Sitting of 15 February 1983

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

    Health Education
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the current effectiveness of health education as undertaken by local authorities, the Health Education Council and Her Majesty's Government.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): Not completely, but I am confident that under its new leadership the Health Education Council will, with the full support of Ministers, progressively facilitate improvements in the effectiveness of health education at both national and local levels.
    Mr. Dormand: That was an unusually modest answer. Is the Minister aware that the enthusiasm of the local authorities and the Health Education Council is not matched by the Government? Do the Government appreciate that considerable savings could be made in the Health Service if they took more seriously the health education programme? Is not the Government's attitude clearly demonstrated by their hypocrisy in giving official approval to sports sponsorship by tobacco companies while giving £2 million to the Health Education Council for its anti-smoking campaign?
    Mr. Finsberg: I am a naturally modest person. I think that it would help the hon. Gentleman, who is normally very courteous, if I reminded him that when we came to office the Health Education Council had an actual expenditure of £3·67 million. For the year 1981–82 it was £6·3 million, a substantial increase in real terms. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss sports sponsorship he should put the question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for sport.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend turn his attention to the sex education industry, which, not content with getting at young children in school, is now, amazingly, turning its attention to the mentally handicapped?
    Mr. Finsberg: I share very much my hon. Friend's disquiet. With my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, we have asked the Health Education Council to review its book list. It has willingly agreed to do that.

    Pensions Uprating
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he expects to bring forward legislation to adjust the 1983 pensions uprating.
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his plans for the 1983 pensions uprating.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Primary legislation would be needed to adjust the 1983 pensions uprating to take account of the overshoot at the 1982 uprating. A decision on this will be taken at the time of the Budget.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for making no adjustment to the increase in the level of the pension next November, not least because the retirement pension is still lower as a proportion of male earnings than it was in 1977?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not accept my hon. Friend's view. The standard basic pension has increased by about 68·5 per cent. over the four upratings since November 1978. That compares with a rise of 6l per cent. in the RPI. It also compares well with the pensioner price index.
    Mr. Stallard: Does the Secretary of State accept that had the Government not severed the link between pensions and wages or the cost of living, whichever was the higher, a married couple would now be £2·25 better off? Is that not a sufficient reason for a more generous approach to the clawback?
    Mr. Fowler: We had a debate on prices and earnings. The decision has been taken. The pledge that the Government have made, and which they are keeping, is to price protect pensions and other related long-term benefits. We shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I recognise what the Government have done for the elderly and other deserving groups, but is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of Conservative Members could not support the proposed clawback from the pensioners in the next round of awards to them? Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members believe that the benefit from the Government's underestimate of their success in reducing inflation is well and truly deserved by the pensioners, who should not suffer in the future?
    Mr. Fowler: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I think that he will also accept that such adjustments are inevitable with the forecast method that was introduced by the Labour Government as a saving in the social security budget.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that there is no excuse for robbing pensioners or any other beneficiaries in November? Will he make it clear that all beneficiaries will be treated the same and that separate treatment will not be given to any one category?
    Mr. Fowler: There is no question of robbing pensioners. I have just given the figures of the way in which pensions have kept ahead of prices. That is the Government's record and we intend to keep to it.
    Mr. John: There is nothing inevitable about a clawback of 2 per cent. If the Government decide not to claw it back, they can perfectly well increase pensioners'

    143
    standard of living by that amount. Would it not be intolerable if there were a give-away Budget for taxpayers and at the same time 2 per cent. were clawed back from pensioners?
    Mr. Fowler: In that case I am not at all sure why the previous Government went over to the forecast method.
    Mr. Rooker: No clawback.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, (Mr. Rooker) says "No clawback". Surely an adjustment one way or another is an inevitable consequence of the forecast method? The previous Government changed from the historic to the forecast method for one reason only—to save £500 million.
    Mr. John: It is inevitable only if the Government choose it to be so. Let it be clearly understood that the Chancellor need not claw 2 per cent. back. If he does so, the Government will be indicted.
    Mr. Fowler: When the previous Government introduced the legislation, no one thought for one moment that in such circumstances there would be no adjustments. The point being made by the Opposition Front Bench is, frankly, hypocritical.

    Trent Regional Health Authority (Hospital Standards)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will increase the resources available to the Trent regional health authority in order that the Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley health authorities may maintain adequate hospital standards.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We have recently announced revenue allocations to regional health authorities, which give Trent RHA an additional £17 million for development next year. That is a growth rate for services of 2·4 per cent. as against a national average of 1·2 per cent. The Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham health authorities will all benefit from this.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that, because of the lack of adequate means, the quality of hospital services at the Montagu hospital has been deteriorating and looks like deteriorating further? Will he bear in mind that, despite what he has granted to the three health authorities, the quality of services for the mentally handicapped is far below the standard that it should be in that part of the country?
    Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the health authority is giving high priority to improving services for the mentally handicapped. The regional health authority has decided to keep the Montagu hospital open as an acute hospital. It falls within the territory of the Doncaster health authority, and yesterday that authority received development moneys of almost £500,000 for next year, in addition to the growth moneys it has already had under the Government. I am confident that it will be able to produce worthwhile plans for the future of the Montagu hospital.
    Mrs. Knight: Since it is now widely accepted that there is a great deal of waste and a serious mis-use of funds within the National Health Service, will my hon. and learned Friend make absolutely certain that, before substantial grants and funds are advanced, each regional authority examines this aspect of its work carefully?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there are two sources of resources for further improvement in the Health Service. The first is the additional money that the Government are continuing to make available, as I have just described. The second is to keep searching for ways of making better use of existing resources and increasing efficiency. We exhort regional authorities to do that at the same time as we allocate to them these new growth moneys.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the Minister explain what the Trent regional health authority has done with that £2 million of the special revenue allocation that he has given for the provision of regional secure psychiatric units, but which has not been spent on psychiatric services or on improving security in psychiatric hospitals and which lies unexplained and unaccounted for in its accounts?
    Mr. Clarke: Hon. Members on both sides of the House regret that moneys that were allocated for regional secure units have, in many cases, been used for other purposes. I am glad to say that worthwhile progress is now being made in the regional secure unit programme. I shall happily give details to the hon. Gentleman if he tables a specific question or writes to me about it.

