerable children, are a very high priority. I am afraid that I must divide the House.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 78.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Amherst, E.

Brain, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brockway, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Balogh, L.

Chitnis, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barrington, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Collison, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

David, B.

Beswick, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Birk, B.

Diamond, L.

Bishopston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blease, L.

Dowding, L.

Blyton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

719

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mishcon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nathan, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

George-Brown, L.

Oram, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Peart, L.

Glasgow, E.

Phillips, B.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gridley, L.

Rea, L.

Hale, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hayter, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seebohm, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stamp, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kaldor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kennet, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vickers, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Walston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimberley, E.

Allerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Burton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mansfield, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Margadale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Marley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Daventry, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Davidson, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rochdale, V.

Gisborough, L.

Rugby, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Savile, L.

Marylebone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Terrington, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Teynham, L.

Kilmany, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

720

Tranmire, L.

Westbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 2 [The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work]:
5.36 p.m.
Lord Rentonmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 29, line 19, at end insert ("and shall in any event consult the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 but I must point out that at the beginning of my amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List there is a printing error, for which I may or may not be responsible. It should read "page 29" and not "page 30". So I beg to move, on page 29, line 19, at end insert:
("and shall in any event consult the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults").
I should disclose that I am president of that body. The third paragraph of Part I of the Second Schedule says:
"Before appointing a member other than the chairman the Secretary of State shall consult any body that appears to him to be appropriate."
It needs no argument of mine to convince your Lordships that those words are of no effect whatever, because he has only to say that it did not appear to him to he necessary and he is excused from consulting anyone in particular or anyone at all.
At the Committee stage, I said that I hoped the Royal Society would be consulted, and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne gracefully and immediately gave an undertaking that that would be done. Since then it has occurred to me that this is a matter of such importance that one should consider making it mandatory. if I may borrow a phrase that was used on the last amendment. I suggest that we might very well have the words "and shall in any event"—there is no option there—
"consult the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults."
The reason why we wish to be consulted is that we have been very worried by the lack of specialised training of teachers of the mentally handicapped on the part of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work since it was established. We feel that it is very important, especially since the passing of the excellent Education Act 1981, that there should be enough teachers for training the mentally handicapped.
Of course, this is not a matter on which I would wish to divide the House, but I say this to my noble friend. I hope that he will advise your Lordships to accept the amendment, but if he is not in that mood I hope that he will firmly repeat the undertaking that the Royal Society will be consulted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the existing wording of the Bill obliges the Secretary of State to consult any body appearing to him appropriate before appointing members, other than the chairman, to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

721
Inevitably, over time, the nature of society's problems will change and so will those bodies best placed to advise Ministers on the composition of the central council's membership. It would, therefore, be wrong to specify such bodies in the Bill.
In any case, and without detracting one jot from the Royal Society's admirable work under my noble friend's distinguished presidency, its focus in terms of social work generally is relatively specific. It would be neither sensible nor politic to oblige Ministers to consult the Royal Society, without doing the same for a number of equally august bodies with an interest in the field of social work—a field which, as 1 have already said. is constantly changing. I hope my noble friends will agree with me that the important principle, that Ministers should consult appropriately before appointing council members, has been established and that the existing wording of this subsection is the most sensible.
Your Lordships may recall from our Committee stage in December that my noble friend Lord Renton sought from me an assurance, which I was happy to give, that the Secretary of State would consult the Royal Society before appointing council members. I gladly repeat that assurance to my noble friend, which is already recorded in the Official Report of 9th December, and I hope that having listened to the points that I have made, and to the assurance which I have repeated, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he will remember that at the last stage of this Bill I moved an amendment that the council, which numbers only 25, should be composed simply and solely of professional people from both the statutory and the voluntary sectors. I recommended that then because there were so many people from both the voluntary and the statutory sectors, including my noble friend's organisation, and because with only 25 places, and several of those places having to go to the local authority associations, a number of organisations would necessarily have to be left out. It will be remembered that I recommended that it should be a professional body consulting with the local authorities. Furthermore, will the noble Lord also say whether, when consulting with the organisation of my noble friend Lord Renton, he will also consult with the other statutory and voluntary organisations as well?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I would say with respect to my noble friend that I do not think the first point she made really arises on this amendment. As for the second point, I will consider that matter and write to her.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the firm assurance which my noble friend has given about consulting the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 16:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule:—

PART 1
RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES
Requirement of registration
1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, registration under this Part of this Schedule is required in respect of any establishment which provides or is intended to provide. whether for reward or not, residential accommodation with both board and personal care for persons in need or personal care by reason of old age, disablement or past or present mental disorder.
(2) Such an establishment is referred to in this Part of this Schedule as a "residential care home".
(3) Registration under this Part of this Schedule does not affect any requirment to register under the Nursing Homes Act 1975.
(4) Registration under this Part of this Schedule is not required in respect of an establishment which provides or is intended to provide residential accommodation with both board and personal care for fewer than 4 persons. excluding persons carrying on or intending to carry on the home or employed or intended to he employed there and their relatives.
(5) Registration under this Part of this Schedule is not required in respect of any of the following—

(a) any establishment which is used, or is intended to he used, solely as a nursing home or mental nursing home, as defined in sections I and 2 of the Nursing Homes Act 1975:

(b) any hospital as defined in section 128 of the National Health Service Act 1977 which is maintained in pursuance of an Act of Parliament:

(c) any hospital as defined in section 147(1) of the Mental Health Act 1959:

(d) any voluntary home or community home within the meaning of the Child Care Act 1980;

(e) any children's home to which the Children's Homes Act 1982 applies;

(f) subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, any school, as defined in section 114 of the Education Act 1944;

(g) subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, any establishment to which the Secretary of State has made a payment of maintenance grant under regulations made by virtue of section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944:

(h) any university or university college or college, school or hall of a university:

(i) any establishment managed or provided by a government department or local authority or by any authority or body constituted by an Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter.

(6) An independent school within the meaning of the Education Act 1944 is not excluded by sub-paragraph (5) above if the school provides accommodation for 50 or less children under the age of 18 years and is not for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under section 1l(3)(a) of the Education Act 1981.
(7) An establishment to which the Secretary of State has made a payment of maintenance grant under regulations made by virtue of section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944 is only excluded by sub-paragraph (5) above until the end of the period of 12 months from the date on which the Secretary of State made the payment.
General interpretation
2.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—
"disablement", in relation to persons, means that they are blind, deaf or dumb or substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or any other disability prescribed by the Secretary of State;
"mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder, and any other disorder or disability of mind;
"personal care" means care which includes assistance with bodily functions where such assistance is required; "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this
Part of this Schedule;
"psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the

723
person concerned, and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment:
"registered", except where the context otherwise requires, means registered under this Part of this Schedule and cognate expressions have a corresponding meaning;
"registration authority", in relation to a residential care home, means, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, any council which for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 is the local authority for the area in which the home is situated: and
"standard scale" means the standard scale as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
(2) The Council of the Isles of Scilly is the registration authority in relation to a residential care home in the Isles.
Meaning of "relative"
3.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule "relative" means any of the following—

(a) husband or wife;

(b) son or daughter;

(c) father or mother'

(d) brother or sister;

(e) grand-parent or other ascendant;

(f) grandchild or other descendant;

(g) uncle or aunt;

(h) nephew or niece.

(2) In deducing any relationship for the purposes of subparagraph (1) above—

(a) any relationship by affinity shall be treated as a relationship by consanguinity, any relationship of the half-blood as a relationship of the whole blood, and the stepchild of any person as his child, and

(b) an illegitimate person shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.

(3) In this paragraph "husband" and "wife" include a person who is living with a person carrying on or intending to carry on a residential care home as that person's husband or wife, as the case may be, and who has been so living for a period of not less than 6 months.
(4) A person, other than a relative, with whom a person carrying on or intending to cam, on a residential care home ordinarily resides, and with whom that person has been ordinarily residing for a period of not less than 5 years shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as if he were a relative.
Penalty for carrying on home without registration
4. If any person carries on a residential care home without being registered in respect of it, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
Registration of managers etc. and persons in control
5. Where the manager or intended manager of a residential care home is not in control of it (whether as owner or otherwise) both the manager or intended manager and the person in control are to be treated as carrying on or intending to carry on the home and accordingly as requiring to be registered.
Optional registration
6.—(1) A person who—

(a) is registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 in respect of any premises: and

(b) would be required to be registered in respect of them under this Part of this Schedule but for paragraph 1(4) above,

may apply to be registered under this Part of this Schedule in respect of those premises.
(2) If he does so apply, this Part of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to him as if he required to be registered under this Part of this Schedule in respect of those premises.
Registration
7.—(1) An application for registration shall be made to the registration authority and shall be accompanied by a registration fee of such amount as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(2) Subject to paragraphs 11, 14 and 15 below, on receipt of an application for registration and of the registration fee the registration authority shall register the applicant in respect of the home named in the application and issue to him a certificate of registration.
(3) It shall be a condition of the registration of any person in respect of a residential care home that the number of persons for whom residential accommodation with both board and personal
724
care is provided in the home at any one time (excluding persons carrying on or employed at the home and their relatives) does not exceed such number as may be specified in the certificate of registration: and the registration may also be subject to such other conditions (to be specified in the certificate) as the registration authority consider appropriate for regulating the age, sex or category of persons who may be received in the home.
(4) The registration authority,' may from time to time—

(a) vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this part of this Schedule: or

(b) impose an additional condition, either on the application of a person registered in respect of it or without such an application.

(5) If any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule is not complied with, any person registered in respect of the home shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6) The certificate of registration issued in respect of any home shall he kept affixed in a conspicuous place in the home: and if default is made in complying with this sub-paragraph, any person registered in respect of the home shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale and to a further fine not exceeding £2 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction.
Death of only person registered in respect of home
8. Where—

(a) one person only is registered in respect of a residential care home: and

(b) that person dies.

his personal representatives or his widow or any other relative of his may for a period not exceeding 4 weeks from his death. or such longer period as the registration authority may sanction, carry on the home without being registered in respect of it.
Inspection of registers
9. The registers kept by a registration authority for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times, and any person inspecting any such register shall be entitled to make copies of entries in the register on payment of such reasonable fee as the registration authority' may determine.
Annual fee for registration
10. The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) require persons registered in respect of residential care homes to pay an annual fee of such amount as the regulations may specify: and

(b) specify when the fee is to be paid.

Refusal of registration
11. The registration authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration in respect of a residential care home if they are satisfied—

(a) that he or any other person concerned or intended to be concerned in carrying on the home is not a fit person to be concerned in carrying on a residential care home:

(b) that for reasons connected with their situation, construction, state of repair, accommodation, staffing or equipment, the premises used or intended to be used for the purposes of the home, or any other premises used or intended to be used in connection with it are not fit to be so used: or

(c) that the way in which it is intended to carry' on the home is such as not to provide services or facilities reasonably required.

Cancellation of registration
12. The registration authority may cancel the registration of a person in respect of a residential care home

(a) on any ground which would entitle them to refuse an application for his registration in respect of it:

(b) on the ground that the annual fee in respect of the home has not been paid on or before the due date; or

(c) on the ground—

(i) that he has been convicted of an offence under this Part of this Schedule or any regulations made under it in respect of that or any other residential care home:

(ii) that any other person has been convicted of such an offence in respect of that home: or

(iii) that any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule has not been complied with.

Urgent procedure for cancellation of registration etc.
13.—(1) If—

(a) the registration authority apply to a justice of the peace for an order—

(i) cancelling the registration of a person in respect of a residential care home;

(ii) varying any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule; or

(iii) imposing an additional condition; and

(b) it appears to the justice of the peace that there will be a serious risk to the life, health or well-being of the residents in the home unless the order is made,

he may make the order, and the cancellation, variation or imposition shall have effect from the date on which the order is made.
(2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) above may be made ex parte and shall be supported by a written statement of the registration authority's reasons for making the application.
(3) An order under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be in writing.
(4) Where such an order is made, the registration authority shall serve on any person registered in respect of the home, as soon as is practicable after the making of the order,—

(a) notice of the making of the order and of its terms; and

(b) a copy of the statement of the authority's reasons which supported their application for the order.

Procedure—general
14.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where—

(a) a person applies for registration; and

(b) the registration authority propose to grant his application, the authority shall give him written notice of their proposal and of the conditions subject to which they propose to grant his application.

(2) The registration authority need not give notice of such a proposal if they propose to grant the application subject only to conditions which—

(a) the applicant specified in the application; or

(b) the authority and the applicant have subsequently agreed.

(3) The registration authority shall give an applicant notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(4) Except where they make an application under paragraph 13 above, the registration authority shall give any person registered in respect of a residential care home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration;

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule; or

(c) to impose any additionl condition.

(5) A notice under this paragraph shall give the registration authority's reasons for their proposal.
Right to make representations
15.—(1) A notice under paragraph 14 above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the registration authority to give him an opportunity to make representations to them concerning the matter.
(2) Where a notice has been served under paragraph 14 above, the registration authority shall not determine the matter until either—

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations concerning the matter; or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required them to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without their being required to give such an opportunity; or

(c) the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the registration authority to give him an opportunity to make representations to them concerning the matter;

(b) that the registration authority have allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations; and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) Representations may be made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the registration authority that he desires to make oral representations, they shall give him an opportunity of
726
appearing before and of being heard by a committee or subcommittee of the registration authority.
16.—(1) If the registration authority decide to adopt the proposal, they shall serve notice in writing of their decision on any person on whom they were required to serve notice of their proposal.
(2) A notice under this paragraph shall he accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by paragraph 17 below.
(3) A decision of a registration authority, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to such conditions as are mentioned in paragraph 14(2) above or to refuse an application for registration. shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought, until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in paragraph 17(3) below; and

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals
17.—(1) An appeal against—

(a) a decision of a registration authority; or

(b) an order made by a justice of the peace under paragraph 13 above.

shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall be brought by notice in writing given to the registration authority.
(3) No appeal against a decision or order may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision or order.
(4) On an appeal against a decision of a registration authority the Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) On an appeal against an order made by a justice of the peace the Tribunal may confirm the order or direct that it shall cease to have effect.
(6) A Tribunal shall also have power on an appeal against a decision or order—

(a) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Part of this Schedule:

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect: or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(7) A registration authority shall comply with any directions given by a Tribunal under this paragraph.
Service of documents
18.—(1) Any notice or other document required under this Part of this Schedule to be served on a person carrying on, or intending to carry on, a residential care home may be served on him by being delivered personally to him, or being sent by post to him in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
(2) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines "service by post") a letter to a person carrying on a residential care home enclosing a notice or other document under this Part of this Schedule shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at the home.
(3) Any such notice or other document required to be served on a body corporate or a firm shall be duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body or a partner of that firm.
(4) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section without prejudice to subsection (2) above the proper address of a person, in the case of a secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall be that of the registered or principal office of that body, in the case of a partner of a firm shall be that of the principal office of the firm, and in any other case shall be the last known address of the person to he served.
Conduct of residential care homes
19.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conduct of residential care homes, and in particular—

(a) as to the facilities and services to be provided in such homes:

(b) as to the records to be kept and notices to be given in respect of persons received into such homes;

(c) as to the notification of events occurring in such homes;

(d) making provision for children under the age of 18 years who are resident in such homes to receive a religious upbringing appropriate to the religious persuasion to which they belong;

727

(e) as to the form of registers to be kept by registration authorties for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule and the particulars to be contained in them; and

(f) as to the information to be supplied on an application for registration.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may provide that a contravention of or failure to comply with any specified provision of the regulations shall be an offence against the regulations; and any person guilty of an offence against the regulations shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
Inspection of Homes
20.—(1) Any person authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State may at all times enter and inspect any premises which are used, or which that person has reasonable cause to believe to be used, for the purposes of a residential care home.
(2) Any person authorised in that behalf by a registration authority may at all times enter and inspect any premises in the area of the authority which are used, or which that person has reasonable cause to believe to be used, for those purposes.
(3) the powers of inspection conferred by, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall include power to inspect any records required to be kept in accordance with regulations under this Schedule.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations require that residential care homes shall be inspected on such occasions or at such intervals as the regulations may prescribe.
(5) A person who proposes to exercise any power of entry or inspection conferred by this paragraph shall if so required produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority to exercise the power.
(6) Any person who obstructs the exercise of any such power shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
Prosecutions etc
21. Where an offence under this Part of this Schedule or any regulations under it committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
22.—(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Part of this Schedule, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to reliance on information supplied to him or to the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control: and

(b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

(2) If in any such case the defence provided by sub-paragraph (1) above involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of another person or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not. without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless. within a period ending 7 clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor a notice in writing giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.
Regulations
23.—(1) Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this Part of this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument: and any statutory instrument containing regulations under this Part of this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2) Any such power may be exercised—

(a) either in relation to all cases to which the power extends or in relation to all those cases subject to specified exceptions, or in relation to any specified cases or classes of case: and

(b) so as to make, as respects the cases in relation to which the power is exercised—

(i) the same provision for all cases in relation to which it is exercised, or different provision for different cases or different classes of case or different provision as respects the same class or classes of case for different purposes:

728

(ii) any such provision either unconditionally or subject to any specified condition:

and includes power to make such incidental or supplemental provision in the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
PART II
AMENDMENTS OF ACTS RELATING TO REGISTERED HOMES
Nursing Homes Act 1975
24. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (I) of section 3 of the Nursing Homes Act 1975—
"(1A) Registration under this Act does not affect any requirement to register under Part 1 of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (registration of residential care homes).".
25. The following section shall be inserted after that section—
"Prohibition of holding out premises as nursing home. matermity home or mental nursing home.
3A.—(1) A person who, with intent to deceive any person.—

(a) applies any name to premises in England or Wales: or

(b) in any way so describes such premises or holds such premises out,

as to indicate, or reasonably be understood to indicate, that the premises are a nursing home or maternity home. shall be guilty of an offence, unless registration has been effected under this Act in respect of the premises as such a home.
(2) A person who, with intent to deceive any person,—

(a) applies any name to premises in England or Wales: or

(b) in any way so describes such premises or holds such premises out,

as to indicate, or reasonably he understood to indicate, that the premises are a mental nursing home, shall be guilty of an offence. unless registration has been effected under this Act in respect of the premises as such a home.
26. The following paragraphs shall be inserted after section 6(c) of that Act—
"(ca) requiring persons registered under this Act to pay an annual fee of such amount as the regulations may specify; (cb) specifying when the fee is to be paid;".
27. In paragrah (c) of section 7 of that Act for the words "imposed by section 8(1) and (2) below" there shall be substituted the words "for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Act".
28. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (d) of that section—
"(e) on the ground that the annual fee in respect of the home has not been paid on or before the due date.".
29. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2A) of section 8 of that Act—
"(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) as to the variation of any condition for the time being in force in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home by virtue of this Act: and

(b) as to the imposition of additional conditions.".