    Family Practitioner Committees (Expenditure)
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage increase in expenditure on family practitioner committees during the past five years; and how this compares with the increase in expenditure in the National Health Service as a whole over the same period.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Expenditure on family practitioner committees cannot be wholly identified in the accounts of health authorities, and valid comparison with total NHS expenditure cannot, therefore, be made.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that there is growing, grave disgust at the Government's motives in their operation of the family practitioner committees? There is a feeling now that extra growth will be allowed only through increased charges. Will the Minister assure us that that will not be the case?
    Mr. Clarke: I can give an assurance on the last point. We are proposing to reduce bureaucracy and administration and release resources for service development. At the moment FPCs are responsible direct to the Secretary of State for the administration of the services. Our legislation will enable them to employ their own staff direct and be responsible for their own management. We believe that that will lead to more efficient administration, which will release yet more money for an improvement in service.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. and learned Friend get to grips with the over-extensive and over-expensive drug prescribing habits of general and family practitioners?
    Mr. Clarke: We continue to exhort doctors to be more careful in their prescribing of drugs. The recent report, although it contains one or two controversial proposals upon which comments have been made, contains some substantial backing for the advice that has been given to the medical profession on better and more cost-effective prescribing. I agree that we need to make savings in that area in order once more to release resources for patients' services.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: I agree with the Minister that it might not be possible to identify the increase in family practitioner committee expenditure within the National Health Service as a whole, but does he agree that there is an area in which he could identify a large increase? By how much has the drug bill increased over the past five years?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The answer referred to committee expenditure, which cannot be identified separately. The cost of the family practitioner service is increasing somewhat faster than the costs of the hospital and community services. Some of that is accounted for by the increased drug bill, part of which is the cost of new advances in drugs. However, we must ensure, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), that that drugs bill is not pushed up too far by wasteful over-prescribing or other wasteful policies.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister admit that the change that will allow family practitioner committees to be even more independent will make it virtually impossible for him to impose sensible standards upon them? They will be far more independent. Will he admit now that he intends to do little to implement the Greenfield report on effective prescribing?
    Mr. Clarke: I await with great interest to discover precisely on what grounds the hon. Lady will oppose that proposal for FPCs when we debate them on Thursday. I understood that she was complaining that we were putting them too much under the direct control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She is now complaining that we are making them too independent. She will find that we are merely reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that money is not wasted on administration.

    Lead in Petrol
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the latest evidence he has on the deleterious effects on the health of children of lead in petrol.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: A number of important studies that could further our knowledge of the possible effects of lead on health are awaiting either completion or expert assessment. They include some studies supported by the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. The MRC will assist the Department in arranging expert scrutiny of the results. The research is necessarily complex and specialised, and comment now would be premature. These studies relate to the effects of lead from all sources; it is not right to single out lead from one source.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the House and the country have been hearing that kind of answer for years? In view of the public's overwhelming desire to get rid of lead in petrol and the technical possibility of doing so within two years, why do the Government continue to kowtow to the oil companies' vested interests. Why do the Government not introduce a Bill this Session and get cracking on the matter?
    Mr. Finsberg: One of the problems is that so many of these statements are based upon leaked documents which
    146
    when published do not contain what those who leaked them thought they did. The Greenfield report was a perfect example.
    Mr. Foulkes: Like the Franks committee report.
    Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) knows well that the proposals put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment will reduce lead emission from cars by nearly two thirds and will do it 10 years faster than any other method.
    Mr. Rathbone: What co-operation is there between my hon. Friend's Department and other Governments within the EC on this matter?
    Mr. Finsberg: We are following the proposals of the Community to bring down the lead content of petrol. One of the studies to which I referred in my answer to the main question is based on a study in Italy. There is close co-operation.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the Minister is prepared to move towards a reduction of the lead in petrol, as the Government are doing, why is he not prepared to go the whole way, as suggested?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Because it would cost a fortune.
    Mr. Finsberg: It is because, as has been explained on numerous occasions to the House, the most effective method is the one proposed by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, together with a package of measures that we have proposed that will cover items such as lead from other sources, such as old paint and food.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend tell our hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that there is enough evidence for him to secure lead-free petrol within a very short time?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend must be joking.
    Mr. Finsberg: That is a matter about which my right hon. Friend will read, but I do not think that the evidence quite leads to that conclusion.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Quite right. What a load of nonsense.

    Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In December of last year we issued a circular to draw attention to the main previsions of the amendment Act and indicated some of the action that would have to be taken before the Act came into effect on 30 September this year. We shall shortly be consulting on draft regulations and orders made under the Act. We are receiving a good response to our request for suggestions for membership of the Mental Health Act Commission and names are still coming in. A Bill to consolidate the 1982 Act with the Mental Health Act 1959 is now under consideration in another place. This Bill will come into operation on 30 September 1983 and we are preparing a full memorandum of guidance on it.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's reply, but is he aware of the heavy expenditure being imposed on local authorities by the problems of training social workers to meet the necessities of the Act? Will my hon. and learned Friend help them with it? Is he further aware of the difficulties sometimes created in a community—I say this with sensitivity—where patients from psychiatric institutions are released into the community, but sometimes cannot cope, and where a whole neighbourhood can become upset by that? What can be done?
    Mr. Clarke: An important provision of the new Act is that mental welfare officers will be replaced by approved social workers, but that change will not take effect until 28 October 1984. Some training will be required, and some local authorities already train to that level and will have no additional cost. However, other local authorities will have some catching up to do. At the moment we have no evidence to suggest that unreasonable expenditure will be involved.
    I accept my hon. Friend's view. Difficulties are sometimes caused when psychiatric patients are put back into the community. In a civilised society we have to treat the mentally ill in a reasonable way and we must try to bring back into the community those who can best live there. The nuisance that can sometimes be caused by these people is one of the things that the general public are prepared to tolerate and will have to accept. One of the main duties of trained approved social workers will be to make sure that the right balance is struck between the interests of the patients and the interests of the community at large.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If we are a civilised society and we treat the mentally ill correctly, when will the Minister end the scandal of the mentally disordered persons being held in prison? When will those patients who for over nine years have been awaiting transfer from the special hospitals be transferred to NHS psychiatric hospitals?
    Mr. Clarke: I share both the hon. Gentleman's objectives. The treatment of individual patients is a matter for clinical and nursing judgment, and finding the right places for patients can prove difficult. It is wrong that patients have been waiting so long for transfer from special hospitals, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have to find the right hospital, with the psychiatrists, nursing staff and other people prepared to accept those patients, whom they can treat and help. Anything we can do to encourage that we shall try to do.

    Specialist Services (Privatisation)
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has further to encourage health authorities to privatise specialist services.
    Mr. Fowler: The Government will be issuing a draft circular very shortly to health authorities, and to the staff side, which will cover the use of private contractors for hospital domestic, catering and laundry services.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contracting out of hospital cleaning, laundry and catering services offers the best hope for more resources being available for patient care, as well as offering better wages and working conditions for employees? Will my right hon. Friend therefore tell the House why there has
    148
    been such a long delay and such vacillation in issuing the instructions to health authorities to encourage them to put the services out to tender?
    Mr. Fowler: There has been no delay or vacillation. The Government are committed to ensuring that the private sector should be given the opportunity to tender for a range of services on the basis of fair competition. I hope that when my hon. Friend has the opportunity to see the proposals that we shall be making he will welcome them.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that in north Staffordshire sufficient orthotists—people who fit splints and braces—cannot be found because the pay is grossly inadequate when compared to the private sector? Is that not very damaging to the NHS, and will the Secretary of State see what he can do about giving adequate pay to orthotists in the Health Service?
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot answer that specific point, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that the whole problem of pay and pay determination is under consideration at the moment.
    Mr. Eggar: Will the proposals give a clear obligation to the health authorities to put these services out to bids? Will there be a clear obligation to accept those bids if they are more than 10 per cent. cheaper than internal services?
    Mr. Fowler: I must ask my hon. Friend to wait a few days for the draft circular. What we hope and are aiming to achieve is that when tenders show that there is a financial advantage to use outside contractors, local authorities will use those outside contractors for the good reason that money and resources released in that way can then be used for patient care.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister inquire from the districts how many of them have brought in private contractors, but have decided that it is an inefficient, incompetent and expensive way to provide services and have had to abandon the nonsense?
    Mr. Fowler: One of the problems has been that there has been no fairness in the comparison of tenders between outside contractors and the NHS. If the hon. Lady wishes an example of that she should look at VAT, where the positions of local authorities and health authorities contrast. I should have thought that if savings could be had within the health service, and that money could then be directed to patient care, the hon. Lady would support the policy, not oppose it.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister realise that as many people working as ancillary workers in the NHS are already paid such a miserable wage, there is little likelihood that anybody else would work for those rates anyway?
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Lady is as confident as that, she will not mind outside tenders being sought.

    Leicester (Health Services)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to improve health services in the Leicester area.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have recently announced revenue allocations to regional health authorities which give the Trent region an additional £17 million for

    149
    1983–84. This represents a growth rate for services of 2·4 per cent. in the region's revenue as against a national average growth of 1·2 per cent. It is for the Trent regional health authority to allocate resources to Leicestershire health authority, and at an RHA meeting yesterday Leicestershire was given an additional recurrent development allocation of £660,000 and an additional non-recurrent allocation of £680,000.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but is he aware that the Leicester area has been at about the bottom for the distribution of cash for the Trent region, and that the Trent regional health authority has been the most under-provided in the country for many years? In view of that, when does my hon. and learned Friend expect health services in the Leicester area to be up to the national average?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept that the region has been traditionally under-resourced. I represent a constituency served by it, so my hon. Friend is rather preaching to the converted. For that reason, the Trent region has been given a higher proportion of growth money than other regions throughout the period that the Government have been in office. It has had a 9 per cent. growth in services over the past four years. It is because we are continuing that policy, as I said yesterday, that we are able to give over £1·2 million by way of new development money to the district this year, over and above growth money which it has been receiving in the past three years.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister say when the Glenfield district hospital, which is in my constituency, and is so badly needed, will open, and that when it does open the Government will ensure that it has adequate resources to carry out the duties for which it is designed and serve the people in the entire county of Leicestershire?
    Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that the opening of the new Glenfield hospital is the major issue facing that health authority and that it has to plan for the revenue consequences of opening this major development. It is for that reason that Leicestershire is receiving so much more than the national average in growth money. I very much hope that the large sums awarded yesterday will help towards the necessary planning and thus enable the Glenfield hospital to open on time.