30. The following sections shall be inserted after that section—
"Urgent procedure for cancellation of registration etc.
8A.—(1) If—

(a) the Secretary of State applies to a justice of the peace for an order—

(i) cancelling the registration of a person in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home:

(ii) varying any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this Act; or

(iii) imposing an additional condition: and

(b) it appears to the justice of the peace that there will be a serious risk to the life, health or well-being of the patients in the home unless the order is made, he may make the order, and the cancellation, variation or imposition shall have effect from the date on which the order is made.

(2) An application under subsection (1) above may be made ex parte and shall be supported by a written statement of the Secretary of State's reasons for making the application.
(3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be in writing.
(4) Where such an order is made, the Secretary of State shall serve on any person registered in respect of the home, as soon as practicable after the making of the order,—

(a) notice of the making of the order and of its terms; and

(b) a copy of the statement of the Secretary of State's reasons which supported his application for the order.

Ordinary procedure.
8B.—(1) Where—

(a) a person applies for registration in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home; and

(b) the Secretary of State proposes to grant his application,

the Secretary of State shall give him written notice of his proposal and of the conditions subject to which he proposes to grant his application.
(2) The Secretary of State shall give an applicant notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(3) Except where he makes an application under section 8A above, the Secretary of State shall give any person registered in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration;

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Act; or

(c) to impose any additional condition.

(4) A notice under this section shall give the Secretary of State's reasons for his proposal.
Right to make representations.
8C.—(1) A notice under section 8B above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning any matter which that person wishes to dispute.
(2) Where a notice has been served under section 8B above. the Secretary of State shall not determine any matter in dispute until either—

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations to him concerning the matter; or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without the Secretary of State being required to give such an opportunity: or

(c) the conditions specified in subsection (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning the matter;

(b) that the Secretary of State has allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations; and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) The representations may he made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the Secretary of State that he desires to make oral representations, the Secretary of State shall give him an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
Decision of Secretary of State.
8D.—(1) If the Secretary of State decides to adopt the proposal, he shall serve notice in writing of his decision on any person on whom he was required to serve notice of the proposal.
(2) A notice under this section shall be accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by section 8E below.
(3) A decision of the Secretary of State, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to conditions agreed between the applicant and the Secretary of State or to refuse an application for registration, shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought, until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in section 8E(3) below; and

730

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals.
8E.—(1) An appeal against—

(a) a decision of the Secretary of State under this Act; or

(b) an order made by a justice of the peace under section 8A above.

shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall he brought by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State.
(3) No appeal against a decision or order may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision or order.
(4) On an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State the Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) On an appeal against an order made by a justice of the peace the Tribunal may confirm the order or direct that it shall cease to have effect.
(6) A Tribunal shall also have power on an appeal against a decision or order—

(a) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Act;

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect; or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(7) The Secretary of State shall comply with any directions of a Tribunal given under this section.".
31. The following section shall he inserted after section 10 of that Act—
"Service of documents.
10A.—(1) Any notice or other document required under this Act to be served on a person carrying on. or intending to carry on, a nursing home or mental nursing home may be served on him by being delivered personally to him, or being sent by post to him in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
(2) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines "service by post") a letter to a person carrying on a nursing home or mental nursing home enclosing a notice or other document under this Act shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at the home.
(3) Any such notice or other document required to be served on a body corporate or a firm shall he duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body or a partner of that firm.
(4) For the purposes of this section. and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section, without prejudice to subsection (2) above the proper address of a person, in the case of a secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall he that of the registered or principal office of that body, in the case of a partner of a firm shall be that of the principal office of the firm, and in any other case shall he the last known address of the person to be served.".
32. The following paragraph shall be substituted for subsection (1)(a) of section 13 of that Act (fines for failure to affix certificate of registration)—
"(a) to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982; and".
33. The following section shall be inserted after that section—
"Contravention section of section 3A.
13A. A person guilty of an offence under section 3A above shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.".
34. The following section shall be substituted for section 17 of that Act—
17. Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall he liable to he proceeded against and punished accordingly.".

731
35. In section 23(2) of that Act for the words "the provisions of this Act relating to mental nursing homes" there shall be substituted the words "this Act".
Child Care Act 1980
36. In section 56 of the Child Care Act 1980 (definition of voluntary home) for the words from "mental" to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words "nursing home or mental nursing home within the meaning of the Nursing Homes Act 1975 or a residential care home within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".
37. In section 57 of that Act—
(a) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (3) to (5)—
"(3) On an application duly made under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State may either grant or refuse the application, as he thinks fit, or may grant the application subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate.
(3A) The Secretary of State may from time to time—

(a) vary any condition for time being in force in respect of a voluntary home by virtue of this Part of this Act: or

(b) impose an additional condition, either on the application of the person carrying on the home or without such an application.

(4) Where at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the conduct of any voluntary home is not in accordance with regulations made or directions given under section 60 of this Act or is otherwise unsatisfactory, he may cancel the registration of the home and remove it from the register.
(5) Any person who carries on a voluntary home in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) above or of a condition to which the registration of the home is for the time being subject by virtue of this Part of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.":
(b) in subsection (6)—
(i) for the words from the beginning of the subsection to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words—
"Where—

(a) a voluntary home is carried on in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) above or of a condition to which the registration of the home is for the time being subject by virtue of this Part of this Act, or

(b) notice of a proposal to cancel the registration of a voluntary home is given under section 57A below,": and

(ii) for "58" there shall be substituted "57D":
(c) in subsection (7), for the words "removes a home from the register" there shall be substituted the words "cancels the registration of a home": and
(d) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (8)—
"(8) Any notice or other document required under this Part of this Act to be served by the Secretary of State on a person carrying on, or intending to carry on, a voluntary home may be served on him by being delivered personally to him, or being sent by post to him in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
(9) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines "service by post") a letter to a person carrying on a voluntary home enclosing a notice or other document under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at the home.
(10) Any such notice or other document required to be served on a body corporate or a firm shall be duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body or a partner of that firm.
(11) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section, without prejudice to subsection (9) above the proper address of a person, in the case of a secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall be that of the registered or principal office of that body, in the case of a partner
732
of a firm shall be that of the principal office of the firm, and in any other case shall be the last-known address of the person to be served.".
38. The following sections shall be inserted after that section—
"Procedure.
57A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where—

(a) a person applies for registration of a voluntary home; and

(b) the Secretary of State proposes to grant his application
the Secretary of State shall give him written notice of his proposal and of the conditions subject to which he proposes to grant his application.
(2) The Secretary of state need not give notice of such a proposal if he proposes to grant the application subject only to conditions which—

(a) the applicant specified in the application: or

(b) the Secretary of State and the applicant have subsequently agreed.

(3) The Secretary of State shall give an applicant for registration of a voluntary home notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(4) The Secretary of State shall give any person carrying on a voluntary home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration of the home:

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Part of this Act: or

(c) to impose any additional condition.

(5) A notice under this section shall give the Secretary of State's reasons for his proposal.
Right to make representations.
57B.—(1) A notice under section 57A above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning the matter.
(2) Where a notice has been served under section 57A above, the Secretary of State shall not determine the matter until either—

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations to him concerning the matter; or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without the Secretary of State being required to give such an opportunity: or

(c) the conditions specified in subsection (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning the matter;

(b) that the Secretary of State has allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations: and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) The representations may be made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the Secretary of State that he desires to make oral representations, the Secretary of State shall give him an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
Decision of Secretary of State.
57C.—(1) If the Secretary of State decides to adopt the proposal, he shall serve notice in writing of his decision on any person on whom he was required to serve notice of his proposal.
(2) A notice under this section shall be accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by section 57D below.
(3) A decision of the Secretary of State, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to such conditions as are mentioned in section 57A(2) above or to refuse an application for registration, shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought. until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in section 57D(3) below: and

733

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals.
57D.—(1) An appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State under this Part of this Act shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall he brought by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State.
(3) No appeal may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision.
(4) On an appeal the Tribunal may confirm the Secretary of State's decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) A Tribunal shall also have power on an appeal—

(a) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Part of this Act:

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect: or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(6) The Secretary of State shall comply with any directions given by a Tribunal under this section.".
39. In subsection (4) of section 76 of that Act (inquiries) for the words from "mental" to the end of the subsection there shall he substituted the words "nursing home or mental nursing home within the meaning of the Nursing Homes Act 1975 or a residential care home within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".
Children's Homes Act 1982
40. In paragraph (c) of section 1(2) of the Children's Homes Act 1982 (institutions excluded from application of Act) for the words "the Residential Homes Act 1980" there shall be substituted the words "Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".—
41. In section 4 of that Act—
(a) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
"(2) A local authority may from time to time—

(a) vary any condition for the time being in this Act: in respect of a home by virtue of force this or

(b) impose an additional condition, either on the application of the person carrying on the home or without such an application.; and

(b) in subsection (3), after the word "impose" there shall he inserted the words "or varied".
42. The following sections shall be inserted after section 6 of that Act—
"Procedure.
6A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where—

(a) a person applies for the registration of a children's home: and

(b) the local authority propose to grant his application, the local authority shall give him written notice of their proposal and of the conditions subject to which they propose to grant his application.

(2) The local authority need not give notice of such a proposal if they propose to grant the application subject only to conditions which—

(a) the applicant specified in the application; or

(b) the authority and the applicant have subsequently agreed.

(3) The local authority shall give an applicant notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(4) The local authority shall give any person carrying on a registered home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration;

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Act: or

(c) to impose any additional condition.

(5) A notice under this section shall give the local authority's reasons for their proposal.
6B.—(1) A notice under section 6A above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the local authority to give him an opportunity to make representation to them concerning the matter.
(2) Where a notice has been served under section 6A above, the local authority shall not determine the matter until either—
734

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations to them concerning the matter: or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required the local authority to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without their being required to give such an opportunity: or

(c) the conditions specified in subsection (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the local authority to give him an opportunity to make representations to them concerning the matter;

(b) that the local authority have allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations; and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) The representations may be made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the local authority that he desires to make oral representations, the local authority shall give him an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a committee or sub-committee of the local authority.
Decision of Local authority.
6C.—(1) If the local authority decide to adopt the proposal, they shall serve notice in writing of their decision on any person on whom they were required to serve notice of their proposal.
(2) A notice under this section shall be accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by section 6D below.
(3) A decision of a local authority, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to such conditions as are mentioned in section 6A(2) above or to refuse an application for registration, shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought, until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in section 6D(3) below; and

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals.
6D.—(1) An appeal against a decision of a local authority under this Act shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall be brought by notice in writing given to the local authority.
(3) No appeal may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision.
(4) On an appeal the Tribunal may confirm the local authority's decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) A Tribunal shall have power on an appeal—

(a) to vary condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Act;

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect: or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(6) A local authority shall comply with any direction given by a Tribunal under this section.
Prohibition of further application.
6E.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where an application for the registration of a home is refused, no further application for the registration of the home may be made within the period of six months beginning with the date when the applicant is notified of the refusal.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall have effect. where an appeal against the refusal of an application is determined or abandoned, as if the reference to the date when the applicant is notified of the refusal were a reference to the date on which the appeal is determined or abandoned.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, where the registration of a home is cancelled, no application for the registration of the home shall be made within the period of six months beginning with the date of cancellation.
(4) Subsection (3) above shall have effect, where an appeal against the cancellation of the registration of a home is determined or abandoned, as if the reference to the date of cancellation were a reference to the date on which the appeal is determined or abandoned.".

735
43. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 16 of that Act—
"(4) This Act shall, in its application to the Isles of Scilly, have effect subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by Order made by statutory instrument prescribe.
(5) A statutory instrument made in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
PART
REGISTERED HOMES TRIBUNALS
Preliminary.
44. The following arc relevant enactments for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) the Nursing Homes Act 1975;

(b) the Child Care Act 1980:

(c) the Children's Homes Act 1982; and

(d) Part I of this Schedule.

Constitution of panels for chairmen and members
45.—(1) For the purpose of enabling a tribunal to hear an appeal under a relevant enactment to he constituted as occasion may require there shall be—

(a) a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as "the legal panel") of persons available to act as chairmen of any such tribunals; and

(b) a panel appointed by the Lord President of the Council (in this part of this Schedule referred to as "the panel of experts") of persons available to act as members.

(2) Tribunals constituted under this Part of this Schedule are to he known as Registered Homes Tribunals.
(3) No person shall he qualified to he appointed to the legal panel unless he possesses such legal qualifications as the Lord Chancellor considers suitable.
(4) No person shall be qualified to he appointed to the panel of experts unless he has had experience in welfare work, medicine. nursing or midwifery or such other experience as the Lord President of the Council considers suitable.
(5) No officer of a government department may be appointed to either panel.
(6) A person appointed to a panel shall hold office subject to such conditions as to the period of his membership and otherwise as may be determined by the person appointing him.
Constitution of Tribunals—general
46.—(1) A Registered Homes Tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other members.
(2) The chairman shall be a member of the legal panel appointed to the tribunal by the Lord Chancellor.
(3) The other two members shall be members of the panel of experts appointed to the tribunal by the Lord President of the Council.
Tribunals for appeals relating to nursing homes (including maternity homes) and mental nursing homes
47.—(1) A Registered Homes Tribunal to hear an appeal relating solely to registration under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 shall include a registered medical practitioner.
(2) Such a tribunal shall also include—

(a) if the appeal relates to registration of a maternity home, a qualified midwife: and

(b) in any other case, a qualified nurse.

(3) A tribunal which is constituted to hear both an appeal relating to registration under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 and an appeal relating to registration under Part I of this Schedule shall include a person selected in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) above.
(4) In this Part of this Schedule—
"nursing home" and "maternity home" have the meanings assigned to them by section 1 of the Nursing Home Act 1975:
"mental nursing home" has the meaning assigned to it by section 2 of that Act:
"qualified midwife" means a person who is for the time being certified under the Midwives Act 1951 or registered under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979; and "qualified nurse" means—

(a) a person who is for the time being registered under section 2(1) of the Nurses Act 1957: or

(b) a person who—

(i) is for the time being registered under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979: and

736

(ii) would have been qualified to he registered under section 2(1) of the Nurses Act 1957

Procedure of tribunals
48—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules as to the practice and procedure to be followed with respect to the constitution of Registered Homes Tribunals, and as to proceedings before such tribunals and matters incidental to or consequential on such proceedings; and without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph such rules may make provision—

(a) requiring particulars to be supplied of matters relevant to the determination of an appeal;

(b) enabling two or more appeals to be heard together; and

(c) as to representations before a tribunal. by counsel or a solicitor or otherwise.

(2) Rules under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
49. The Arbitration Act 1950 shall not apply to any proceedings before Registered Homes Tribunals except so far as any provision of that Act may be applied to such tribunals with or without modifications by rules made under paragraph 48 above.
Staff for tribunals
50. The Secretary of State shall assign such staff as may from time to time be required for Registered Homes Tribunals.
Fees, allowances and expenses
51. The Secretary of State may—

(a) pay to members of Registered Homes Tribunals such fees and allowances as he may, with the consent of the Treasury. determine: and

(b) defray the expenses of such tribunals up to such amount as he may with the like consent determine.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 16. I was tempted to say that this is merely a drafting amendment and then resume my seat, but I suspect that your Lordships would find that puzzling. With permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 inclusive, 22 and 23, 68. 70 to 72 inclusive, 79, 82. 88, 101 and 102 and 104 to 107 inclusive.
I am glad to be able to say that this group of amendments is far less formidable than it seems. While heroic in number and volume, they are modest in their aspirations. In drafting terms, they represent a tidier way of achieving the intentions of the Bill concerning the registration of homes, and replace two clauses and two schedules with one clause and one schedule.
Schedule 3 to the Bill, as published, reproduced in an amended form five of the seven sections of the Residential Homes Act 1980. We have since decided that it would be better if all the registration provisions in that Act, as amended by this Bill, were reproduced in the Bill. This will he more helpful to those who have to operate this legislation: and that was a point made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Renton. This leaves only one remaining provision in the 1980 Act concerned not with registration. but with the provision of meals and recreation for elderly people. I will describe in a moment how a linked amendment later in the Marshalled List enables us to consolidate that provision in this Bill and to repeal the 1980 Act in its entirety.
As I have said, the new Schedule 2A, and the various consequential amendments, provide in the Bill a comprehensive statement of the law concerning the registration of residential care homes and the new appeal system and, just as in the published Bill, the new schedule also makes certain related changes in the legislation affecting nursing homes and residential homes for children. In addition to these drafting

737
changes, there are a number of minor changes of substance between the provisions of the published Bill and the new schedule.
Chief among these are a restatement and clarification of the procedure to be followed when a registration authority is considering an application for registration, or is proposing to cancel or to vary a registration, and clarification that homes registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 will not need to be registered as residential care homes, provided that they are used solely as nursing homes. Other homes will be registrable under both registration systems, if they fulfil the criteria for registration under both. This requires a consequential amendment to the definition of "personal care" and, as part of this general clarification, we have taken advantage of the helpful proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in Amendment No. 20 on the Marshalled List.
Thirdly, a right of appeal is provided to the Registered Homes Tribunal, being set up under Part 111 of Schedule 2A, against an order given by a justice of the peace in relation to a nursing home or residential care home. Finally, it is made an offence for anyone, with intent to deceive, to describe an establishment as a nursing home, maternity home or mental nursing home if an appropriate registration has not been obtained under the Nursing Homes Act 1975.
To assist your Lordships, we have revised the notes on clauses for the registration provisions of the Bill, and I have sent copies of these to noble Lords who spoke on the subject and have placed other copies in the Printed Paper Office. I hope that that comparatively short description of what is certainly a formidable list of amendments will be of assistance to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 16A:
After paragraph 13 insert—
("List of persons whose registrations hare been cancelled
13A. The Secretary of State shall keep a list of all persons who have had their registrations in respect of residential care homes cancelled.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 16A and Amendment No. 16B because they deal with exactly the same matter and the necessity to put them in this form is governed by the way the new Bill has been presented to us, if I may call it the new Bill. These amendments are in very similar terms to the one moved by my noble friend Lord Banks at the Committee stage on 9th December. In the debate on that amendment we on these Benches came to the conclusion that we accepted the Government's argument that to keep a national register of all nursing homes or residential homes may have been an administratively cumbersome method. Therefore, in accepting that a register should be kept by the local authorities as it is done at present, it became to us obvious that it is even more important now that we should have a national register of those persons who have had their licences withdrawn, because of the danger, which was mentioned in the last debate on my noble friend's amendment, that people will move from one end of
738
the country to another and be granted a licence, when in actual fact they have fallen down in their duties in another part of England.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to this list as a black list. Of course, it is a black list of some kind, but do we not have a duty to protect people, particularly the kind of people who live in residential homes or nursing homes, who are so unable to look after themselves? Thus, the maximum information about people who fall down in their duties of care should be available to a registering authority so that no mistakes are repeated. I believe it is not an uncommon thing in society for what the noble Lord called a black list to be kept. Professional bodies do so. It is essential to protect society and to protect the people who occupy these residential homes that we have the maximum information available to the registering authority.
It was also said that it would be unfair if a person loses his licence because of some local problem which was not necessarily the fault of the licensee. That should also exist on the register. Nobody envisages a register existing without the reasons why a person has lost his licence, so there would be no hardship from that point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, finished up replying to my noble friend Lord Banks by saying that in his view—he had been informed—it would he possible without legislation to have a register of this kind if, after consultation, it was thought to be necessary. I am one of those people who prefer to have what I feel is necessary embodied in a Bill and not leave it to merely the possibility of such a register being made. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it may be of convenience to your Lordships if I reply to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, now and we can then move to the discussion of the main amendment. When this question was raised during the Committee stage I said that we were examining just such a possibility as is proposed in these amendments. I confirm that and can tell your Lordships that we shall soon be consulting the various interests affected, including representatives of both the registration authorities and those carrying on the homes. Among other things, we shall be consulting on the form in which the list could be most effectively kept. As I said before, and the noble Baroness recognised, this is not a matter which requires legislation, but we shall keep Parliament informed of our intentions and I hope that the assurance will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I am rather disappointed that between 9th December and today, from what I have heard him say, consultations have not started. I sincerely hope that we shall have further information on the results of the consultation at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, now we can get back to the formidable list of amendments that the

739
noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to. Quite frankly, in view of the short time given to us for their reasonable and careful consideration, modest though the noble Lord might claim them to be, I do not intend to deal with them at length now but give notice that I and my colleagues will examine the amendments with great care and come back on Third Reading. Later on, with some of the amendments, we shall find ourselves in a Fred Karno situation where I have tabled amendments to a schedule, for instance, and below that there is another amendment from the Government to delete that schedule. How we will cope with that, I do not know, but this is due to the procrastination of the department in dealing with these amendments. Do not forget, these were put in last Tuesday when we should have been dealing with the Report stage, and we did not see them until Thursday. If the noble Lord thinks I shall spend all my weekend wading through his volumes of paperwork, when there is the chance to get out into the garden to get hack to sanity, he has another think coming to him. So far as I am concerned, I shall not say any more about these amendments except that when we come to my own amendments I shall want reasonable time to consider them.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords. in addition to the unfortunate results that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has pointed out of the very late arrival of these amendments, including this massive, mammoth amendment, there has been another unfortunate result—I am simply trying to be helpful to the noble Lord—in terms of drafting which seems to be faulty. I simply point out—and the draftsman may like to take account of it—that on page 27 of the Marshalled List, Section 41(2)(a) the two lines there are complete gobbledegook. They read:
"(a) vary any condition for the time being in Act in respect of a home by virtue of force this or".
I submit that that does not represent the draftsmen's intention and perhaps they would like to have another look at it before it is reprinted for the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in Schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill, as it was originally put before your Lordships, there was an appalling amount of difficult cross-reference to previous legislation. My attention was drawn to a very large number of minor mistakes in drafting. That was why at first I simply tabled to leave out Schedule 3 in order to draw attention to the fact that there was this appalling amount of cross-reference and a good many mistakes.
Although we have had rather short notice, I feel that we should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and to the draftsmen and those advising them. This schedule is in principle a very great improvement. It means that those who are going to establish residential homes and those who are going to be responsible for supervising them will find practically the whole of the law in one place. That is much better. It may well be that there are some details still to be corrected. However, I do not know. Like the noble Lord. Lord Wallace of Coslany, I have not had time to get down to it in great detail. But let us
740
acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has set a good example, for which we should be grateful, in putting before us a body of law which is all in one place. Other Ministers might well follow his example with advantage. Therefore, I should like to congratulate and thank my noble friend.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, after a rough calculation, it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has just moved an amendment which, together with the various other amendments to which he has spoken, add up to 32 pages of amendments to a Bill which itself runs to only 74 pages. I venture to say that this almost justifies another Second Reading debate.
I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. My study of the amendments leads me and, I hope, my noble friends on these Benches to believe that most of the amendments which the noble Lord has brought forward are wholly satisfactory and greatly improve the Bill. Nevertheless, it appears to us that our proceedings have been somewhat truncated. We have suddenly been presented with these 30-odd pages at Report stage, which gives us no chance to scrutinise them with the kind of care with which in your Lordships' House we normally scrutinise amendments. While, therefore, I think that the noble Lord has made substantial improvements to the Bill by means of these amendments which he has brought forward, he must not be altogether surprised if he finds that the Third Reading stage of the Bill is somewhat more elongated than is usually the case.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gets too pleased with himself, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, may I ask him why, although I welcome the amendments as improvements to the Bill, we could not have had them, if they are so essential. at the Committee stage, since that would have been the proper stage at which to discuss them in detail?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the amendment which I have just moved includes at one point at least the essence of a recommendation which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, at the Committee stage. Naturally it was not possible to do that until today.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am very grateful for that, but the noble Lord should not use it as an excuse to get away with murder.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I come to the Dispatch Box always ready to listen to the advice of noble Lords from all quarters of the House, in particular those noble Lords with experience both in Parliament and in relation to these matters, some of whom sit on the Benches opposite. I am grateful for the welcome which has been given to these amendments by my noble friend Lord Renton and other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, drew my attention to what I understand was a printing error in the original Marshalled List. This error has since been corrected. My noble friend Lord Renton also said that there were a number of errors of reference in Schedule 3.
Lord Renton: In the previous schedule.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was not quite clear whether those errors remained. I am glad to hear they do not. If they had remained, I should have wished them to be put right. I am grateful for your Lordships' reception of these amendments. Nothing further need, I think, be said. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Is the noble Baroness not moving No. 16B?
[Amendment No. 16B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19:
Before Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
("Registration of homes.
6A.—(1) Part I of Schedule 2A to this Act shall have effect in place of the provisions of the Residential Homes Act 1980 other than those relating to meals and recreation for old people.
(2) The amendments to the Nursing Homes Act 1975, the Chid Care Act 1980 and the Children's Homes Act 1982 specified in Part II of that Schedule shall have effect.
(3) Part III of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to tribunals to hear appeals concerning the registration of homes.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such transitional provisions as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with this section.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Clause 7 [General amendments of law relating to residential homes, nursing homes and mental nursing homes]:
Leave out Clause 7.
Clause 8 [Appeals etc. relating to registration in respect of homes]:
Leave out Clause 8.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Residential homes and nursing homes]:
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 33, line 8, after ("with") insert ("both").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is at the beginning of the Fred Karno saga. Immediately after I have spoken and the noble Lord has replied the noble Lord will move the deletion of Schedule 3, aided and abetted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. May I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the fact that my Amendment No. 21 has been put down simply because of the impression I received from him during the Committee stage that nursing homes should be inspected at least twice annually. I put down Amendment No. 20 in the hope of getting a little clarification from the Minister. If he is able to give me the right information, he may leave out Schedule 3 with my permission.
One of the most important aspects of the Bill relates to the parts dealing with the registration and control of residential care homes. It is essential that the present
742
confused situation should be rectified. There is a large number of private sector homes, many of which are quite unknown to local authorities. It is vital to clarify the exact status of small group homes which may be operating in the voluntary sector. Group homes must remain exempt from the remit of the Bill. My understanding of the wording of the schedule referring to "board and personal care" is that it is designed to ensure that only where homes are offering both full board and personal care will there he a requirement to register under the new Act. My amendment is specifically geared to making absolutely certain that there is no confusion in the minds of local authorities; namely, by the insertion of the word "both". I believe that this will clarify the position. A number of voluntary organisations at local level will have group homes on their books, although they will not be providing board and personal care as defined in the Bill.
It cannot he stressed too strongly that so far as former psychiatric patients, for example, are concerned, group homes are no different in kind from any small group of individuals living together as a household. I have visited some of these homes and had tea with the residents. No residential staff and no meals will be provided by others. There will be only limited external social support in the form of good neighbourliness. The aim of that support. such as it is, is to encourage independence, like everyone else, in ordinary living. In this context, I should be very grateful if the Minister could clarify that such small group homes are not to be included in the Bill and that they are excluded by the formula "board and personal care". All I ask for is clarification of the issue. With all my generosity, and so on, the noble Lord can then proceed to leave out Schedule 3.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I explained to your Lordships when moving Amendment No. 16, the new Schedule 2A supersedes Schedule 3. Amendment No. 22, with your Lordships' agreement, seeks to delete Schedule 3. I am happy to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, may be prepared, if I give him the right answer now, to agree to the deletion of Schedule 3. I am further happy to say that group homes are indeed excluded from the provisions of the Bill. In the light of my assurance, I hope the noble Lord will not press this or the next amendment, and will agree to the subsequent one.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am ever willing to help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Leave out Schedule 3.
Schedule 4 [Appeals relating to registration]:
Leave out Schedule 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Family Practitioner Committees]:
6.10 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 45, line 22, leave out from ("locality") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 5 provides in paragraph 2 that Section 15 of the National Health Service Act 1977 shall be rewritten to describe the duties of the family practitioner committees. We read that these duties are:

"(a) to administer the arrangements made in pursuance of this Act for the provision of general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services and pharmaceutical services for their locality, and

(b) to perform such other functions relating to those services as may he prescribed."

The object of this amendment is to delete paragraph (b) on the grounds that the wording is too vague and too wide. Although it follows existing legislation, some health authorities are extremely concerned that in the new circumstances it might be used to extend the functions of family practitioner committees to include, for example, the administration of health centres or the employment of staff in the community services.
I want to be fair about this, and I understand that the noble Lord's department, the DHSS, objects to this amendment on the grounds that the removal of these lines could prevent FPCs from carrying out certain of their functions in relation to training and study leave for GPs. It will help me very much to decide whether or not to press this amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can give me an assurance that there is no intention to use the schedule as drafted to extend the jurisdiction of family practitioner committees in the way feared by many authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe I can cut short discussion on this amendment to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, by saying that I am willing to give the assurance for which he has asked.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that happy outcome, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 46. leave out line 14 and insert ("bodies")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment, and as your Lordships will see it contains the word "bodies", but there is nothing sinister in this. The word "bodies" is used earlier in the sentence concerned and for the sake of consistency we believe that it should be repeated in place of the word "authorities", which occurs later. It is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 en bloc:
Page 46, line 14, at end insert—
("(4A) It is the Secretary of State's duty by order to secure as respects each committee that it includes additional members appointed in a manner specified in the order by voluntary organisations.").
744
Page 47, line 34, leave out ("not") and insert ("neither").
Page 47, line 35, at end insert ("nor appointed by virtue of an order under subsection (4A) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and others, including my noble friend Lady Faithfull, pressed me to agree to the inclusion of additional members appointed by voluntary organisations to the joint consultative committee. I am happy to accept that advice, and it is for that purpose that I bring forward these three amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I just thank my noble friend the Minister.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 54, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment to abolish family practitioner committees and replace them with primary care committees within the district health authorities, with a view to the better integration of primary care with the other branches of the National Health Service. My party, as I explained then. is deeply committed to the promotion of health and the prevention of disease, and in our view these objectives can be achieved only by having an overall strategy for the NHS. I said at Committee stage, and repeat this evening, that the Government's decision to promote family practitioner committees to the status of fully independent health authorities seems to us to be likely to increase fragmentation rather than integration. However, I do not propose to pursue that argument any further during the course of this Bill.
My party's policy on this matter is in the process of formulation, and we shall take it to the country when the time comes. In the meantime, I am concerned merely to improve the Bill as it stands and to give the family practitioner committees a chance of working somewhat better within the framework the Government have designed for them. That is the main object of the few amendments I am moving this evening.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to appoint directly the vice-chairmen of family practitioner committees. We do not oppose his appointment of the chairmen, as the new free-standing family practitioner committees will be directly accountable to him. But we can see no good reason why the Secretary of State should need to appoint the vice-chairmen as well. This may seem a small matter hut, in the first place, it is an undesirable extension of his patronage; in the second, it does not even follow—and this is an important point—the practice of the regional health authorities and district health authorities, whose members appoint their own vice-chairmen. It is therefore not consistent with what happens in other health authorities.
The noble Lord may argue that this sub-paragraph is necessary in order to maintain a balance between lay and medical appointments, but it is not necessary to rely upon legislation to achieve this balance. If the Secretary of State appoints a contractor chairman, there is no reason why the family practitioner committee should not appoint a non-contractor vice-

745
chairman, and vice versa. Indeed, the family practitioner committees themselves have maintained just such a balance since they were established in 1974.
In case it should he felt that I am going out on a limb on this question, I should like to add that this amendment has the support not only of the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales (which might he thought of as an interested party) but also of the British Medical Association. I have in my hand a letter I have just received from the chairman of the association's general medical services committee, Dr. John Ball, who writes:
"We accept that the chairman of the newly-constituted FPCs will be appointed by the Secretary of State. However, all other health authorities are able to appoint their own vice-chairmen and therefore the FPCs will he treated differently in this respect. The general medical services committee can see no justification for this.".
As I said at the outset, I am striving to he helpful to the noble Lord the Minister this evening and to see that the framework the Government want to set up will work as smoothly as possible. As I have said, this amendment has the support of the two main professional bodies and will in my view remove an undesirable and quite unnecessary extension of the Secretary of State's powers. I hope that the amendment will command wide support in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. We have discussed this matter before, and I have been told that the reason why this provision is in the Bill is that a vice-chairman might one day become chairman, and therefore it is important that the Minister should have that prospective patronage. But surely if the vice-chairman is good enough to become chairman and it happens that he is appointed in a different way and not by the Minister, the question provides its own answer. The case has been very well put by the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, and I wish to register our support for it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, from these Benches in respect of this particular amendment. This does not necessarily mean that I agree with every single word the noble Lord said when making his preliminary remarks about the new situation of the family practitioner committees under this Bill. This is a matter that will be discussed by my noble friends on these Benches and by the noble Lord with his noble friends on other Benches: but on this particular amendment we are entirely at one.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is entirely right in saying that the Bill as it now stands would make an exception in the case of family practitioner committees. It is true that the present position is that FPCs appoint their own chairmen and their own deputy chairmen. That is the present situation. In this new situation, in which the FPCs are being changed, of course it would seem quite proper that the Secretary of State should appoint the chairman, and he does in fact appoint the chairmen of other health authorities, but other health authorities nevertheless still appoint their own deputy chairmen. Therefore, the FPCs are being singled out in this Bill for totally different treatment, having both their chairmen and deputy chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State.
746
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, perfectly correctly, ever since these bodies were established in 1974 the system has worked entirely satisfactorily; these committees have always managed to make sure that the chairman has been a professional, perhaps a doctor, and the deputy chairman not a doctor, or vice versa. I think we can go back before 1974, to the precursors of these bodies, the executive councils—I served on one—when the same policy existed: always there was a duality, the chairman was one and the deputy chairman was the opposite. In other words, on a voluntary basis this kind of system that everyone is anxious to secure has always worked entirely satisfactorily.
The noble Lord said that the British Medical Association supported the amendment. The body that he quoted, the General Medical Services Committee, in strict BMA terms is what is known as an autonomous committee and represents all doctors, all general practitioners who work in the National Health Service. Therefore, its view can be taken to be the view of the Medical Practitioners Union, the Federation of Women Practitioners and all the bodies that are represented on the General Medical Services Committee, not only the BMA. So it is right to say that there is very substantial professional support for the noble Lord on this particular amendment, and to the best of my knowledge the support of all the lay elements of all the family practitioner committees that I know of; they believe they should still retain the right to appoint their own deputy chairman, even if the Secretary of State appoints the chairman.
Lord Rea: My Lords, even though I could he said to be speaking from a professional position, I would support this amendment from the point of view of some other people I have spoken to since this Bill was first published. These are secretaries and members of community health councils, and others who are concerned with the smooth running, the effective and fair running of the National Health Service. They feel that the proposals for family practitioner committees embodied in this Bill are retrograde, and they report to me the fact that even now family practitioner committees are not all that easy to communicate with, that it is difficult sometimes to achieve co-operation with them with regard to local issues, plans and developments, such as improved practice premises when required, better siting of surgeries for the needs of the people in the area and involvement of general practitioners in community activities of a preventive nature.
Such successes as have occurred have been despite the system rather than because of it, in co-operation, in setting up local arrangements which benefit local populations. By increasing the influence of the central Government in FPCs by the appointment of both the chairman and the vice-chairman, the Bill further removes the family practitioner committees from involvement in improving the services in the locality they serve, the needs for more integration with local plans and needs in co-operation with the district health authorities and the community health councils. I think the result of this Bill as it stands would be instead to tend towards more remote control from the centre and less co-operation on local issues.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, a certain apprehension crossed my brow to hear that there was some disagreement between him and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. There will, I suspect, be no disagreement, however, between him and his noble friend, if that is what I am to call them, on the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, when he said his party was deeply committed to health and prevention of disease. I suspect that all political parties are committed to that admirable sentiment; certainly mine is, I am happy to hear that his is, and no doubt also are the other parties represented in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, there are two factors that we took into account when deciding that it would be right for the Secretary of State to appoint the vice-chairman, as well as the chairman, although he does not do so in respect of health authorities. The first stems from the long established practice of maintaining a balance between contractor and non-contractor membership of the committees. It is well known, of course, that general practitioners are contractors to the National Health Service. Of course there is no such feature in health authority membership. It is our intention that in all the new FPCs the vice-chirman should not be drawn from the same group of members as that of the chairman. Thus, a contractor chairman would have a non-contractor vice-chairman and vice versa. Of course, sometimes the chairman of the FPC will be a contractor and sometimes a non-contractor, and clearly it is right that the vice-chairman should be from a different caste, if that is the right word.
Secondly—and this was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—there will be instances when we identify a potential chairman, whom we would wish to appoint when he had acquired more experience of the work of the committee. It might well be that we would feel that the experience could be best gained by a spell as vice-chairman, and we need to be able to ensure that such experience could be made available. A similar amendment was moved in Committee but was withdrawn after I had explained the reasons behind the Government's proposal. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will now be persuaded of the merit of what we propose and will see fit not to press this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I, as a former vice-chairman of a family practitioner committee, say that I entirely agree with every word that the noble Lord has just said.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The Minister has given no real reason for this different approach to the FPCs from the approach to the health authorities. The question of balance has been spoken to already by other speakers. In fact, the FPCs have always preserved that balance, although they now elect both their chairman and vice-chairman. You do not need the Secretary of State in order to get balance. As for the point about potential chairmen, that, I think, is really the wrong way of using the appointment of a vice-chairman. Far from being a strong point for agreeing to this, it is a very
748
strong point for opposing it. If you want a potential chairman, put him on the committee, let him develop with the committee, let him get au courant the committee; do not put him there automatically giving him status. Therefore, I would say that on both the grounds put forward by the Minister the amendment is preferable to the proposal in the Bill.
I would also want to add this. What the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, is of great importance: the profession feels strongly about it. I hope the Government will take that into account. I gather that on most of the issues in relation to FPCs with which the Bill is concerned there has been general agreement between the department and the profession. But I know from the letters that I have received that the profession feels strongly against the suggestion that the Minister should appoint the vice-chairman of the FPC. Since the Government are not prepared to accept what is a strong desire on the part of the profession, I hope your Lordships will, by passing this amendment, change what is in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to support the Minister, although I am quite surprised to find myself in agreement with him. On the last occasion I spoke on this point I made many of the points that have been made this evening. Even then I plumped for the non-appointment of both chairman and vice-chairman. I still think that that is the way it should be, and that neither of these people should be appointed. They should be elected from the committees as in the previous way, which is a method that has worked so well. If, however, the Secretary of State intends to appoint the chairman, the way that the Minister has put forward is perfectly logical, and that he should appoint the vice-chairman. Reluctantly, therefore, I feel I have to support the Minister on this, in a way that is quite contrary to my previous views. If I could persuade him to have both the chairman and vice-chairman elected from within the committee traditionally, in the way that has existed, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, since long before 1974. and certainly since the days when I served on a executive council, I would still wish to press him for that, but I do not like this amendment which just goes for a vice-chairman who is not appointed.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that when I withdrew the amendment in Committee I did not do so because I had found the noble Lord's answer convincing. In fact, I said that I did not find it altogether convincing but I did not want to divide the house at that time. I confess that I still do not find the answer altogether convincing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I have advanced certain reasons why this amendment is not appropriate and I am grateful for the support of my noble friends who sit behind me, qualified though it was in one respect. However, I must say that I think that, in the light of what has been said, perhaps it would be wise if I took this matter away and had another look at it. I am not giving your Lordships an undertaking to change what is proposed because we have already given this matter considerable thought and the product of that thought is contained in the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless,