    Retirement Pension
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are currently receiving the state retirement pension.
    Mr. Fowler: At 30 September 1982 there were 9·2 million retirement pensions in payment.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there are more pensioners now than in 1979, pensions since then have risen by more than the rate of inflation and that as a result a greater share of the nation's resources are going to the elderly? Does that not prove that the Government have stood by their pledge to the elderly?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It certainly establishes what we have said, that we will maintain pensions and other long-term related benefits in line with prices. As I have already said, the standard basic pension has increased by 68·5 per cent., compared with the rise in the cost of living of 61 per cent. since November 1978.
    Mr. Ennals: So, 9·2 million will receive the benefit, or the disastrous consequences, of the claw back. Is the Secretary of State aware that the miserly increase that there has been for pensioners since this Government came to power compares very badly with the 20 per cent. increase, in real terms, in what pensioners got during the period of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman takes us back to a previous question. I ask him to await the Budget for the decisions about which he is now asking. On his comparison, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of something that he may have forgotten, which is that during the period 1974 to 1979 inflation in this country went up by 110 per cent. That was not in the interests of the elderly.
    Mr. John: Will the Secretary of State accept that, in real terms, taking into account the cost of living, pensions went up in the same period by 20 per cent? Will he now have the grace to admit that?
    Mr. Fowler: I have conceded that in real terms pensions did go up, but the hon. Gentleman cannot simply cast to one side the 110 per cent. increase in inflation, which had all kinds of impacts on the elderly, industry and wealth creation in this country. Where does the hon. Gentleman think wealth comes from?
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, from Conservative Members, and from all pensioners, that this Government have looked after pensioners' interests extremely well? Will he consider again the question of increasing pensions for those who have gone to live abroad and who have been unable to benefit from the recent increases brought in by the Government?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall re-examine the position in that respect, because I know that there is concern about it. It is clear that it is a matter of resources and priorities, but I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

    Social Security Budget
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest estimate of the savings on the social security budget for 1982–83 as a result of measures taken since May 1979.
    Mr. Newton: The position remains as set out in the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 18 November last. Expenditure on social security in 1982–83 is estimated to be about £1·5 billion less than it would have been but for the various changes introduced since 1979.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister confirm that roughly half of the total social security budget is directed towards pensioners? Will he therefore further confirm that in this financial year the Government have cut £750 million from the 9·2 million pensioners, which is more than £1 a week per pensioner?
    Mr. Newton: I am not confirming the implications of what the hon. Gentleman says. As my right hon. Friend said just now, the contributions that the social security budget has made to the overall savings in Government expenditure have been necessary and are important factors in the progress that the Government have made against inflation. If Opposition Members faced reality, they would know that it is more in the interests of the retired population than of any other group in the country that we stay on top of inflation.
    Mr. Adley: Can my hon. Friend say, on the subject of his Department's budget, in a situation where there may be more buildings than patients in a given area, where one building may be in the public sector and another in the private sector, whether he would seek to discourage the sharing of facilities, provided that adequate financial arrangements on both sides were reached?
    Mr. Newton: I have a little difficulty in relating that question to savings on the social security budget. In so far as I take it as a plea to sustain our efforts towards greater efficiency and partnership between the public and private sectors, I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the social security budget for the people claiming benefits in Merseyside has increased, not reduced, and that there has been a 35 per cent. increase over the past two years in the number of people claiming benefit at local DHSS offices, while at the same time staff are being reduced in those offices? Is he aware that it is the view of the staff in those offices that if there is not a freeze on those staff reductions the local offices will grind to a halt? Also—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has probably seen the note that we placed in the Library about the way that local offices are staffed, and he will realise that, frankly, these comparisons are too simple by half. I was pleased that, as a result of the settlement of the DHSS disputes in Oxford and Birmingham, we have now been able to get under way, jointly with the unions, a review of the complementing system. I am content to rest on that for the time being.

    Supplementary Allowance
    Mr. Raceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons in the United Kingdom were in receipt of supplementary allowance, excluding supplementary pensioners, in (a) May 1979 and (b) the most recent month for which figures are available.
    Mr. Newton: There were 2·52 million people in the United Kingdom receiving supplementary allowances in August 1982, the latest available date, compared with 1·22 million in May 1979.
    Mr. Race: Does the Minister realise that the doubling of the numbers of persons receiving supplementary allowance means that mass unemployment equals mass poverty in this country? Why does he not do something about getting people off supplementary allowance and back to work, and talk to his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet about pursuing a policy that will get rid not only of mass unemployment but of the largest number of people that we have ever had in poverty in Britain for the past 40 years?
    Mr. Newton: The first requirement for getting people back to work is to restore the strength and stability of the British economy, and the first requirement for doing that has been to restrain the rate of inflation and reduce interest rates. That is the progress that we are making.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that those on supplementary allowance made their contribution to the £1·5 billion savings that the Government have made since 1979? Will he tell the
    152
    Chancellor of the Exchequer that before he introduces a giveaway Budget he should restore all those cuts to these groups of people as a first priority?
    Mr. Newton: Frankly, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. The scale rates of supplementary benefit have been fully protected against inflation. Indeed, the scale rates for some of those on supplementary benefit have been substantially increased.