749
I recognise that a number of distinguished noble Lords with a particular interest in this matter feel otherwise, and therefore perhaps it would be wise for me to take the proposals away, or at least undertake to consider the matter between now and the next stage, and write to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I confess I have always had great admiration for the skill of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, at the Dispatch Box, but I did not think that he put up a tremendously good case. The question of the contractor and non-contractor balance has already been settled very satisfactorily by the BMA, which said that this had been satisfactorily preserved over a number of years. The noble Lord's case was also further torpedoed by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
My own objection is what I consider to be the creeping power of the Secretary of State. I have always understood that the Prime Minister was against the nanny state, but it now appears that all Secretaries of State in this Government are becoming universal nannies.
There has been strong support all round the House for the amendment. The noble Lord said that he is prepared to consider it in view of the strong support, both lay and professional, that the amendment has received. However, before I decide whether to withdraw the amendment I should like to ask the noble Lord if, rather than simply writing, he would consider having a meeting with those of us who are particularly interested in this amendment to see whether we can arrive at a formula for the next stage of the Bill. Otherwise, we shall go into the next stage of the Bill and not know the Government's position and whether or not we need to table another amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether he is prepared to do that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I still have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I am naturally happy to receive the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, at any time. I am not sure that my room in the department is big enough to receive all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but certainly if he wishes to bring other noble Lords with him. I would not for a moment object. Perhaps we can therefore proceed on that basis.
Lord Kilmarnock: In view of the noble Lord's assurance, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage; but if we cannot come to a satisfactory agreement between now and Third Reading, I shall table an amendment in similar terms at the Third Reading of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 55, line 20, at end insert ("; such consultations shall include any District Health Authority whose district wholly or partly includes the locality of the Family Practitioner Committee and none of whose nominees have been appointed to the Family Practitioner Committee under paragraph 6A(1)(g)").
750
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the object of this amendment is pretty clear. Schedule 5, Part II, paragraph 6A(1) (g) provides that four members of a family practitioner committee shall be appointed from persons nominated by district health authorities,
"any part of whose district is in the locality of the Family Practitioner Committee".
In some cases, as your Lordships will be aware, more than four district health authorities are linked in this way to one and the same family practitioner committee. It seems quite improper where this occurs that one or more of them should be excluded. My amendment simply seeks to secure that where this occurs the excluded authority, or authorities, must he consulted under (h) concerning the final seven unspecified nominations in the Secretary of State's gift, with the clear implication that authorities unrepresented on the FPC under (g) should achieve representation under (h). I find it very hard to see how the Government could dispute the reasonableness of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, paragraph 6A(1)(g) provides for four appointments to a family practitioner committee to be made from persons nominated by district health authorities in the locality of that committee. Although DHA nominations need not be confined to authority members, the general intention in making these appointments will be to secure cross-membership between the FPC and the DHAs. Where more than four DHAs are involved, the Secretary of State will naturally wish to consider the nominations of those not represented under (g) when making the appointments under head (h). There need, therefore, be no DHA without a nominee on the FPC. Since all DHAs will have been consulted under the nomination arrangements proposed. I see no advantage in having a second round of consultation, which in all probability would produce no new names.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will therefore be persuaded that the difficulty that he foresaw will not, in fact, arise in practice, and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am afraid that I must tell the noble Lord that I am not quite satisfied with that. There is nothing in (h) which statutorily covers the position of the excluded DHAs. Item (h) reads:
"7 shall be appointed after such consultations with such bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
My amendment would merely add that along with these bodies the district health authorities not already represented should also be consulted. The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State would naturally consult, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to oblige him to do so. Therefore I find the answer unsatisfactory. The amendment is extremely reasonable and completely fair, and I think that I must test the opinion of the House.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65: Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chitnis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

David, B.

Peart, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

George-Brown, L.

Segal, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hooson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Willis, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Henley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hives, L.

Allerton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Avon, E.

Hunter of Newington,L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bellwin, L.

Inglewood, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bethell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Burton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caccia, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

McFadzean, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cathcart, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mansfield, E.

Colwyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliotof Harwood, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of kilmorack, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gainford, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gowrie,E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hailsham of Saint

St. Just, L.

Marlyebone, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

752

Sandford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sandys, L.

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stamp, L.

Vickers, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakefield, of Kendal, L.

Swansea, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Swinfen, L.

Young, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 56, line 6, after ("locality") insert ("and any District Health Authority whose district partly or wholly includes the locality of the family Practitioner Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31. Schedule 5, Part II paragraph 7(1) gives the Secretary of State power to vary the composition and the size of a family practitioner committee as set out in paragraph 6A. Under paragraph 7(2) he is first obliged to consult the family practitioner committee for the locality concerned if he proposes to vary its size or composition. But, as we have seen under paragraph 6A(1)(g), some district health authorities might well be excluded from representation on the family practitioner committee. Even if the substance of my Amendment No. 30 were to be secured, their representation as of right under (h) would not be there; it would merely require the Secretary of State to consult them. So there still remains the possibility that a district health authority, whose district is partly or wholly included in the locality of the family practitioner committee, might be unrepresented on that family practitioner committee.
The amendment seeks to provide that, where the Secretary of State wants to vary the size and composition of the family practitioner committee, he must consult not only that family practitioner committee, but also all those district health authorities whose districts are partly or wholly included in the locality of the family practitioner committee, whether they are represented on that committee or not.
The intention is that he should consult district health authorities, not only in their capacity as family practitioner committee members, on which they would in any case be a small minority, but also separately and distinctly as organs of the National Health Service, in order to obtain their independent views on a matter that could be of very considerable concern to them. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this is a thoroughly good idea. I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 56, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 14 and insert—
("31. The following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph 2(d) to (g) of Schedule 7 (additional provisions as to Community,' Health Councils)—
(d) the consultation of Councils by District Health Authorities or relevant Family Practitioner Committees with respect to such matters, and on such occasions, as may be prescribed:

753
(e) the furnishing of information to Councils by such Authorities and Committees, and the right of members of Councils to enter and inspect premises controlled by such Authorities;
(f) the consideration by Councils of matters relating to the operation of the health service within their districts, and the giving of advice by Councils to such Authorities and Committees on such matters;
(g) the preparation and publication of reports by Councils on such matters, and the furnishing and publication by such Authorities or Committees of comments on the reports; and".
32. In paragraph 3(d) of that Schedule,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps with this amendment I can speak to Amendments Nos. 33 and 103. The Government accepted the principle of an amendment moved in Committee that there should be statutory links between CHCs and FPCs, and agreed to move an amendment on Report to that effect. These are those amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 56, line 16, at end insert—
("33. The following paragraph shall be added at the end of that Schedule—
"8. A Family Practitioner Committee is a relevant Family Practitioner Committee in relation to a Council's district if any part of the Committee's locality is in that district, but is only a relevant Committee in relation to that Council to the extent that the Council performs its functions in relation to that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonmoved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Funding of national hospital facilities.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall have power by order to designate hospitals or specialised hospital units as national hospital facilities.
(2) Before the beginning of each financial year the Secretary of State shall specify, in respect of each national hospital facility, the sum of money which in his opinion will be required to meet the costs of that national hospital facility during that financial year.
The Secretary of State may subsequently increase, but may not decrease, sums specified under this subsection.
(3) The sums to be paid by the Secretary of State to Health Authorities under section 97(1)(a) of the National Health Service Act 1977 in each financial year shall include. in the case of a Health Authority providing a national hospital facility, the sum specified under subsection (2) above in respect of that national hospital facility.
(4) It shall be the duty of a Health Authority receiving money in respect of a national hospital facility under subsection (3) above to ensure. as far as practicable, that the money is spent for the purposes of that national hospital facility.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, once more I bring to your Lordships' notice an amendment which is concerned with the very important matter of funding national hospital facilities. Unlike the corresponding amendment, which I tabled for the Committee stage, this amendment does not provide for central funding of national hospital facilities. What it does is to try to protect such hospitals from competition for funds with other local hospitals. It does this by making it the duty of the Secretary of State to specify each year the sum of money which, in his opinion, will be required to meet the costs of that hospital, and this can be found in subsection (2). He must then pay that sum to the health authority
754
concerned, which is to be found in subsection (3). In turn, as far as practicable, they must spend it for the purposes of the hospital, which is subsection (4).
The funding of the National Health Service is very complicated indeed. I was pleased when the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said at the Committee stage that the Government had accepted the principle that services which draw patients from an area much wider than that of their own region should not have to compete directly for funds with services which the same authority has to provide for its own district. The Government have also said that they are setting up a forum to advise on which services should be covered by the new arrangements and the level of funding.
I must say here that I am pleased that spinal units, paediatric haemodialysis, chorioncarcinoma and the National Poisons Information Service have already been included in this category, which will be determined centrally and identified separately. Having had this assurance from the Minister about these four supra-regional specialties, I think it would be wrong if I did not seek assurance from the Government for other supra-regional specialties which also give lifesaving expertise, which the patients who attend them could not otherwise receive.
I know, more than ever now, that we have to be cost-conscious and aware of the need to justify the work done in all departments of the National Health Service. These very specialised units, which are of national interest, attract patients and act as national referral centres for particular difficult medical and surgical problems. They promote the development of special skills and high standards of practice in all departments. They attract staff with particular interest who otherwise might go abroad. They promote research and specialist post-graduate training.
It is vital that we do not restrict our medical choice of freedom; that patients, when their doctors feel it necessary, can cross districts and regions; and that a fair, just and simple way of funding is found. The recent reorganisation of the National Health Service has left some special supra-regional hospitals under the administration of the district in which they happen to be. I would ask the Minister to look at the Killinbeck hospital, which is in Leeds East district, as an example of what I mean.
This hospital has an international reputation as a major centre for heart surgery and investigation. Last week the healine in the Yorkshire Post newspaper was:
"Authority spends £1 million on patients not in its district. Outsiders face ban at cash hit hospital.".
This is because 80 per cent. of the cardiac patients come from outside Leeds. Many of the other districts in rural Yorkshire do not have any special facilities at all. They depend on hospitals like this for specialised treatment. As this hospital is in my region, I am confident that, as long as funds are available, a satisfactory solution will be arrived at in view of the searching endeavours of my colleagues and the officers currently involved in this difficult matter.
But what of those patients who come from outside the region? There are patients from other regions who need the expertise of this hospital as well. Killinbeck is just one of the specialising hospitals throughout the country, nationwide, which must be under stress and

755
at risk. We need to rebuild the confidence of the public in the health service and in its entirety, and thereby ensure the continuance of the facilities currently available. I await with interest the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in rising to support this amendment and in agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, I would point out that in the debate on 9th December my noble friend Lord Trefgarne stated, when he replied to a similar amendment to the one we are discussing today, that agreement had been reached with regional health authorities on proposals for earmarking funds for services which fall into the supra-regional category. He said that they would be discussing these proposals with the medical profession in January. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us the result of those discussions.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to the problems caused to regional health authorities concerning the financing of specialised departments in training hospitals and hospitals specialising in one field, such as Papworth. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned four services which he hoped would receive a new form of funding arrangement this year, but they do not include a great many major specialist departments which play a national and international role. What are these departments meant to do during the period when they are excluded from any new financial arrangements? There is, of course, the fact that any income from aboard must be taken into account in assessing the cost of such units to the National Health Service. However, by their very excellence these units will attract extra patients which will further increase costs to the new funding arrangements and give rise to greater burdens on district budgets. I await my noble friend's reply with great interest.
7 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I say something about this as a former regional health authority chairman. The problem of funding specialist hospitals is one that has been concerning the NHS for years. I have been party in the past to many meetings at the department when we have discussed what can be done. Within a region itself the regional specialties are funded off the top before the rest of the regional money is distributed. But that is not enough in itself, because the regions are short of money.
I agree that there are some specialties which are so outstanding that maybe only one is needed in the whole of the country, but if you fund off the top all it means is that the regions are getting less for standard services. This is one of the problems that exist in the NHS. We have some specialist hospitals, the postgraduate hospitals, which are special health authorities now, and they receive direct funding from the Department of Health. I believe that there is scope for a greater number with that kind of funding, but I would plead with the Government that in the present economic climate that has to be done without taking any money off the regional funding, because otherwise we just depress the services that the average person in this country uses.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the new clause before the House. I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who has had great experience in the regional health authority field that this has been a continuing problem for years and has caused extreme difficulty. I hope that the Government can come forward with something positive on this. Certainly from these Benches we support this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in this amendment. There are a few points that have been raised on which I should like to comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, commented on the number of special health authorities that have been set up. It is quite true that this Government have created seven special health authorities which are all post-graduate teaching hospitals and very much on a national basis. By so doing this Government have surely recognised that there are national needs, and provided facilities for them.
I see that this amendment refers to hospitals, but even more particularly I would speak in favour of specialised hospital units because this is where the funding raises the greatest difficulty. If we look at the London picture we certainly have major teaching hospitals, under-graduate teaching hospitals, already within normal district health authority control. Therefore, there is no way that we could take them all out and make them special. After all, the whole Health Service was reorganised to put them in with all other health facilities, and it would be defeating the whole purpose. But within these hospitals there might be one with a specialisation in a bone marrow transplant, and another specialising in some other field. I know that if the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, were here she would tell us again of the wonderful one that does the work on the lung and chest conditions.
The point that has to be appreciated is the extreme rapidity of change in medical treatment now. I am pleased to have the right to serve at the moment as a member of the National Heart Board of Governors. That is one of the seven special health authorities. In the last two years alone the number of cases of cystic fibrosis has much more than doubled. Again the treatment for cancer, the oncology treatment, has gone up and up. There is the great technology that is now constantly before us in terms of pacemakers and nuclear cardiology. All these things create a vast demand for intensely specialised work and intensely specialised expenditure.
Although the National Heart Group has its own independence of management, of course it never has adequate funds. There is no way that the Health Service will ever have all the funds that they need for the advanced treatment we should like to give. We therefore have to look carefully at how best to spend our money. I speak from quite a different point of view from the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. She has been on a regional hospital authority, and I have been on an area health authority, which now would be closer to the current district health authority. The constant battle as a member of a small health authority is in trying to get more money from the region. The region

757
has a totally different view as to how it will allocate it within the areas. Whatever area you are on, or district now, you believe that that is the district which is not getting enough money.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I interrupt for just a second? It is true that most regions in this country allocate money to the special regional specialties before they allocate to the region. They send the money to the area to spend, but there is a special amount of money for the regional specialties in every allocation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for those comments. When one is sitting as an ordinary member of a district health authority one is constantly told that, whatever happens to be the little specialty within your area, it is the one that you should not go on financing because you are financing that for patients who do not live in your area and are not ratepayers in your area. This battle goes on all the time.
I served as a local authority member, and our one concern as local authority members was to see that our ratepayers in that area were getting the facilities and treatment they needed. Although we should have liked to have additional facilities and specialised units we were not really willing to sacrifice local needs. This is why this amendment is so good, because it asks for a definite earmarking of particular funds, so that when the funds went to the district health authority they would be specifically for that purpose.
I found the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, very interesting because she implied that that was already done, but I never saw that in operation at all on the health authority on which I served. However, if it has been done in some areas and regions so much the better. It is certainly what this amendment asks. Just to quote another example, in the last year the open-heart surgery in the Brompton Hospital increased by 27 per cent.—in one year. This shows how the demand for the specialised units and the specialised treatment is growing. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I believe that the House should take full cognisance of the contributions of the three noble Baronesses because we have been listening to three ladies with enormous experience.
Baroness Trumpington: Four.
Lord Molloy: Four. I am of the opinion that unless something drastic is done we are going to strangle the financial and administrative aspects of our National Health Service by this incredible miniature over-bureaucracy at regional level. I think it fair to say that if the Ministry of Defence ran their business in the same way as the DHSS runs the National Health Service we should find great difficulty in making an assault across the Round Pond in Kensington. This has to be taken seriously.
I could give numerous examples, but I believe that the speeches that we have had from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the other noble Baronesses in support have more than adumbrated the
758
seriousness of the situation and indeed almost the stupidity of the situation. I should like to add one more dimension. I have known numerous cases where people outside a boundary laid down by some civil servants are a couple of hundred yards away from a particular specialist hospital, but they cannot go to it. If the Minister wants details I can given them. It is not half a mile, it is not a quarter of a mile; it is a couple of hundred yards. They cannot go to that one, but instead must go to one in their region, which is perhaps three or four miles away.
If I am told, "That is annoying to ordinary people, but it is difficult for them to understand the administration", then we have the process the wrong way round. We must make the administration fit the demands, requirements and desires of the people it serves. If, when the Minister replies, he will comment on the various points that noble Lords have made in this debate, I am sure that will help us to move forward to rectify some of the irritations about which I spoke last week.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, in intervening at this stage I must admit to not being knowledgeable or an expert in the health and social services of the country, but I was interested to see the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Masham. I read an interesting editorial in the Yorkshire Post (a newspaper which probably not many noble Lords read, although it is a staunch supporter of the Government) commenting on the amendment and the idea in it, and it said:
"Provided that such a scheme would not entail a blank cheque from the Government and so long as it is understood that central funding necessarily involves centralised management, the idea has much to commend it".
As there is obviously strong feeling about the idea, perhaps the right course would be for the Government to look at the whole issue again. I know they are not all that happy about it, but if they agreed to look into it again my noble friend might not press the amendment, as the issue could be discussed further.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, urged me to consider that we should reduce bureaucracy in the NHS and improve its efficiency, and that is a sentiment with which I entirely agree. Indeed, in the nearly four years we have had responsibility for these matters we have moved a long way in that direction. We have removed one whole layer of bureaucracy from the NHS; and we have taken particular care to see that the regions and districts now operate at the best level of efficiency they can attain. We have regional reviews with each region, conducted on an annual basis; and we have all sorts of other matters which we press on regions and districts, to which they are responding admirably.
It is certainly the case that the total sum of money we can make available to the NHS must, I am afraid, be a finite sum, and I am certain therefore that it is incumbent on Ministers, as it is on those managing and working in the NHS, to secure the very best value for money that we can. Those are some general observations, and I now move specifically to the amendment.
In my reply to her similar amendment in

759
Committee, I described the new arrangements for funding supra-regional services which we intend to introduce in the coming financial year. These arrangements do not require legislation, as the powers contained in the present legislation are adequate for the purpose. If the House will bear with me, I will recall briefly the main features of those arrangements. Under them, the financial allocations to certain important services which need to be planned on a national, rather than a regional, scale will be determined centrally and identified separately from the normal allocations of the health authorities concerned.
We are also setting up a forum, whose members will be drawn from health authorities and the medical profession, to advise us on the claims of particular services for supra-regional funding and the level of funding they should receive. In the first place, the arrangements will apply to four services already recognised as performing a supra-regional function: namely, paediatric renal dialysis and transplantation, spinal services, the management of chorioncarcinoma and the National Poisons Information Service—and the noble Baroness referred to that in her speech. The new forum will be able to advise on the claims of additional services, and my honourable friend the Minister for Health confirmed in a Written Answer on 21st January to Mr. Morris, that the first one we shall be asking it to consider will be bone marrow transplantation, in the light of the recent report on this subject by Sir Douglas Black's working party.
I can bring the story up to date by saying that our proposals were discussed with the medical profession at a meeting between the department and the Joint Consultants Committee on 25th January, and are now agreed with the profession as well as with regional health authorities. Nominations have been invited from both health authorities and the profession for membership of the forum, and we hope that this can start work as quickly as possible. One noble Lord asked what progress we had made since the Committee stage, and that is it.
The present amendment goes further than the one moved by the noble Baroness in Committee in imposing specific obligations on the Secretary of State and on health authorities, and in defining a mechanism by which funds would be channelled through health authorities' allocations to the units in question. There is little I could disagree with in the spirit of the amendment. But it remains our view that legislation on this subject is neither necessary nor desirable, and I shall explain why we believe that.
The legislation on which the National Health Service is based has always been broadly framed in comparison to the health service legislation of some other countries. This has given a welcome flexibility in the operation of the service, within the constraints of parliamentary accountability, and has enabled it to work to the maximum extent by consensus and agreement, and to the minimum extent by direction. Generally speaking, Government have not sought powers in legislation unless they are absolutely necessary to enable something to be done. That, in my view, is a very sound principle, and one from which I should be sorry to see us depart.
760
In the case of national or supra-regional services, the need for special funding is agreed between all the parties—the Government, the health authorities and the medical profession—and we should have the new arrangements in operation very soon. I do not feel that any purpose would be served by defining in legislation something which the parties concerned are not only willing and able to do but are already doing. With respect, the amendment also omits any reference to something we regard as a key point in our proposals; namely, the mechanism for ensuring, through the new forum, that the claims of supra-regional specialties are properly balanced against those of local district services.
As to the proposed subsection (4), I am sure that a legal sanction is not necessary to ensure that health authorities use supra-regional funds for the purposes for which they are allocated. The amounts will have been agreed nationally at the highest level and will be known to the staff of the units and everybody else. I feel that this represents a quite sufficient sanction without having it spelt out in legislation.
There is one other specific point on which I must register my disagreement. The proposed subsection (2) would make it impossible to reduce the sums allocated to national hospital facilities. I have already made clear our view that supra-regional services should not be insulated from judgments about relative priorities. Duplication and over-provision can occur in them, just as in local services, and where this happens it can be harmful to patient care—because services are not provided in the centres best equipped for the job—as well as wasteful of resources. We see it as one of the objects of supra-regional funding to achieve rationalisation where it is desirable, and this is a point on which the medical profession have been in full agreement. I am sorry that I must sound a slightly discordant note when there is so little difference between myself and the noble Baroness on the spirit of what she proposes, but I hope that with the explanations and assurances I have given, she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Before I sit down perhaps I may refer to the question of Killingbeck Hospital, which the noble Baroness specifically mentioned in her opening remarks. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is not an occasion on which to run through the long list of hospitals which may be in the minds of some of your Lordships, but, if I may, I should like to respond to the noble Baroness on this particular point because it is a matter of special interest to her, and she raised it in her opening speech. There is, I understand, no question of babies requiring urgent cardiac care being refused admission to Killingbeck Hospital. Despite what was stated in some newspaper reports, both before Christmas and more recently, emergency operations are not being cancelled and urgent cases are dealt with as and when the need arises. As with other specialties, there is of course a waiting list for non-urgent cases, and I have no doubt that that waiting list lengthened somewhat during the recent industrial dispute.
Following the recent district review meetings in the Yorkshire region, the regional health authority, of which the noble Baroness is a distinguished member, has agreed to explore the possibility of finding an alternative mechanism for funding developments in

761
regional specialties. The characteristics of the cases being treated at Killingbeck have changed because recently developed techniques in cardiac surgery mean that babies can now be operated on at a very much younger age, and that in turn means that additional demands have been placed on nursing resources for intensive post-operative care. However, as I say, the regional health authority is fully seized of the problem, and I have been able to give the assurance that no babies requiring urgent cardiac care are being refused admission to the hospital.
I hope that I have been able to allay the noble Baroness's anxiety about both the specific case that she raised and the wider issue inherent in her amendment, and that she will see fit not to press it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him about a point that I raised, which I do not think he has answered. He has listed some new things which will come into the new formula. What happens to the others? There will still be a situation in which other hospitals in an area will feel that the money is being creamed off their allowance for the specialties that are not included in the list of the new set-up. The hospitals will feel that they are suffering because of the hospital with its specialty, which is creaming off "goodies" from them.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I would say that I am sorry that I did not cover the point that my noble friend raised. I fear it is the case that there will be a very large number of hospitals which think that they ought to be included in the new special arrangements to which I have referred. I have no doubt that many of them will have a very powerful case for inclusion. However, the fact of the matter is that if overnight we included all these hospitals in the special arrangement to which I have referred, the benefit of that special arrangement would disappear at the same time, because by its very nature it needs to be selective.
Therefore I am sorry to say that some hospitals which no doubt think that they are doing a job which justifies their inclusion in the special category, as indeed they may be, will not in the short term, or even medium term, be able to be included. However, we have now fully seized ourselves of the problem. We have moved to include four specialties already. A fifth specialty is now to be urgently considered, and others will no doubt be urgently considered just as soon as the forum can be created. So I hope my noble friend will agree that we are moving as fast as we reasonably can in this matter, and I hope, too, that like, I trust, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, she will not wish to press the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken, I also wish to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his full reply. But one thing that he has said has really worried me. It is about the allocation to regions for specific hospitals—the RAWP allocation. I think that the instance I have in mind occurred before the noble Lord the Minister went to the DHSS, and I shall now tell your Lordships what happened. RAWP money was sent to the Oxford region for Stoke
762
Mandeville Hospital, but it was not spent on that hospital. In fact I know—and I heard this from the DHSS—that that part of Buckinghamshire was starved of the funds which should have gone to it. That kind of situation is a worry.
I was pleased that the noble Lord the Minister quite liked the amendment. He was worried about the funds, in case too much money was allocated to one hospital; but, after all, the allocation takes place each year and not much can be overspent in one year. Indeed, I should be very surprised if too much money was ever overspent in the National Health Service.
I want to raise the morale of the National Health Service and those who work in the specialised hospitals. We have before us another stage of this Bill, in which the Government could improve on the amendment. In that case I should like to divide the House to try to make those who are working in hospitals feel that people at Westminster really do care for them. That is the reason why I now divide the House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, am I allowed to speak again?
Several noble Lords: No.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): The Question is, That Amendment No. 34 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the bar.
My Lords, the tellers for the Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50, and the Division therefore cannot take place. I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably a convenient moment to "have the gap". The consideration of the Report stage of this Bill will not be resumed until a quarter past eight. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
7.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 be approved. This is the latest in a series of such orders which have been presented at intervals of approximately two years to deal with miscellaneous matters of a financial nature. The last order in the series was the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. The main purpose of these orders is to increase as necessary limits imposed by Northern

763
Ireland legislation on certain financial transactions and to deal with other fairly routine matters with a financial content. The orders do not deal with appropriation of resources for public services. I shall deal briefly with the substance of the main Articles.
Article 3 deals with two items in respect of which statutorily limited issues may be made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The first item relates to issues made to the Agricultural Loans Fund for on-lending to farmers. The present limit is £18 million and it is proposed to increase it to £20 million. The Agricultural Loans Fund is being phased out and the new limit should be sufficient to meet commitments until it is finally abolished. The second item relates to issues made for capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The present limit of £950 million is to be increased to £1,300 million to accommodate estimated expenditure until about March 1985.
Article 4 deals with another statutory limit and proposes an increase from £15 million to £25 million in the aggregate amount of loans and grants which may be made to harbour authorities by the Departments of Economic Development and Agriculture for harbour works. The present limit is exhausted and the new limit should cover expenditure until March 1985. Article 5 again deals with a statutory limit, in this case imposed on the aggregate amount of principal which may be guaranteed by the Department of Finance and Personnel in respect of borrowing by health and social services boards for the purpose of making loans to general medical practitioners for the provision of practice premises. The present limit of £600,000 was set in 1967 and the proposed new limit is £1,200,000.
Article 6 has the effect of abolishing the Capital Purposes Fund. This fund has outlived its usefulness. It was devised in 1950 to enable money voted for capital expenditure to be carried forward from one fiscal year to another at a time when it was particularly difficult to forecast expenditure because of such factors as shortages of building supplies. Articles 7 to 15 provide for certain loans to be made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The loans, which are described in Schedule 1, are currently made from the Government Loans Fund and these articles re-enact those provisions of the Government Loans Act (Northern Ireland) 1957 necessary to enable the lending functions to transfer to the Consolidated Fund. The 1957 Act is repealed by Schedule 4.
Article 16 provides for the prolongation of the term of an issue of Ulster savings certificates to be achieved by means of direction of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Currently changes of this nature have to be made by means of subordinate legislation. The new provision will bring Northern Ireland practice into line with that operating in Great Britain (to whose analogous issues the Ulster savings certificate issues are tied) and will significantly alleviate administrative inconvenience in the responsible department. I would remind the House that throughout all this we are not voting any new funds, and I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House
764
on 14th December be approved—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this order, and in general we give it our support and approval. I believe the noble Earl said that the Agricultural Loans Fund was to be phased out. I must confess that I had not ascertained that from the order. Perhaps he would explain where it is mentioned in the order. The provisons for agriculture, harbours, health and personnel purposes are welcomed as is that for the Housing Executive. May I ask the noble Earl whether the increase, which I gather from him will carry through requirements until March 1985, reflect just possible inflation price increases or will it represent increased activity? Will it help to relieve the housing problems in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that from figures which I saw the other day I understand that in the construction industry in Northern Ireland there are as many unemployed as there are in employment; and there are many problems to be relieved.
The other question I would ask as to the abolition of the Capital Purchase Fund, which seems a commonsense procedure, is this. In the conditions laid down in Part III and Schedule 1 regarding the Government Loans Fund—and to check this would require a lot of research on other orders—are there any notable changes to which the noble Earl should draw our attention; or are the changes in conformity with what has happened previously? The change in the Ulster savings certificates again seems a very reasonable provision.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to indicate first my support for the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. The part of the order to which I wish to draw attention and which concerns me is Article 16 which deals with Ulster savings certificates. Whatever may be the arguments for or against Ulster savings certificates as being an obsolete or expensive way for Governments to undertake borrowing, I believe that the Ulster savings certificates have the support of the Northern Ireland people. Since they were first introduced some 60 years ago the Ulster savings certificates have provided an easy, useful and attractive method for savings by Northern Ireland people of limited means. I understand that there are some 140,000 registered certificate holders who have currently about £350 million invested in Ulster savings certificates.
I am convinced that there are considerable amounts still to be attracted to the Ulster savings certificate form of investment. As we know, there is at present great and vigorous competition for this personal-savings type of finance, from trustee savings banks, the Post Office, national savings, building societies and other areas.
However, what I should like to see is a more aggressive marketing of Ulster savings certificates in Northern Ireland, coupled with much more easily and readily available up-to-date information, particularly about the interest earning potential of the earlier issues of the Ulster savings certificates. I think that the current issue is the 25th one. Details about the

765
earnings potential adds considerable attraction to the present issues, especially if there is confidence and information readily available about past issues. I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he would kindly undertake to examine this point. I have not given notice of it and I do not expect a reply this evening.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for the work regarding Ulster savings certificates. I have been to see the people concerned on site and I have addressed them in the course of my duties in Northern Ireland. The point that he made is not strictly appropriate to this order. However, I shall have a look at the general point that he made.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that this is not simply a matter of making adjustments in the light of inflation or in the light of need. This is a mechanism in respect of moving money about, if I may put it that way. Any new monies determined by inflation or need would have to he voted accordingly. Articles in this draft order which fix financial limits simply enable issues to be made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for the services concerned. It enables you to get the money out, so to speak.
Nothing I have said tonight or which I am seeking to move in your Lordships' House prescribes the amounts which are allocated to any of these concerns in any given financial year. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the Housing Executive. What happens is that this Housing Executive borrows from the Consolidated Fund to finance its capital expenditure on new building, rehabilitation, improvement, land acquisition, home loans, office accommodation and the like. The revised borrowing limit has been framed having regard to the agreed physical programme and approved resource allocations. That approval is sought separately.
On the question of the Agricultural Loans Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, he may be aware that in recent years there has been a significant reduction in the level of demand for loans and, following consultation with representatives of farming interests in the Province, it was decided that the lending facilities should be terminated. No loan applications have been accepted since November 1979. Therefore the Agricultural Loans Fund is being phased out in any case. It is not being phased out by this order which is why the noble Lord could not find it, but this order makes consequential changes. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Milk (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Milk (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th October 1982, be approved. The order consolidates the Milk Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 and the Milk (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1963. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 8th December 1982 and the committee was
766
satisfied that it is a purely consolidating measure. It therefore makes no changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Quarries (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Quarries (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th October 1982, be approved. This order consolidates the Quarries Act (Northern Ireland) 1927 and the enactments amending that Act. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 8th December 1982 and the committee was satisfied that it is a purely consolidating measure, and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. It therefore makes no changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.46 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
Report stage resumed.
Schedule 6 [Medical practitioners, etc.]:
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 57, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
("(7) Regulations may provide that this Act and any regulations made under it shall apply in relation—

(a) to the making of arrangements for the temporary provision of general medical services; and

(b) to the provision of general medical services in pursuance of any such arrangements,

subject to such modifications as may be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments No. 35 and 37 together although, as your Lordships are aware, I shall be able to move only No. 35 at this stage. The two amendments are both statutory provisions which are to apply to temporary arrangements for general medical services as well as to normal arrangements. These include some which bear on the provision of services; for example, the terms of service of general practitioners and also the service committee regulations. Section 29(7) of the National Health Service Act 1977, as inserted by paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 to the Bill before us, therefore needs to refer not only, as at present drafted, to the making of arrangements for the addition of names to the list, but also to the provision of services under those arrangements. The same considerations apply to Section 19(6) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, as

767
inserted by paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 7 to this Bill. These are two slightly complicted amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 58, line 41, at end insert—
(" Transitional
5. Until the commencement of section 9 and Schedule 5 of this Act—

(a) the references in sections 29(2)(f) and 29(6) of the National Health Service Act 1977 to "locality" shall have effect as references to "district or combined district"; and

(b) paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 to that Act shall have effect as if after the word "authority", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted the words "(other than a Family Practitioner Committee)".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we expect Schedule 6 to the Bill to come into effect before the main FPC provisions in Section 9 and Schedule 5. However, the provisions of Schedule 6 which affect FPCs anticipate the new status of those committees provided for in Section 9 and Schedule 5. It is therefore necessary to make transitional modifications to those provisions of Schedule 6 so that they apply to FPCs only in so far as is appropriate to the present status of these committees—that is, until such time as Section 9 and Schedule 5 are introduced. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place at which to raise this point, but it certainly comes under Schedule 6. Whether or not it relates to this particular amendment, perhaps the noble Minister will tell me. I am concerned that what is said about suspension of registration is appropriate only to doctors and not to dentists. I would ask the Minister to ensure that eventually dentists are also included at an appropriate point. I wondered whether this current amendment covered the point.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I would reply, albeit briefly, to my noble friend. I am advised by my noble friend the Minister that he has this very day written a letter on this point to my noble friend Lady Gardner. I hope that will cover her query; but if there is something which still troubles her on the amendments I have raised, or indeed concerning Schedule 6, I have no doubt we shall be in touch after this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendment of National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978]:
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 59, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—
("(6) Regulations may provide that this Act and any regulations made under it shall apply in relation—

(a) to the making of arrangements for the temporary provision of general medical services; and

(b) to the provision of general medical services in pursuance of any such arrangements,

subject to such modifications as may be")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential and I spoke to it with amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 59, line 45, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief and technical amendment. It is consequential upon Amendment No. 37, but perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a matter of seconds. Amendment No. 37 enabled regulations to modify the provisions of the 1978 Act when applied to the making of arrangements for the temporary provision of general medical services. It is. therefore, unnecessary to retain paragraph 3 of Schedule 7, since the modifications that it would have made in the 1978 Act may now be made by regulations. My Lords, I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Charges for various social services provided by local authorities]:
8.21 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided always that—

(a) such charges (if any) take account of the extra costs of disability: and

(b) no charge is levied in respect of any person whose income is equal to or less than is or would be calculated on his long-term supplementary benefits requirements: and

(c) the general basis for calculating charges (if any) is published by the local authority concerned.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this case I have received a letter dated 9th January from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. In that letter he referred to an amendment to Clause 1, which was eventually to Schedule 5. But I will let that pass. The noble Lord indicated that discussions are going on. I should like to take this opportunity, much to the noble Lord's surprise, to thank him for his letter, in which he indicated that useful discussions were taking place with the ACC and the AMA, and that there was expectation of possible amendments to meet the points that I made at Committee stage, and will make now, regarding the exemption from charges of people on low incomes and with small capital resources.
Naturally, I accept the Government's sympathetic and constructive approach and I may not press my amendments, because I am looking forward to something happening in another place in due course. But in stating that, I should particularly like to draw the Minister's attention to sub-paragraph (c) of the amendment, because it is absolutely essential that people who are likely to face such charges, and, even more important, those who help and advise them on their rights, should be aware of the basis on which such charges are calculated. I trust that the Minister will find himself in a position to take the point on board during the discussions in another place, before reaching the possibility of putting down amendments. Also it is very important indeed to take into account the extra costs of disability, because, as I think he will readily understand, there are indeed extra costs.
I am dealing with all of the amendments from No. 39 to No. 43. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42—this will no doubt please the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—are simply designed to extend to Scotland a similar provision to that provided by the successful