    Falklands Campaign (War Pension Claims)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 18 October 1982, Official Report, c. 64, he will make a statement outlining the number and nature of the claims made under the war pension scheme as a result of the conflict in the South Atlantic, showing how many of the claims have been settled, how many are awaiting appeal, and the results of any appeal; and if he will indicate when he expects the claims to be finalised.
    Mr. Rossi: The widows of 122 service men killed during the South Atlantic conflict have claimed and been awarded war widow's pension. One further claim has been unsuccessful because the claimant was divorced. The widows of eight merchant seamen have also claimed and have been awarded war widow's pension. Of three claims made for means-tested parents' pension two have been awarded and one was unsuccessful on income grounds.
    As regards war disablement pension, nine claims have been made by merchant seamen. Five awards have been made and the remaining four claims are still under consideration. Five service men have claimed and four awards have been made. The other claim is still under consideration. I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 18 October that service men are not eligible for war disablement pension until they have been discharged from the armed forces. It will not, therefore, be possible for some time to say when all potential claims will be finalised. No appeals have been made.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why is it not possible?
    Mr. Rossi: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said. The armed forces are doing the best that they can to retain disabled men at work in the forces by finding them suitable occupations. While they remain service men employed by the forces there is no question of any pension being paid to them for their disablement.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: How much has been paid, in average and in total, to the bereaved and disabled of the Falklands conflict by the South Atlantic fund and how much money is left?
    Mr. Rossi: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the fund is an independent charity. My latest information is that £4 million has been expended.

    TUC (Health Service Committee)
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to invite the Trades Union Congress Health Service committee to discuss the future National Health Service programme.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I understand that the TUC Health Service committee is just completing a review of

    153
    public expenditure in the NHS. I would welcome a meeting to discuss the review if the committee wished to have one and preliminary arrangements are being made for such a meeting.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Griffiths inquiry into the running of the NHS consult the TUC Health Service committee and will its findings be made public? I am sure that the Minister is aware that there has been much anxiety in the Health Service, which is not a supermarket chain.
    Mr. Clarke: The Griffiths inquiry will decide how it sets about its task. I have no doubt that it will hear the views of, and take evidence from, a wide range of interested bodies. No doubt the TUC will make representations to the members of the inquiry. We do not intend to spend a long time producing a great report. The committee will advise the Secretary of State on what management improvements could be achieved in the NHS. We wish to make such improvements as quickly as possible, in order to release more resources for patient care.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. and learned Friend point out to the TUC Health Service committee that if the ancillary services in the NHS were carried out by private enterprise to the same extent as they are in other European countries, most notably Sweden, resources would be released to provide 52,000 more kidney machines, 51,000 more nurses, 17,000 more doctors, or 750,000 more beds? Will he knock some sense into both the TUC Health Service committee and also the Health Service administration?
    Mr. Clarke: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, he proposes to make a statement shortly giving details of how we propose to proceed in this matter. The object is to avoid unnecessary expenditure on the support services of the NHS so as to concentrate resources on better patient care.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Minister asked the managing director of Sainsburys to undertake the inquiry, because both the health workers and the shop workers are low paid?
    Mr. Clarke: The object of the inquiry is to improve the standards of management of the Health Service, so as to improve the standards of service for patients. That objective should be shared by everybody who has the best interests of the NHS at heart.

    Operation Major
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy not to undertake further actions such as Operation Major which took place in Oxford on 2 September.
    Mr. Rossi: No, Sir. While our policy is to try to prevent such situations arising, the Department must always be prepared to take effective and necessary action to counter serious or organised fraud.
    Mr. Bennett: In a recent Adjournment debate the Minister claimed credit for what he thought went right in the operation and blamed the police for those elements that went wrong. When will he meet the Thames Valley police to discuss the joint operation and ensure that the mistakes that occurred then do not occur again?
    Mr. Rossi: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the police have already said that while the matter is sub judice, because there are still cases outstanding, they are not prepared to make the matter public.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not what is presently known of Operation Major a sufficient indictment of the attitude of the police and social security officers for the Minister to intervene to ensure that the team that is now going round the country, and that has reached my constituency, behaves itself in future and acts in accordance with natural justice?
    Mr. Rossi: The police have already made it public that they regard the statements about that operation to be completely inaccurate and unreliable.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bob Dunnasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 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. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of right-thinking people within and without the House of Commons for her robust defence of our nuclear policy? Does she agree that the peace movement is inherently dangerous because it offers the illusion of peace for the price of throwing away our means of defence and deterrence?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the nuclear policy is a deterrent policy, which has effectively kept the peace in Europe for over 37 years. That is a great achievement. The real peace movement is the Western alliance and a sure defence. Once we have a strong defence policy we can negotiate with the Warsaw Pact countries on the basis of a balanced disarmament, with genuine counting.
    Mr. Foot: We should be very glad to have a full debate on that subject as soon as the right hon. Lady is prepared to arrange it.
    Is there any foundation in the reports that appeared yesterday in the Daily Mirror and today in The Times that the Government are proposing to circularise civil servants encouraging them to enter private health schemes, which could be injurious to the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: Whether the Government are proposing to circularise them or not, may I make it perfectly clear that civil servants, like other people, are free to spend their money as they choose, including on private health care if they so wish.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now say whether she will send out the circular and if so is not that another case of the Government using taxpayers' money to support Conservative policies?
    The Prime Minister: No. It is a case of informing employees of benefits that may be available to them.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Leader of the Opposition, who was secretary of the Oxford Union in 1933, when the notorious motion that

    155
    "This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country"
    was passed, that Russia invaded Poland in September 1939 and was stopped halfway by the German army and, when it was defeated, Russia annexed that part of Poland—[Interruption.] —and when the German army was defeated Rusia occupied the whole of Poland and half of Germany—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If we hear the question we can hear the answer.
    Mr. Fairbairn: —and that after 40 years of occupation of Poland, East Germany and the Balkan states it is only the Western alliance with its nuclear weapons that has stopped Russia from going further?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is weakness that attracts aggressors. It is strength that keeps the peace, with freedom and justice.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Prime Minister realise that the deployment of American cruise missiles here, whether under single or dual control, will be, and is, unconditionally opposed by the peace movement? Secondly, does she appreciate that there would be no time for United States-United Kingdom consultation and that when the computer went wrong and United States forces were alerted throughout the world, and United States bombers took off, the British Government would not be consulted and not even informed until after the incident was closed?
    The Prime Minister: NATO, and the negotiations going on at Geneva, are the true peace movement. The vast majority of the British people realise it. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about cruise, joint decision is dual control.
    Sir Hector Monro: As, in the year ending January, inflation was down to 4·9 per cent., does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that wage settlements reflect this figure if we are to retain competitiveness and provide more jobs?
    The Prime Minister: If wage settlements rise they can do so only at the price of causing more unemployment.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 15 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister explain further her shabby attempt at the weekend to discredit the peace movement by comparing it with the people who tried to appease Hitler? Is it not appropriate that such Goebbels-type propaganda should come from the lips of a war-mongering Prime Minister whose economic policies have caused more devastation and destruction to British industry than the blitzkrieg of Adolf Hitler?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is talking his customary nonsense. The speech that I made at the weekend must have truly hit the right nail on the head—some of the nails were on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Porter: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that of the 63 questions tabled for answer by her today only four are on specific matters? Would it not be more sensible if
    156
    we had more specific questions, because then we might have a Question Time that was a little less like a circus and more like a serious debating chamber?
    The Prime Minister: I am responsible only for the answers, not for the questions.
    Mr. David Steel: What brief has been given to the Government lawyers appearing before the European Commission of Human Rights? Is it that it is all right for Governments to seize private property, or is it that the compensation given by the previous Government in the case of shipbuilding and aircraft is adequate?
    The Prime Minister: The policy for compensation under the previous Act has been set out in the House many times by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State. There is no change.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: In welcoming the decision of both sides in the water industry to go to a committee of inquiry—
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, we are winning.
    Mr. Adley: —and bearing in mind that both sides have agreed to abide by its findings, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that, in the light of those developments, it would be sensible if the strikers now called off their strike and went back to work?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that both parties to the dispute have now agreed to accept the findings of the committee of inquiry. If that is so, it would seem that there is absolutely no point in prolonging strike action, which is causing so much hardship to so many people.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: When will the Prime Minister desist from trying to spread the absurd myths that she has tried to foist on the people of this country since 1979? In the light of the question from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about low wage settlements, how does she answer the evidence from the low pay unit, showing that the parts of the country where wages are lowest are exactly the parts where unemployment is highest?
    The Prime Minister: That is not always so. That is not so in a number of parts of the country. But the right hon. Gentleman will be very much aware that if wages rise substantially, then, since the money supply has to be fixed to try to keep inflation down, if some groups of workers take out more for themselves they can do so only at the price of the unemployment of others.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bearing in mind the proper and fair way in which we are treating those who receive pensions because of their husband's death in the Falklands or in Northern Ireland, and bearing in mind also the case of Mrs. Nicholson, the widow, whose husband was awarded the VC during the Battle of Britain, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for the conscience of this country to be roused and for us to treat the war widows of world war 1 and world war 2 more generously and that the coming Budget should provide a start in that direction? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know of this Government's excellent record on the treatment of war widows, the number of times that pensions have been increased, and the fact that we have taken away taxation on war widows' pensions. They have it totally free of taxation. I hope that we shall be able to continue this excellent record.
    Miss Boothroyd: As the right hon. Lady does not accept that her Government's invitation to civil servants to join a private health scheme is a further mechanism to weaken the National Health Service, will she at least admit that this latest move gives the lie to her statement at the Tory party conference that the Government care for the Health Service and that the Health Service need have no fears while this Government are in office?
    The Prime Minister: The Health Service is there. This Government have made more resources available. The Government have seen to it that more resources have been spent on the Health Service during our period of office than during the period of office of the Labour Government, and that there are more doctors and more nurses. But, fortunately, under this Government we still have a free country and people are free to spend their money on private health if they wish. I notice that the Labour party would take away that freedom if ever it were returned to office—but I do not believe that it will be.
    Mr. Churchill: Has my right hon. Friend seen the most interesting evidence produced by the Sunday Times in its two most recent issues to the effect that, while President Carter was seeking to persuade the Labour Government to accept a modernisation of NATO's nuclear weapons based on submarine offshore systems, it was specifically the senior members of the Labour Cabinet who were pressing
    158
    the United States President for land-based systems, which would be based in the United Kingdom? Since that is the case, does not my right hon. Friend think it somewhat strange that they should now sing such a different song when in opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I saw that most revealing article in the Sunday Times but I prefer to rely on the communiqués of the NATO group during the lifetime of the Labour Government and also on what the then Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), said in the House on 24 January 1980. Speaking then for the Labour party, he said:
    "We accepted the need to move ahead on the proposed timetable"—
    That was after the announcement of the decision to base cruise and Pershing in Europe. He went on:
    "It was the view of the previous Government that theatre nuclear modernisation was essential and that is our view today."—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 691.]
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider the possibility of abolishing the Honours List, having given knighthoods to such vagabonds as Sir David English and Sir Freddie Laker?
    The Prime Minister: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would make inquiries to discover which Government gave Sir Freddie a knighthood. I am sure that it was well deserved at the time it was given. We receive requests from all parts of the House to forward names to the appropriate quarters for consideration for honours. Those who receive honours usually well deserve them.