769
amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, at the Committee stage deleting the means test. We on this side feel that what is good enough for England is good enough for Scotland, and I hope we can be told that that will be deleted.
As I said, I have had that very satisfactory and reasonable letter from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and, if he will reply to me on the point about local authorities publishing the charges, so as to give guidance, and will give some degree of assurance on disability charges, I shall be very grateful indeed and, after that, I shall be quite willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to take up this point about publishing charges and to put the other case. I do not really support the amendment about a general basis for calculating charges being published by local authorities, as it may have exactly the reverse effect to that hoped for by the noble Lord. I fear that publishing how charges are calculated, which would certainly not be a simple or easily understood document, would rather deter people from applying, because they might misinterpret the listing as set out by the local authority and think, "It isn't worth my while applying, because I will not get help".
I would refer the noble Lord to the part of the Bill which states that an authority,
"may recover from him such charges (if any)…as they consider reasonable".
I speak remembering my time as chairman of social services at Westminster Council, and there was a time when we had a scale of fees and charges for home helps. But it was then decided that it was far better to assess the need for a home help, and so on, purely on the condition of the persons and not in any way on his ability to pay. There is no reason for saying that the publication of any general list in those cases would have helped people. The whole policy was reviewed by the council. Every charge that was made, whether for meals-on-wheels, home helps or any other local authority service was an extremely complicated calculation, both in regard to costs and in regard to the way in which a client's possibility of paying was assessed. Many local authorities have come to the conclusion that the need for the service is more important than the need to assess its costing.
I should also like to put to the Minister the reverse side of the coin. It has always distressed me that old people, who have been careful, thrifty and, perhaps, fortunate and who have managed to put aside small savings, often feel obliged to divest themselves of every penny of those funds in order to go into an old people's home and not be charged. That is a very common practice. I have heard Members of another party in this Chamber saying that they felt that those people should be stopped from giving their money away to their relations. I cannot agree with that view, because I feel that they are entitled to spend their money in any way they wish. But this whole matter of charges is extremely complex. There is no simple, easy or inexpensive way of publishing a list which clients could look at and decide very easily whether or not they are eligible for something. It would be better to have them apply to the council, and then be told by
770
some qualified person who was sympathetic to their case what possiblity they had of receiving attention.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I would give general support to this amendment, although there is a good deal of weight in what the noble Baroness has just said. With regard to sub-paragraph (c), we should certainly take that very much into consideration, and I am fully in support of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). It is vitally important in all matters which are in any way connected with social security to take into account the extra costs of disability. Indeed, we have from time to time pressed the Government to embark on a certain amount of research with regard to that and such research is much needed. Of course, it seems perfectly reasonable that people who are on or below the supplementary benefit level should not be required to contribute towards these services. So in general, and with that one reservation, I am in support of the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has moved. I am glad that he has had a satisfactory letter from the Minister dealing with this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to this short discussion.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the Minister replies may I say in support of my noble friend, and partly in answer to the noble Baroness, that it would not be a new principle. Local authorities have set tables for application for rent rebates and rate rebates: to apply for family income supplement the details are set out and generally available. Therefore, it is not a new principle. It would give some guidance to potential applicants and make the situation known to the people in the area, which I think is perfectly right. The ad hoc individual decision can be just fortuitous and not always easily explained or understood. I hope the Minister will help us. If in any way we can co-operate and look at this again, of course we will.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41 and 42 which deal specifically with the Scottish dimension, and Amendment No. 43. In part these amendments are similar in intention to the amendments which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness moved to this clause in Committee. I leave aside the Scottish amendments because that is not so in regard to them. At that stage they were seeking to relieve people on low incomes and with small capital resources from local authority charges for the services that they need. Subsection (b) of the present amendment, using a different formula, has the same intention. Subsection (a) seeks to add another factor to those which local authorities must seek to take into account when assessing charges; namely the costs which may occur as a result of being disabled.
As I said when we debated the amendments in Committee on 13th December, the Government are in complete sympathy with the principle of not charging those who are living at supplementary benefit level or who would suffer real hardship if they were required to pay charges. We did not feel able to accept the amendments proposed in Committee, as there are practical difficulties in the operation of an exclusion formula of this kind on which we thought it best to

771
consult the local authority associations. I undertook to look into the matter with the associations and, if possible, to introduce an amendment at Report stage. On this basis the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his amendment.
I can now report to your Lordships that my officials have had useful discussions with the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on these points, but have not yet been able to agree a formula. The discussions highlighted a number of practical difficulties and the need for further work to ascertain the full effects of the amendment which the associations have agreed to undertake. I regret that I am not able, therefore, to propose a Government amendment at this stage, but I hope to be able to reach conclusions on proposals which will move in the direction desired before the Bill is discussed in Committee in another place. Our discussions with the associations will also cover factors which should be taken into account when assessing charges including the costs of disability referred to in subsection (a) of the amendment.
As far as subsection (c) is concerned, this is a new suggestion. Again, I feel it is important to seek the views of the local authority associations before imposing a statutory requirement upon individual local authorities. In view of the need for further consultation which I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not wish to press their amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, no; I do not intend to press the amendment. I have received quite satisfactory assurances from the noble Lord. I hope the negotiations will be successful and something very practical can be moved in another place. However, what about Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 which deal with Scotland? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("whether generally or")
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("means of the person from whom they are to recover them, in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will deal with amendments Nos. 41 and 42 which relate to Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these two amendments deal with a rather different point, but I am afraid that the Government do not accept that they are desirable. Indeed, Amendment No. 41 would be contrary to the intention to simplify procedures and charging policy, would increase the administrative costs to Scottish local authorities and reduce the flexibility which seems both sensible and appropriate, given the scope of services covered by Section 87(1) of 1968 Act.
Clause 12(3) covers the whole range of services provided under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, including residential services and services for children in care. Under Clause 12(3) authorities have some
772
discretion to make an individual assessment which takes account of the means of the person concerned. They may also waive or reduce any charge or contribution if circumstances demand. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the existing power of social work authorities in Scotland to set an appropriate standard charge for a service and to set the standard contribution in respect of children in care. These would apply unless the person concerned could not afford the standard rate. In which case he would be assessed and pay according to his needs, or not at all if the charge or contribution were waived. This amendment would mean that Scottish authorities were not empowered to set a standard contribution for children in care, whereas the amendment in Clause 13 to Section 46 of the Child Care Act 1980 clarifies that English and Welsh authorities do have such a power.
I have already explained to your Lordships that, as a result of previous debates in Committee, we are discussing with the local authority associations in England and Wales the desirability of certain amendments to Clauses 12 and 13 and the scope for central guidelines on the operation of authorities' charging policy and in particular the question of assessment. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is similarly consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. In the light of these consultations such amendments as seem appropriate to Clauses 12 and 13, including the Scottish provisions, will be looked at again in another place. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I am satisfied with the fact that Scotland will be treated equally. I beg leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 41 and 42
Amendments, by leave,withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.].
8.37 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) Recovery of charges by local authorities shall be subject to a code of practice prepared by the Secretary of State and submitted to Parliament.
Such code of practice shall be subject to periodical review.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite an important issue. One of the main problems of local authority charges is the wide variation in application between areas; in other words, a person in one area can be more favourably treated compared with another person in similar circumstances in another area. There is not doubt about it that a state of unfairness exists. There is an obvious need for an agreed standard on which charges should be based.
Whilst I agree entirely that there are difficulties in reaching agreement with the local authority associations in recent consultations that have taken place, any question of unnecessary disparity must be resolved. From the information I have received, I do not think that there is any possibility of agreement being reached with the local authorities. I may be

773
wrong, of course. Therefore, I agree that local authorities should not be subjected to too much interference from Whitehall. But there is a clear case here to remove an injustice. The Minister must have power to take action. Submission to Parliament, as mentioned in the amendment, does not necessarily mean "subject to parliamentary approval" and all that that entails. The schedule, if submitted to Parliament, will be available to Member of both Houses and to the public. That is all I ask in moving Amendment No. 44.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have already said, we are currently discussing the implementation of the proposals on charging in the Bill with the local authority associations. I have also explained that similar consultations are being held between the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Both sets of consultations include the question of guidance to local authorities on the recovery of charges for their day and domiciliary services. I still think it would be preferable if such guidance were prepared by the local authority associations themselves rather than by the respective Secretaries of State, and I would not want to prevent such a development by agreeing to this amendment before the outcome of the consultations was clear. Should the associations conclude that they cannot provide guidance, it may be necessary to prepare such guidance centrally.
Codes of practice do not have the force of law in any strict sense. They are essentially for the purpose of giving guidance. It is not clear from the amendment whether what is intended is that the code should be laid before Parliament for information or that it should be subject to parliamentary approval—as, for example, in the case of regulations. The drafting therefore leaves a little to be desired. There will of course be no objection to laying any code before Parliament for information but I would be opposed to giving such guidance, which would necessarily be complex, the force of a regulation. Such a procedure would make the guidance impossibly difficult and, I fear, costly to administer. It is also not clear which local authority charges are to be covered by the proposed code. Clause 12(3) embraces both charges and contributions in respect of children in care.
In the light of these difficulties but, more importantly, in the light of the consultation to which I have referred—which I hear is not going so badly as the noble Lord may have heard—
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I may have been misled on that point.
Lord Trefgarne: And so may I, for all that. However, I hear that the consultation is at least continuing, and while it is continuing there is certainly hope that it will be satisfactorily concluded. In the light of that consultation and in the light of the admittedly minor difficulties to which I have referred, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. When I inserted the words "submitted to Parliament", I have to tell the noble Lord that nobody guided me. It was my own effort. I meant "laid before Parliament". I agree with the noble Lord that it would
774
be very difficult to try to introduce this by regulation. I take some heart from the fact that the noble Lord hopes that the negotiations will be successful. If they are not successful, there is always the possibility of the Government making up their own mind. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Contributions in respect of children in care]:
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The following subsection shall be inserted after section 45(1) of that Act—
"(1A) A person shall not be liable under subsection (1)(i) above to make any contribution during any period when he is—

(a) in receipt of benefits under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976; or

(b) in receipt of a family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and agreed by him or, in default of agreement,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move Amendment No. 46 and to speak to Amendment No. 47. The effect of Amendment No. 46 is to reintroduce the requirement currently contained in the Child Care Act 1980 for the local authority to seek the agreement of the contributor on the amount of the contribution. Amendment No. 47 provides that where agreement is not reached within the one month period, or where agreement is reached but the contributor subsequently defaults in payment of two or more contributions, the local authority is empowered to bring the matter before the magistrates' court. I remember that we had a discussion on this issue, or a related one, during the preceding stage of the Bill. I hope that these two amendments now meet with the agreement of your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 16, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—
("(i) has not, within the period of one month beginning with the day on which the notice was served agreed with the local authority on the amount of his contribution, or
(ii) has defaulted in making two or more contributions of an amount which has been agreed with the local authority at any time,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Recovery of sums due to local authority where persons in residential accommodation have disposed of assets]:
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert ("knowingly and with the intention of avoiding charges for the accommodation").

775
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49. With your Lordships' permission, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 50 and 52. Clause 15 had a very difficult passage during the Committee stage, with the Minister frequently referring to the need to prevent people wilfully disposing of assets in order to avoid charges. But there was obvious confusion about what exactly constituted an asset. There is obviously the possibility of some people conspiring to avoid charges deliberately, with intent to avoid, as distinct from elderly persons handing over treasured possessions to those who have been kind and helpful to them. Such persons should not be subject to the possibility of penal action being taken against them. Deliberate intent to avoid must be proved. That is the purpose of the amendment.
A point which has occurred to me since the Committee stage is that even if Clause 15 is not amended, as it should be, there is nothing to stop conspiring relatives—who do exist—or so-called friends from indulging in pressure tactics to persuade an elderly person to part with assets before the six-month period stated in the Bill is over, because they know that the elderly person concerned is failing fast and is almost certain to go into a home in a few months' time. This is not a desirable clause but, having failed to delete it, it should be amended on the lines I have suggested, which I believe constitute an improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as always, I find myself lost in admiration for the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. I am happy to accept Amendment No. 49 but not, I fear, the others to which he spoke.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am almost overcome. I included the word "wilfully" because I thought that by doing so I would please the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. However, I willingly agree not to move Amendment No. 50. As for Amendment No. 49 being accepted, that has made my day. I shall be very generous from now on. I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Jegermoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 17, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I intend to anticipate any criticism by the noble Lord the Minister of my drafting failures by saying straight away that I have put down this amendment in a search for information. Amendment No. 51, which I beg to move, seeks to leave out subsection (2), which refers to Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and to cash and any other asset which falls to be taken into account when assessment is made under it.
I have experienced a great deal of difficulty with this, and felt that I should ask for the help of the noble Lord
776
the Minister because the people who have to implement this provision may also be puzzled. It seems to me that Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 was subsumed by paragraph 20 of Schedule 6 to the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, and so I turn to that Act having checked the references with the Library, because I do not have enough lawyer friends to do these things for me. I find that that Act says,
"If person has deprived himself of any resources for the purpose of securing benefit or increasing the amount thereof those resources may be taken into account as if they were still his.".
That is different from the present Bill, which does not say that the resources "may" be taken into account but that they "shall" be taken into account. Therefore, we should not cross-reference to Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which has been subsumed by the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, when that Act uses the word "may" and not the word "shall". Paragraph 29 of Schedule 2 to the 1966 Act states quite clearly:
"a person shall be deemed for the purposes of this schedule to own an asset if he is absolutely entitled in possession to the whole beneficial interests therein …".
I really do not know what this means.
At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and I were particularly anxious to find out what was the definition of "assets" or of "resources". We were given no definition. We had a very interesting debate about the value of the noble Baroness's beautiful ring and of my old motor car. We secured no clear answer to either example. The noble Lord the Minister who replied, Lord Lyell, made clear that he thought this would refer only to substantial assets. As we read in the Official Report for 13th December (col. 401), he said that local authorities operating this clause will have to go through two hoops:
"first, that there is considerable value.".
What legal authority did the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, have for saying that? I have gone through all the statutes and references and can find nowhere a statement that there has to be "considerable value". To the contrary, the only definition given is that the person is
"absolutely entitled in possession".
That raises doubts in the minds of people as to what is meant by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in his reference to "considerable value"; or whether there is to be a check list of possessions which a local authority may take into account, and whether they can demand to know what has happened to them. We raised the question of whether people could give away possessions which they would like to keep in the family, or whether all the items we were in possession of six months before entering a home counted.
There is another dangerous aspect to this provision. It could be that an elderly person might dispose of assets, perhaps pressed by the family, more than six months before he or she goes into a home, so this does not apply. Then, come the date when it was expected that the elderly person would go into a home, there may not be a place for him or her and this person would then be left without assets or a home. That is another area of confusion for some of the people who are working in this area.

777
My noble friend has referred to the phrase, "the deliberate abandonment of assets", and we accept that this phrase is taken from previous legislation—first entering parliamentary parlance, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, in Schedule 1 to that Act. But paragraph 28 of Schedule 1 states only that,
"those resources may be taken into account …".
If the noble Lord the Minister is resting his case on the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, why is that not the cross-reference in this Bill?
I am not seeking to pick a quarrel with the noble Lord, but I cannot understand why the cross-reference is to the National Assistance Act 1948. If the unfortunate people who have to implement the provisions of this Bill are referred to the National Assistance Act 1948, they will then have to pursue their studies by referring to the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, and then they will find themselves led on through a jungle of legislation to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. Should the cross-reference not be to more recent and relevant Acts? I am sure there is a good reason why my confusion is misplaced, but if that point can be explained it will help many people besides myself. Surely there must be a clearer way of informing people of the Government's intentions, even if one agreed with the intentions, which I do not. Surely there could be some clarity, even if unwelcome clarity.
In the Official Report for 13th December (col. 398) the noble Lord the Minister made it clear that this section applied only to persons who deliberately deprived themselves of assets; but the word "deliberately" does not appear in the clause. That is another puzzle to some of us. This amendment calls into question the whole position, but I know that I must limit myself to the specific content of the amendment. I have tried to clarify the position, but I am unable to do so, and that is why I need help. I wondered whether there was any information which prompted the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. For example, I cannot help wondering whether there would be an orgy of grandmothers all queueing up at Christie's and Sotheby's selling their tiaras before they moved into old people's homes. On 22nd December (col. 1157) I asked a Question for Written Answer. I asked:
"How may prosecutions have been brought to the last convenient date against persons deliberately abandoning assets prior to claiming social security benefits …".
The noble Lord replied:
"None; the deliberate abandonment of assets for the purpose of securing supplementary benefit or reducing the charge for local authority accommodation … is not a criminal offence".
I do not know what were the powers of enforcement in Section 22 of the National Assistance Act. I had to ask the noble Lord again on 17th January—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but this is rather an important point. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, be good enough to read out the subsequent sentence in the Written Answer I gave to her Question?
Baroness Jeger: I will read it all—I was only trying to save the time of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, stated:
778
"None: the deliberate abandonment of assets for the purpose of securing supplementary benefit or reducing the charge for local authority residential accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 is not a criminal offence."
Full stop: end of Written Answer. But now we are cross-referencing to the National Assistance Act in this present clause as if it were an offence and as if there were going to be possible prosecutions. In fact, during the course of the previous debate the noble Lord said that it would be for the courts to decide on this issue, when local authorities felt that this rule had been breached. If it is a matter for the courts, presumably we are now making a criminal offence of something which was not a criminal offence under Section 22 of the National Assistance Act.
So, eager for knowledge—the noble Lord will be glad to know this is my last point—I put down another Question for Written Answer on 17th January 1983 (col. 1272) to ask:
"In view of the fact that the deliberate abandonment of assets…is not at present a criminal offence, what sanctions are applied to persons believed to have deliberately abandonded assets for the above purpose?"
I will read the whole of the noble Lord's Answer:
"The sanction against a person who deliberately abandons his assets is that he may be treated as still possessing them. For supplementary benefit claimants that could mean loss of benefit, but for Part III residents it might result in an accumulating debt of unpaid charges. Although there is no centrally-held information, I understand that the powers to take into account abandoned assets are used only rarely."
If this is happening only rarely, why are we to have these changes; why cannot we leave these things as they are?
I am not condoning deliberate abandonment of assets or cheating in any way. I just do not understand why the change is being made at a time when the Minister admits that powers to take into account abandoned assets are used only rarely, and why we are now proposing to make an offence which could come before the courts that which was not an offence in the legislation to which there is cross-reference in subsection (2) of Clause 15. I apologise if I have produced some confusion, but how much more confused will those people be who will not have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Minister? I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to follow up the speech made by the noble Baroness. I questioned earlier, and I now question again, under this amendment of hers, the need for this subsection at all. I think the whole issue of abandonment of assets has come up due to pettiness and jealousies that have arisen. The person who goes in and has no funds of any sort does not have to meet any charge: the person who has ample funds meets the charge. In my experience, those who have been found to divest themselves of assets are those who have had a small amount of savings and who have felt that they would like to give them to someone—either a relation to help them in their life or to some other person. It seems to me there is a whole lot of jealousy and envy that has created the pressures that have brought the Government to bring this forward on what is really a very minor matter.

779
I also think that those persons who have saved small assets often feel quite bitter, because they have all their lives paid their rates in full to the local authority and they feel that this is some return they are entitled to at the end; whereas those who are paying no charges probably also had a complete rate rebate, possibly a rent rebate, and have had the benefit all their lives. Perhaps it is unfortunate that they were in a position to require those benefits; but it seems to me that the situation arises that the thrifty persons who have small assets will possibly be penalised, and their families.
In Australia at the moment all the old-age pensioners are creating the greatest boon for the travel industry, because they are all trying to spend all their money on travel while they can, and enjoy it. This line is being promoted. We will have the same thing here. All the people who think they are getting to the point of going into any sort of Part III accommodation will be out living it up—and perhaps that will not be a bad thing for them.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow my noble friend half across the world to Australia to discuss the benefits to the travel industry of the arrangements that operate in that country. As I have said previously, during Committee stage and again today, subsection (2) was introduced to ensure that the definition of assets for the purposes of these recovery provisions was the same as in the statutory provisions which govern local authorities charging procedures. In other words, the provisions of this clause can operate only where a local authority has decided, in the course of making an assessment of charges, that the resident concerned has deliberately divested himself of a relevant asset. Without the limitations of this subsection the recovery provisions of this clause could operate on any asset of which a resident may have deprived himself, whether or not that asset had been taken into account by the authority when assessing his ability to pay for the accommodation. I should like to underline the point, therefore, that we are narrowing the range of assets that could be taken into account for this purpose.
The present charging procedures rest for their interpretation of scope upon the regulations which govern claimants under the supplementary benefits scheme. But we intend to make separate regulations later this year under the provisions of Section 22(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948, which, contrary to what the noble Baroness suggested—and I do not pretend that following these matters is at all easy—has now been amended by the Social Security Act 1980. There has of course been a whole list of measures since 1948 relating to these matters, and I do not complain that the noble Baroness does not quite get it right when she refers to the latest amending legislation. Indeed, I am not even 100 per cent. certain that I have got it right, but so I am advised. The regulations which are to be made later this year will express the requirements specifically in relation to charges for Part III accommodation. Subsection (2) will link those regulations with the powers of recovery in this clause.
During Committee stage several noble Baronesses, and I think one or two noble Lords, wanted to know
780
whether personal possessions such as jewellery were regarded as assessable capital. Subject to certain exceptions, such possessions are, I understand, disregarded. The exceptions include recent acquisitions which are in the nature of an investment, but this detail will be re-stated when we make the new regulations, which will put the matter beyond any doubt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, also asked about the confusion over "may" on the one hand in the supplementary benfit legislation and "shall" in the Bill. The reference to the National Assistance Act is, as I said, Section 22(5). That is, of course, the power under which the regulations will be made. Section 22(5) itself does not, therefore, specify the detail. The detail comes in the regulations and, as I said, new regulations are to be made later this year. I assure the noble Baroness that the exchanges that have occurred tonight and during the earlier stages on this Bill will be taken fully into account in framing the regulations.
The noble Baroness also asked about the criminal aspects of this matter. These are not criminal matters, of course, and the provisions do not provide for any criminal liability. The local authority is empowered to take account of the assets abandoned and to assess the resident accordingly. If the charge is not paid the resident will be liable under civil law, so it becomes a civil matter not a criminal one. The noble Baroness asked about the sanction in the Written Answer to which she referred. The essential sanction is the loss of benefit or the need to pay charges, but occasionally a situation can arise where the matter becomes one for the civil law. In general, that is not so, and I hope that in the light of this explanation—
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, can he tell the House whether the inquiries which his department must have made into this whole matter before framing this legislation have given the noble Lord the kind of information which will enable him to tell the House anything about the frequency with which he thinks this power may be required? I ask that question because my experience as a general practitioner dealing with old people is that the country s not full of old people with a compelling desire to give everything away. Indeed, my experience is to the contrary. Can the noble Lord say how often he thinks this power will be required?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I told the noble Baroness in the earlier Written Answer to which she referred that we have no record of the power being used, certainly not recently. I think the power may well have a deterrent effect. That does not refer to the old people themselves, because I readily accept that 99.99 per cent. of old people are not concerned with divesting themselves of assets for this improper purpose. What I fear is the case of an old person, perhaps confused and, sadly, on the point of going into a home, being leaned upon by an unscrupulous relative or close friends to divest himself of assets, perhaps to the friends or relative themselves. That is what we are seeking to prevent and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that these measures should proceed.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the kindly way in which he has dealt with my insufficiencies, but I still think that there will be some difficulties for people who try to understand this Bill. I just leave two problems with the noble Lord. He assures us that Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 is the basic Act containing the powers under which regulations will be made. Would it not be helpful to have something in the Bill to that effect so that the assessment of assets will be made under regulations to be prepared and laid by the Secretary of State? There is nothing in the Bill as it stands which refers to regulations for assessing assets.
Moreover, I hope the noble Lord can look again at the definition of "assets". I believe he said that jewellery did not count. I do not know what statutory authority exists for saying that jewellery does not count. Would I be all right if, instead of disposing of my old motorcar, I bought a piece of jewellery, which I do not normally bother with? Would that be all right? These arc practical questions. I cannot find any reference anywhere which excludes jewellery. I hope that before the Bill passes into law some guidance will be given to people as to what is regarded as an asset or as a resouce, because existing legislation says that something is an asset if the person "is absolutely entitled in possession". That could mean anything. All I am asking is for some clarification. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 18, line 3, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act")
Page 18, line 5, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I should like to move these amendments together. These are drafting amendments which pave the way for references to Part III in Clauses 16 and 17 in place of specific references to the relevant statutes in each case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Arrears of contributions charged on land]:
9.14 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslanyhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 55:
Leave out Clause 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we are back with Fred Karno again. Here am I, poor little me—intending to move that we leave out Clause 16 in order to raise some very complicated issue on Clause 16, and right at the last minute a starred amendment is tabled by the Government deleting Clause 16 and giving me another complicated clause. The issue that I wanted to raise was complicated enough, but this has certainly put me in some difficulty. God knows! I should have been in difficulties trying to explain my question originally but under these ridiculous circumstances, with the Government causing us so much inconvenience, I do not intend to debate this matter or
782
to raise my point, because I must relate it to the new clause which has so suddenly appeared on the Marshalled List with a star against it. Therefore, under some degree of protest I shall not move the amendment at this stage, but will raise it again on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 56:
Leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new clause—
>"Arrears of contributions charged an interests in land in England and Wales.
(16.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person who avails himself of Part III accommodation provided by a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland—

(a) fails to pay any sum assessed as due to be paid by him for the accommodation; and

(b) has an interest in land in England or Wales,

the amount of the debt in respect of the sum assessed as due to be paid shall be a charge on his interest in the land.
(2) In the case of a person who has interests in more than one parcel of land the charge under subsection (1) above shall be upon his interest in such one of the parcels as the local authority may determine.
(3) Any charge under this section on an interest in land shall vest in the local authority who provided the Part III accommodation of which the owner of the interest availed himself.
(4) Any such charge shall in the case of unregistered land he a land charge of Class B within the meaning of section 2 of the Land Charges Act 1972 and in the case of registered land be a registrable charge taking effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, must have realised when he saw our amendment on the Marshalled List that we were seeking only to be of assistance to the noble Lord in not only tabling an amendment which included the very proper suggestion that he raised, that we should leave out Clause 16, but that in addition we should add a new and enhanced and improved Clause 16, and I shall explain that to your Lordships now.
The substitute Clause 16 which the Government are now seeking to incorporate has, I am afraid to say, the same intention as the existing clause. I shall draw your Lordships' attention only to the small drafting changes that the new clause contains.
The charge under the existing Clause 16 is a local land charge registrable in the local land charges register kept by the local authority in whose area the land affected by the charge is situated. The main change is that the substitute clause will—instead of a local land charge—provide for the imposition of a land charge registrable in the register of land charges kept by Her Majesty's Land Registry. The substance of this amendment therefore is to substitute one charge for another. The reason for this change is that the existing clause would have introduced a new concept into the operation of the Local Land Charges Act 1975—namely, the attachment to a property of a debt not directly related to that property. The substitute clause will enable a charge to be imposed on a person's interest in the land, not on the land itself, thereby ensuring that the reversioner of the land is not affected by the charge when the debtor's interest has expired. The charge will be vacated once the outstanding sum is paid to the local authority.
The second change is in subsection (2) which ensures that, where a person has more than one interest in land, the local authority will he able to

783
charge only one of his interests. The third change is that Clause 16 will extend to Scotland. This will enable a local authority which provides accommodation in Scotland to a person with an interest in land in England or Wales to impose a charge on that land in respect of any debts which arise from unpaid charges. The geographical location of the land will therefore determine whether a local authority seeks security for the debt under this clause or under Clause 17 which, in the tabled Amendment No. 57 makes corresponding provision for authorities in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, all that I will say about it is that the noble Lord read his brief beautifully, and in so doing blinded me with science. Therefore, I must defer comment on the matter until we get to Third Reading, because the new clause is even more mystifying than the original one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Arrears of contributions charged over interest in land in Scotland]:
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 57:
Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clauses
("Arrears of contributions secured over interest in land in Scotland.
17.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person (hereinafter referred to as the debtor) who avails himself of Part III accommodation provided by a local authority in Scotland, England or Wales—

(a) fails to pay any sum (hereinafter referred to as the debt) assessed as due to be paid by him for the accommodation; and

(b) has an interest in land in Scotland (as defined in section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970),

the local authority may make in their favour and record in the General Register of Sasines or, as appropriate, register in accordance with the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 an order (hereinafter referred to as a charging order) over that interest in land in respect of the amount of that debt.
(2) In the case of a debtor who has more than one interest in land a charging order shall be over such one of those interests as the local authority may determine.
(3) On being so recorded or, as the case may be, registered, a charging order over an interest in land shall create a right which shall be deemed to have been granted by the debtor in favour of the local authority over that interest for the purpose of securing any debt due or to become due by him to the local authority in respect of the provision of the Part III accommodation referred to in subsection (1) above, together with interest thereon as specified in section 18 of this Act, and the local authority shall intimate to the debtor in writing that they have made and recorded or registered the order and inform him of its effect.
(4) Where the charging order is over an interest in land in which the debtor is uninfeft it shall be as valid as if he were infeft in that interest.
(5) Charging orders and the discharge thereof shall be in such form or forms as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe and he may also by order make provision for ascertaining the amount due under the charging order at any time.
(6) The provisions of Part II of the said Act of 1970 shall apply to a charging order under this section as if it were a standard security in a form prescribed in Schedule 2 to that Act to such extent and with such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(7) The power to make an order under subsections (5) and (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this amendment a moment ago. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interest on sums charged on land or over interest in land]:
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("land or") and insert ("or secured").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved amendment No. 59:
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("section 16 or 17") and insert ("this Part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Social security adjudications]:
9.20 p.m.
Baroness Jegermoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 62, line 17, at end insert ("or is otherwise legally qualified").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will he glad to hear that this amendment is less complicated than the last one with which I bored your Lordships. The intention of the amendment is, at page 62, line 17, at the end to insert:
"or is otherwise legally qualified".
I have proposed this because the clause refers only to barristers and solicitors and we thought that that was very restrictive. In moving this amendment, I was particularly persuaded on hearing from the Dean of the Faculty of Law in Cardiff, who has been chairman of tribunals for many years but who, with his legal knowledge and experience, apparently, under the clause as it now stands, would be excluded from continuing as a chairman. This seems rather absurd in view of the fact that his former students can go on to take chairmanships under this clause but the professor of law, who taught them the law that they are supposed to understand, is to be excluded. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct me.
However, this raises the whole question whether we need to limit the chairmanships so narrowly. I must add very quickly that I have also received representations—as I believe have other noble Lords—from the chairmen of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals, who have asked that we should take the whole question of legal qualification away, because they maintain that many of them are working from their wisdom and their experience, and not apparently failing badly in their chairmanships. However, we recognise that that is a wider question and it might well be examined at a later stage. Today we are only asking that the words:
"or is otherwise legally qualified"
should follow "barrister, advocate or solicitor". I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the Government's policy in relation to tribunals of the nature of social security appeal tribunals that only individuals with appropriate professional legal qualifications who have a certain standing should be appointed as chairmen. At present, with one exception—and I fancy that that is the one who wrote to the noble Baroness—all chairmen of national insurance local tribunals are barristers, advocates or solicitors and, following a recommendation by Professor Bell, qualified lawyers are appointed as chairmen of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals wherever possible. The case for having legally qualified chairmen to consider supplementary benefit appeals has also been strengthened by the change to a regulated scheme. We have consulted the Lord Chancellor's departments about what qualifications to require for social security appeal tribunal chairmen, and we think that the professional legal qualifications specified in the Bill are an appropriate minimum.
However—and I believe that this will be of some comfort to the noble Baroness—powers are being taken in the Bill to make transitional regulations allowing existing chairmen who are not barristers, advocates or solicitors to be appointed as chairmen of the new tribunals for a transitional period from the commencement of the legislation. That will allow existing chairmen to he retained for such period as may be specified. We are currently thinking in terms of five years, but this may be affected by how quickly we can find suitably qualified lawyers for these posts.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness and that she will not wish to press her amendment. But in any event I understand that there is a small technical deficiency to it in that it would negate the preceding words which require chairmen to be lawyers of five years' standing. However, I never seek to argue against amendments simply on mere drafting or technical grounds. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with the transitional arrangements to which I referred.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and, yes, I am satisfied. But I want to ask just one question. Let us suppose that a qualified barrister or solicitor who has been in practice then turns, as I know people have done, to the academic world and becomes a professor of law. Is he then disqualified or does the fact that some years before he was in practice as a barrister or solicitor cover him even if he has gone into academic work in a faculty of law?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may speak again on this matter, I suspect that the five years that he served as a practising barrister before he went into academic life would enable him to be qualified for these appointments. I speak off the top of my head, and it may be wrong, but if it is wrong I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 63, line 17, after second ("and") insert ("other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 78, 80, 90 and 96 together. These are technical amendments to the provisions which concern social security adjudication. Briefly to go through them for your Lordships, Amendment No. 61 clarifies the position as far as regional chairmen are concerned, and makes it clear that they will also be full-time appointments. Amendment No. 78 clarifies which posts are to be covered by the House of Commons Disqualification Act, but it does not alter the coverage specified in the existing provision.
Amendment No. 80 is a consequential drafting amendment to take account of the fact that subsection (3) of Section 20 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 is being repealed. Amendment No. 90 omits a repeal that is now otiose. It is inappropriate to repeal the old Section 6(1) since a new section is being substituted for it. Finally, Amendment 96 is a consequential drafting amendment to take account of the fact that Section 15 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 is being repealed. I beg to move Amendment No. 61
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 63, line 30, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraphs (4A) to (4E) below,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, essentially this amendment is to meet a point put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, during the earlier consideration of this Bill relating to the upper age limit for holders of these posts. I shall not go into the details unless noble Lords wish me to do so. We are, in essence, accepting the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have no wish to protract the proceedings further beyond saying that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 63, line 32, at end insert—
("(4A) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4B) and (4C) below, a person appointed to such an office shall vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72.
(4B) Where the Lord Chancellor considers it desirable in the public interest to retain such a person in office after the time at which he would be required by sub-paragraph (4A) above to vacate it, the Lord Chancellor may from time to time authorise the continuance of that person in office until any date not later than that on which that person attains the age of 75.
(4C) A person appointed to an office under this paragraph may be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.
(4D) No person appointed to an office under this paragraph shall either directly or indirectly practice as a barrister, advocate or solicitor or as an agent for a solicitor.
(4E) Where the Lord Chancellor proposes to exercise a power conferred on him by sub-paragraph (4B) or (4C) above, it shall be his duty to consult the Lord Advocate with respect to the proposal.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 66, line 21, at end insert—

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]

  (PART VA MEDICAL BOARDS
  Amendments of Social Security Act 1975
  18A.—(1) The following subsection shall be substituted for section 108(2) of the Social Security Act 1975—
  "(2) Subject to and in accordance with regulations, the disablement questions shall be referred to and determined by an adjudicating medical practitioner or by two or more adjudicating medical practitioners or by a medical appeal tribunal.".
  (2) In subsection (3) of that section, for the words "medical hoards" there shall be substituted the words "adjudicating medical practitioners".
  (3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (4) of that section—
  "(4) Where the case of a claimant for disablement benefit has been referred by the insurance officer to one or more adjudicating medical practitioners for determination of the disablement questions and, on that or any other subsequent reference, the extent of the disablement is provisionally assessed, the case shall again be referred under this section, to one or more adjudicating medical practitioners as regulations may provide for the purposes of such subsequent references, not later than the end of the period taken into account by the provisional assessment.
  (5) In the following provisions of this Act "adjudicating medical practitioner" means, in relation to any case, one such practitioner, unless regulations applicable to cases of that description provide for references to more than one.".
  18B. In section 109 of that Act—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner";

  (b) in subsection (2)—

  (i) for the words "medical board" there shall be substituted the words "adjudicating medical practitioner"; and

  (ii) the proviso shall cease to have effect; and

  (c) in subsection (3), for the words "medical board" there shall be substituted the words "adjudicating medical practitioner".

  18C. In section 110 of that Act—

  (a) in subsection (1) for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner":

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words "medical hoard if the board are" there shall be substituted the words "and adjudicating medical practitioner if he is";

  (c) in subsection (6)—

  (i) for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner";

  (ii) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the word "he"; and

  (iii) for the word "them" there shall be substituted the word "him"; and

  (d) in subsection (7), for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner".

  18D. In section 113—
  (a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for subsection (2)(a)—
  "(a) for the appointment of specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners and the appointment of medical officers for the purposes of the regulations (which shall be taken to include, in the case of specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners, the purposes for which adjudicating medical practitioners are appointed and medical appeal tribunals are established):":
  (b) in subsection (2)(b), for the words "any such board or" there shall be substituted the words "specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners or any such";
  (c) in subsection (3)—

  (i) for the words from "member", in the first place where it occurs, to "established" there shall be substituted the words "specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioner appointed";

  788

  (ii) for the word "member" in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "practitioner": and

  (iii) for the words "any such board or with the work" there shall be substituted the words "the work under this section of any such medical practitioner or".