New Urban Initiatives
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about three important measures to improve the older industrial areas of our country.
First, I have reviewed the list of local authorities that need special recognition because of the scale of their urban problems. With effect from 1 April this year, I intend to add Blackburn, Brent, Coventry, Knowsley, Rochdale, Sandwell, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth to the list of programme authorities. I intend also to designate Burnley, Langbaurgh and Walsall under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. In the case of all these authorities, I shall make resource allocations to support approved programmes of work appropriate to their new status.
In making that selection I have, among other matters, taken into account an analysis of urban deprivation based on new data from the 1981 census. I am placing an information note on urban deprivation in the Library of the House and I am publishing the relevant data from the 1981 census in the Official Report.
The Government have launched two important schemes in which public funds are used to attract substantially greater amounts of private investment to the older and more derelict areas of our towns and cities. The first of these—the special category A derelict land grant scheme—has been designed to secure immediate development by private firms of land reclaimed by local authorities.
I am today approving £30 million of derelict land grant for 46 projects that will lead to £200 million of additional private sector investment. This represents a total investment of £230 million—an impressive ratio of one to six of public to private sector funds. I am placing details of the projects in the Library.
The 1983–84 programme will also contain a substantial quota of category B schemes totalling over £40 million aimed at more general environmental and economic improvement. The amount allocated to new category B schemes will be some £17 million, about £10 million more than this year. Prominent among those is £2 million for the start of reclamation of the former Workington steel works and £3 million for an expansion of Operation Groundwork, the imaginative scheme in the north-west to tackle the particular problems of the derelict twilight zones around our towns. In addition, I am making a special allocation of £10 million for reclamation on Merseyside. Overall, I have increased the total planned expenditure on the derelict land programme from £45 million this year to £75 million in 1983–84.
There is a further major initiative to help revitalise our inner city areas. The urban development grant scheme was launched last April. This scheme is also designed to use public funds to attract much larger resources from the private sector to provide fresh stimulus to the economic regeneration of our urban areas. I am pleased to tell the House that that scheme has attracted a very substantial response. I am about to announce today my approval in principle for the first batch of 41 projects. All those projects involve partnership with the private sector. I am placing details in the Library.
Those schemes are among the most straightforward and complete of those submitted in the first bidding round, and
160
can start soon. Some projects have not been approved and in those cases the individual authorities are being notified. Those still before us include some of the larger and more complex schemes that inevitably take longer and on which detailed work is still proceeding. I will announce further approvals as soon as possible.
The first 41 projects I have approved today cover a wide range of imaginative schemes, including the restoration and conversion of derelict buildings for offices and industrial purposes; the redevelopment of decaying buildings or derelict sites; the conversion of rundown estates for inner city housing for sale; recreational and sports projects; and other schemes for restoring commercial and industrial activity. Nearly 4,000 construction and permanent jobs will be retained or created by these projects.
The projects involve about £10 million of public money leading to additional private sector investment of £40 million making a total of £50 million of investment altogether. That represents a ratio of public to private sector money of one to four, and I expect the bulk of the expenditure on these schemes to take place in 1983–84.
In the light of the excellent response to the urban development grant scheme, I can tell the House that it will certainly continue for a further year. I shall be advising local authorities of the bidding procedures in due course.
The measures I have announced will ensure a greater concentration of effort and resources in some of our most needy areas. In particular, the special derelict land grant and urban development grant schemes are an exciting new approach in using public funds to achieve the maximum impact in those areas. The approved projects cost the public purse £40 million. But the benefit to the community is much greater because the substantial additional resources attracted from the private sector will lead to total investment of nearly £300 million.
This announcement makes a significant step forward to tackling some of the urgent problems of dereliction and economic decline in our towns and cities. It will provide substantial job opportunities, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Anybody who qualifies for the schemes will be grateful for what is made available, and the statement is to be welcomed on that account. The Opposition will study the details with care and interest. But is it not a comment on the Government that areas in the formerly prosperous west midlands such as Coventry and Sandwell have had to be added to the list of areas suffering from deprivation.?
How many jobs overall does the Secretary of State estimate will be created by his statement? I should be grateful if he would distinguish between jobs that are retained and those that are created. He spoke of 4,000 retained or created jobs in the construction industry. How many will be created, and how many retained? They must be set against the 200,000 construction jobs that have been destroyed by the Government's policies on the construction industry.
How much new money will be committed to the programmes under all the headings? The right hon. Gentleman's statement is unclear—perhaps deliberately so. He said that he is providing an analysis of urban deprivation and that it will be available in the Library. Will he provide an analysis of Government deprivation for the same places? How much money is being lost to those areas