  18E. In section 115(2) of that Act, for the words "a medical board or a single medical practitioner acting in place of a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "or an adjudicating medical practitioner".
  18F. In section 117 of that Act the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner or a" shall be substituted for the words "a medical hoard or" in subsections (3) and (4).
  18G. In Schedule 12 to that Act—
  (a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 1—
  "1. Adjudicating medical practitioners shall be appointed by the Secretary of State."; and
  (b) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs 3 to 6—
  "3. Subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the appointment of adjudicating medical practitioners and the constitution of medical appeal tribunals shall be determined by regulations.
  4. The Secretary of State may pay to adjudicating medical practitioners and chairman and other members of medical appeal tribunals such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances, as he may determine.
  5. The Secretary of State may pay to persons required to attend on the consideration of a case before an adjudicating medical practitioner or a medical appeal tribunal such travelling and other allowances as he may determine.
  6. The Secretary of State may pay such other expenses as he may determine, being expenses incurred in connection with the work of adjudicating medical practitioners and medical appeal tribunals".
  18H. In Schedule 20 to that Act the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate point—

  " "Adjudicating medical practitioner."

  Construe in accordance with section 108(5).".

  Supplementary
  18J. Any enactment passed before the coming into force of this paragraph and not amended by the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule and any instrument made before the coming into force of this paragraph shall have effect, so far as may be necessary in consequence of the changes made by this Part of this Schedule, as if—

  (a) for any reference to a medical board constituted under the Social Security Act 1975 there were substituted a reference to an adjudicating medical practitioner; and

  (b) for any reference to a special medical board established by virtue of regulations under section 113 of that Act there were substituted a reference to a specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioner.

  18K. Documents and forms printed or duplicated for use in connection with medical hoards and special medical boards may be used notwithstanding that they contain references to such boards and those references shall be construed respectively as references to adjudicating medical practitioners and specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 64 and 93 together. These amendments serve two purposes. First, they provide for the removal of the present restriction on a claimant's rights of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal against some of the decisions of the adjudicating medical authority on the disablement questions. The claimant rights will be absolutely unfettered. Second, they provide for regulations to be made for the disablement questions to be determined in the first instance by one adjudicating medical practitioner where this is considered appropriate. Taken together, these provisions will considerably simplify and streamline the adjudication processes,

  789
  will strengthen the position of claimants and will lead to substantial savings in administration costs. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Fees for certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning]:
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 20, line 27, at end insert—
  ("(2) The following section shall be inserted after section 71 of that Act—
  "Fees for certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning.
  71A.—(1). Subject to any exceptions which he may specify, the Secretary of State may direct that a Health Board shall pay to a medical practitioner a fee of such amount as the direction may specify for each certificate duly sent by him under—

  (a) section 3(1) of the Infectious Diseases (Notification( ) Act 1889 (notifications of infectious diseases);

  (b) regulations made under section 1 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1945 (power to make regulation with a view to preventing the spread of certain diseases);

  (c) section 22(1) of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 (notification of cases of food poisoning).

  (2) The Secretary of State may direct that different fees shall be paid under this section in relation to different circumstances.
  (3) A direction under this section may make provision in relation to fees payable after a date specified in the direction.
  (4) The date may be before or after the date of the direction but may not he before if it would be to the detriment of medical practitioners.
  (5) Before giving a direction as to a fee under this section the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body for negotiating fees for medical practitioners.
  (6) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the fact that a medical practitioner who gives any such certificate as is referred to in subsection (1) above holds the office to whose holder the certificate is required to be sent does not disentitle him to payment of the fee (if any) payable for the certificate.
  (7) This section applies to Scotland only.".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subsection has various purposes, but it is applicable to Scotland only. As in England and Wales, a fee is already payable for the notification of infectious diseases and food poisoning. The fee is, however, prescribed in regulations and can be varied only by statutory instrument. Subsection (1) of the new clause directs health boards to pay the fee to medical practitioners in accordance with a direction by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) enables different fees to be payable in relation to different circumstances. While there has, since 1968, been only one level of fee, this flexibility is required—as in England and Wales—against the possibility that, for example, more information might at some future date be needed in respect of one disease than another, with the result that a higher fee for notifying that disease might in all the circumstances be appropriate. Subsections (3) and (4) enable, with an appropriate safeguard, the fee to be varied with retrospective effect. Subsection (5) provides that, before giving a direction as to a fee, the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body for negotiating fees for medical practitioners. The "proper body" in this context is the Joint Negotiating Body for Doctors in Community
  790
  Medicine and the Community Health Service, under the aegis of which a number of other fees for broadly related work are already negotiated. I hope that explanation is reasonably clear, and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 21, line 7, after ("in") insert ("Part I of").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 and 84. As your Lordships are aware, the main provisions in the Residential Homes Act 1980 relating to the registration, conduct and inspection of homes are being re-enacted and amended in Clause 6A and Schedule 2A to the Bill. This leaves the provisions under Sections 8 and 9 of the Residential Homes Act 1980 relating to the provisions of meals and recreation for old people by district councils. We consider that it is preferable to re-enact these provisions in the present Bill rather than to leave them as the sole remaining part of a then inappropriately titled Act. I hope your Lordships will agree, and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 21, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(2) Part II of that Schedule shall have effect in place of the provisions of the Residential Homes Act 1980 relating to meals and recreation for old people").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 67, line 19, at end insert—
  ("MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS").
  The noble Lord said: This is consequential, my Lords. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 67, line 34, at end insert—
  ("National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29).
  2A. The following section shall be inserted after section 30 of the National Assistance Act 1948—
  "Research.
  30A. Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them by any other Act,—

  (a) the Secretary of State may promote research into any matter relating to the functions of local authorities under this Part of this Act, and, in particular, may participate with or assist other persons in conducting such research; and

  (b) a local authority may conduct or assist other persons in conducting research into any matter relating to the functions of local authorities under this Part of this Act.".").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 81, 87, 92 and 99. Together, these amendments represent a minor piece of consolidation to prevent a solitary fragment of the Health Visitors and Social Work Training Act 1962 remaining loose on the statute book, a wholly undesirable arrangement. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  9.35 p.m.
  Lord Lyellmoved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:
  Page 67, line 34, at end insert—
  ("2A. In section 41(2)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (registration of charities for disabled persons) for the words "the Residential Homes Act 1980" there shall be substituted the words "Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".")
  Page 68, line 19, at end insert—
  ("Mental Health Act 1959 (c. 72)
  6A. In section 128(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1959 (sexual intercourse with patients) for the words from "home" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "care home within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".") Page 69, line 4, at end insert—
  ("Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 7)
  10A. At the end of Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which specifies the enactments conferring functions assigned to the social services committee of a local authority) there shall be inserted the following entry—

  "Health and Social Services

  Registration of residential care

  and Social Security Adjudi-

  homes.".")

  >cations Act 1983 (c.)

  Part I of Schedule 2A.

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 are all consequential upon Amendment No. 16, on which my noble friend spoke so eloquently earlier on. In his name I beg to move Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 together.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 73 to 75:
  Page 69, line 5, at end insert—
  ("10A. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971—

  "Children's Homes Registration.

  4. Registered HomesTrihunals constituted under Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983.".")

  Page 69,line 7, leave out ("Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971") and insert ("that Schedule")
  Page 69,line 10, at end insert—
  ("11A. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 21 of that Schedule—

  "Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Registration.

  21A. Registered Homes Tribunals constituted under Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983."

  11B. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 28 of that Schedule—

  "Residential Care Homes Registration.

  28A. Registered Homes Tribunals constituted under Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983."

  11C. In paragraph 30(A)(a) of that Schedule for the word "Local" there shall be substituted the words "Social security appeal".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75 together, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if, at the same time, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 97, which are associated with the three earlier amendments. All these amendments are consequential upon the provisions in new Clause 6A, new Schedule 2A, Clause 19, and Schedule 8 for the establishment of registered homes tribunals and social security appeal tribunals. All these amendments insert
  792
  references to the new tribunals in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 69, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
  11A. In subsection (1) of section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 (appointment of committees) after the word "above" there shall be inserted the words "or section 31 of the Child Care Act 1980".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3, which we took earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 69, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Guardianship Act 1973 (c. 29)
  11B. In subsection (4)(d) of section 4 of the Guardianship Act 1973 (provisions as to order committing care of minor to local authority) for the word "or" there shall be substituted the word "and".")
  .The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on paragraph 38 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, so as to maintain consistency of wording between the Guardianship Act 1973 and the Child Care Act 1980. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 82:
  Page 69, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
  (" "A member of a panel appointed under section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 of persons to act as chairmen of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals.
  The President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals.
  A regional or other full-time Chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals." ")
  Page 69, line 26, at end insert—
  ("Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36)
  12A. In section 32(3) of the Adoption Act 1976 (meaning of "protected child") the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (b)—
  "(b) he is—

  (i) suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959: and

  (ii) resident in a residential care home, within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983;".")

  at end insert—
  ("Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (c. 71)
  In section 20(5) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 for the words "Subsections (2) and (3)" there shall be substituted the words "Subsection (2)".")
  Page 69, line 39, at end insert—
  ("14A. At the end of Schedule 8 to that Act (local social services authorities) there shall be added—
  "Research
  4. Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them by any other Act, a local social services authority may conduct or assist other persons in conducting research into matters relating to the functions of local social services authorities under this Schedule." ")
  Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
  ("Foster Children Act 1980 (c. 6)
  18. In subsection (5) of section 2 of the Foster Children Act 1980 (exceptions to meaning of foster child for purposes of Act) for the words from "home" to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words "care home within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to move Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80. These are all consequential. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 are consequential on Amendment No, 61, to which I spoke earlier. Amendment No. 16 was the main starter amendment for Amendment No. 79. My noble friend tells me that Amendment No. 81 is also consequential, as is Amendment No. 82. Amendment No. 16 was the paving amendment for Amendment No. 82. So, with your Lordships' permission, I shall move Amendments Nos. 78 to 82 en bloc. They are all consequential.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 83:
  Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
  ("Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c.9)
  18. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (army and air force pensioners and other former soldiers not liable to be recalled for service)—
  "2. A person who is receiving treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in any establishment in the United Kingdom and is under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner.".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. This makes a reference to an area health authority. I fear that these bodies have now ceased to exist. The amendment corrects the anomaly and also, with the agreement of the Ministry of Defence, extends the provisions for the exemption from recall in to the Army and Air Force to include all mentally ill people who are receiving in-patient treatment under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner in a hospital or nursing home. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 84:
  Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
  ("PART II
  MEALS AND RECREATION FOR OLD PEOPLE
  1. A district council shall have power to make such arrangements as they may from time to time determine for providing meals and recreation for old people in their homes or elsewhere, and may employ as their agent for the purpose of this paragraph am voluntary organisation whose activities consist in or include the provision of meals or recreation for old people.
  2. A district council may recover from persons availing themselves of any service provided under paragraph 1 above such charges (if any) as they consider reasonable, having regard to the means of the person from whom they are to recover them.
  3. A district council may assist any such organisation as is referred to in paragraph 1 above to provide meals or recreation for old people—

  (a) by contributing to the funds of the organisation;

  (b) by permitting them to use premises belonging to the council on such terms as may be agreed; and

  (c) by making available furniture, vehicles or equipment (whether by way of gift or loan or otherwise) and the services of any staff who are employed by the council in connection with the premises or other things which they permit the organisation to use.

  4.—(1) District councils shall exercise their functions under this Part of this Schedule (including any discretion conferred on them under it) in accordance with the provisions of any regulations of the Secretary of State made for the purposes of this paragraph; and without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph, regulations under this paragraph—

  (a) may provide for conferring on officers of the Secretary of State authorised under the regulations such powers of
  794
  inspection as may be prescribed in relation to the exercise of functions under this Part of this Schedule by or by arrangement with or on behalf of district councils; and

  (b) may make provision with respect to the qualifications of officers employed by district councils for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule or by voluntary organisations acting under arrangements with or on behalf of district councils for those purposes.

  (2) The power to make regulations under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  5. In this Part of this Schedule—
  "functions" includes powers and duties; and
  "voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 66. I beg to move
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Repeals and revocation]:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 85:
  Page 21, line 16, at end insert—
  ("(3) The following, namely—

  (a) Subsection (3) of section 8 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (which provides that subsection (2) of that section shall not affect the operation of the provisions of Part IV of the National Assistance Act 1948, relating to charities for disabled persons); and

  (b) Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which specifies the enactments conferring functions assigned to the social services committee of a local authority),

  shall continue to have effect as amended by paragraphs 2(1) and 4(1) respectively of Schedule 1 to the Residential Homes Act 1980, notwithstanding the repeal of that Act by subsection (1) above.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 16, to which we spoke much earlier today. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 86:
  After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
  ("Power to repeal or amend local Acts.
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) repeal any provision of a local Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act if it appears to him that the provision is inconsistent with or has become unnecessary in consequence of any enactment contained in this Act or of regulations made under any such enactment;

  (b) amend any provision of such an Act if it appears to him that the provision requires amendment in consequence of any enactment contained in this Act or of regulations made under any such enactment or of any repeal made by virtue of the preceding paragraph;

  and an order made in pursuance of this subsection may include such incidental or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers are appropriate in connection with the order.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes an order in pursuance of subsection (1) above amending or repealing any provision of a local Act, to consult each local authority which he considers would be affected by the amendment or repeal of that provision.
  (3) The power to make orders conferred by subsection (1) above shall he exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument made in the exercise of that power shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to give the Secretary of State power to repeal by order any local Acts which are inconsistent with, or made unnecessary by, any provisions in the Bill or regulations made under the Bill. The Bill also imposes a duty to consult the local authorities affected. We know that there is some existing local legislation which will need to be repealed when this Bill is enacted. We shall be consulting local authorities to find out whether there are any local Acts of which we are not aware centrally. We aim to lay an order before your Lordships' House and in another place as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I understand that there are at least two precedents for this procedure. They are to be found in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 10 [Repeals and Revocation]:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell Moved Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89:
  Page 70, column 3, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—

  >

  ("The whole Act.")

  Page 70,line 38, at end insert—

  ("1966 c. 42.

  Local Government Act 1966.

  In Part II of Schedule 3, paragraph 31.")

  Page 71, line 3, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 78(1)(b) the words "and is engaged in remunerative employment".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 87,88 and 89 en bloc. They are all consequential upon Amendments Nos. 69, 16 and 61.
  On Question amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 99:
  Page 71, leave out line 15, column 3.
  Page 71,line 19, at end insert—

  ("1971 c. 62.

  Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.

  In Schedule 1, Paragraph 30B.")

  Page 71,line 20, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 23, paragaraph 12")

  Page 71,line 23 at end insert—

  ("1975 c. 14

  Social Security Act 1975.

  In section 109(2), the proviso. Section 111. In section 117(4), the second paragraph. In section 155(d)(iii), the words "medical board or ".")

  Page 71,line 40, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 27(4) and (5). Section 28(8) and (9).")

  Page 71,line 45, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3, paragraphs 29 and 30.")

  Page 71,line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—

  (" In section 12(4) the words from "and" onwards.")

  Page 71,line 54, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 7, paragraph 22(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.")

  Page 71,line 54, at end insert—

  ("1977 c. 45.

  Criminal Law Act 1977.

  In Schedule 12, paragraph 1 of the entry relating to the Adoption Act 1976.")

  Page 72, line 57, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 15, paragraph 35. ")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 61. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment Nos. 100 to 107:
  Page 73, line 2, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 27(4) and (5).

  Section 28(8) and (9).")

  leave out line 29.
  column 3, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert—

  ("The whole Act.")

  Page 74, line 30, after ("79,") insert ("paragraph 82(2) and (3)")
  Page 74, line 32, after ("3") insert (", in subsection ")
  Page 74, line 34, at end insert ("and subsections (6) and (8)")
  Page 74, line 35, at end insert ("and (5)")
  Page 74, line 35, at end insert—

  ("Section 7.

  Section 12.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 100 to 107 en bloc. They are all consequential.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): I should draw the attention of the House to a misprint in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 107 should read—
  Page 74, line 35, at end insert—".
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Commencement]:
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment 108:
  Page 21, line 17, leave out ("Part VI of Schedule 8 to this Act") and insert ("This section and sections 26 and 27 below")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 108, 110 and 111. The combined effect of these amendments is to remove the present very complex commencement clause and substitute a simple order-making power to enable different provisions to be brought into operation on different days. In doing so, I hope to anticipate points on Amendment No. 109 which I believe my noble friend Lord Renton might have raised had he been here. Having said that, and in the absence of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 108.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 110 and 111:
  Page 21, line 19, leave out ("The following") and insert ("Subject to subsection (1) above, the")
  leave out from beginning of line 24 to end of the clause.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 are consequential to Amendment No. 108, to which my noble friend has just spoken. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Extent]:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell Moved Amendment No. 112:
  Page 22, leave out line 20.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment upon the provisions (which have been amended) of Clause 16(1). This now extends the provision of Clause 16 itself to Scotland. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115:
  Page 22, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(1A) The following provisions of this Act—

  (a) section 5 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 1;

  (b) Part III and Schedule 2;

  (c) section 11(1) (except paragraphs (b) and (c)) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 6;

  (d) section 19(2) and paragraph 19(6) of Schedule 8;

  (e) section 21 (except paragraphs (a) and (c)),
  extend to Northern Ireland.")

  Page 22, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below,")
  Page 22,line 24, at end insert—
  ("(3) Where the Act makes—

  (a) an amendment of an enactment contained in an Act which makes special provision for extending or applying enactments contained in it to the Isles of Scilly; or

  (b) an addition to such an Act,

  the provision for extending or applying enactments shall authorise the extension or application of the amended enactment or addition to the Isles.
  (4) Subsection (3) above applies to an amended enactment whether or not the enactment was extended or applied to the Isles before it was amended.
  (5) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) above, this Act shall, in its application to the Isles, have effect subject to such extensions, adaptions and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe.
  (6) Any statutory instrument made in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (5) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115 en bloc. These are technical amendments and provide for the application of the relevant sections of the Bill to Northern Ireland and to the Isles of Scilly. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Short title]:
  [Amendment No.116 not moved.]
  In the Title:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 117:
  Line 17, after ("adjudication") insert ("to make further provision for fees for medical practitioners' certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this last amendment is a consequential amendment to the
  798
  Long Title of the Bill. At an earlier stage the Committee agreed to include a new clause in the Bill dealing with the fees paid to medical practitioners for the notification of infectious diseases. We find this now as Clause 20. The Long Title needs to be amended to provide for the new clause. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  Procedure of the House
  First report from the Select Committee made, and ordered to be printed.
  House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  DPP OFFICE: WORKING PARTY
  DPP OFFICE: WORKING PARTY
  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: APPOINTMENTS
  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: APPOINTMENTS
  UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS: METHOD OF CALCULATION
  UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS: METHOD OF CALCULATION