161
in grant holdback? On the figures available—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—I estimate that the Government will make £57 million of new money available. On 14 December, and again last month, at the right hon. Gentleman's request, the House voted to take £131 million away from these local authorities in holdback.
Of the new authorities that the Secretary of State has designated today, £28 million was taken away in holdback. Will the Minister tell the House the net loss they will suffer as a result of his actions? Will he tell the House when it will be possible for the local authorities to spend the urban development grant moneys that he has spoken of this afternoon, and to which he says there is an excellent response? The Minister knows that at present it is illegal for local authorities to spend this money because of doubt about the powers under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he intends to introduce legislation that will legalise the making of the grants?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what started as and, I hope, continued as a welcome for my statement.
It is within the powers of the majority of local authorities to take advantage of the urban development grant scheme. Queries have been raised by some local authorities that were not clear about their powers. In answer to a parliamentary question last week, I made it clear that the Government will seek to introduce amendments as soon as possible to clear up the doubts of local authorities. I hope that it will have the support of the Opposition, because it could be important for some authorities.
It is extremely difficult to answer with precision the right hon. Gentleman's question about jobs. More than 1,000 jobs are involved in the construction programme on the Government's assessment. When one talks of the provision of new industrial premises, that will undoub-tedly lead to the creation of some new jobs for firms which are prevented from expanding by the constriction of existing premises. It may involve businesses transferring from totally unsatisfactory premises that might otherwise be closed under health, safety or other legislation. It may mean that some businesses will move without creating new jobs. Our best assessment, as I gave in my statement—I cannot give an estimate for the derelict land scheme—is that on the urban development grant side 4,000 jobs have either been retained or will be created. That is as honest an answer as I can give to the House. I am sure that every hon. Member is aware of the difficulties involved in making that assessment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the current consumption of local authorities and tried to contrast that with our schemes for capital investment in those areas. One of the tragedies of the areas involved is that the level of current consumption has been at the expense of new capital investment. If anybody wishes to know the consequence of that policy, one need only look at some of the areas that were the subject of my statement today.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about new money. The programmes to which I am referring—the urban development grant and the derelict land grant—for 1982–83 had funds allocated of £350 million, and the sum for 1983–84 will be £423 million. I contrast that figure with
162
the programme worth £160 million that we inherited from the Labour Government to tackle these serious inner city problems.
Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State is telling the House that he is taking away more from those local authorities than they would get under his scheme. It is all money.
The Secretary of State estimated that the number of jobs retained and created is about 4,000. That is so strange an estimate that the Secretary of State is unable to divide that figure into those retained and those created. Will he now give the House the information? How many have been retained and how many have been created?
The right hon. Gentleman made light of the legal position under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. Will he tell the House when he will introduce a Bill that will make it possible for local authorities to be sure that they have the legal right to make those grants?
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman made heavy weather of his last point. In our judgment, it is possible for the vast majority of local authorities to take advantage of their powers under local legislation.
It has been suggested that some local authorities may not have the necessary powers. There is a technicality under section 137 that involves the use of loans but not grants. We shall try to clarify the position at the earliest opportunity.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand my answer about the impossibility of predicting exactly the job content in this expenditure, I shall discuss it further with him, but the rest of the House will understand why it is not possible to give an absolute prediction of job content. A substantial number of extra jobs will be created from certain of the projects involved. Jobs will be saved that otherwise would be lost. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the nature of the schemes, of which copies are available in the Library, he will understand my answers.
Sir William Elliott: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that most hon. Members are fully aware that what he has told us suggests further inspired action by the Government to invest in urban areas? His statement will be well received in the conurbation of Tyneside and the city of Newcastle.
Mr. King: I appreciate my hon. Friend's approach to this matter and I am grateful for his comments. Anybody who has studied the problems of the inner city areas knows perfectly well that the solutions do not lie in larger and larger subsidies for current consumption from the public purse. Self-sustaining communities must be created in which people may live and work. If the contribution of public money can be used to prime the pump to encourage private sector investment, that is the best possible prospect of lasting improvements or those areas.
Mr. David Alton: Although I welcome much of what is in the proposals, especially on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), whose town is included in the list, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that these proposals must be seen in perspective? Last year Liverpool lost 10,000 jobs. Its rate support grant has been cut by £63 million in the past three years and the crime rate increased by a record 7 per cent. last year. These proposals will be seen as candyfloss and cosmetic. Will the Minister give an

163
assurance that fundamental bread and butter provision will be restored? Will he tell the House what the future of the task force and the urban programme are likely to be?
Mr. King: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was well enough aware of the problems of the city that he represents not to dismiss this initiative as candyfloss. He knows well enough, as do I with my lesser knowledge of that city, which I accept, to recognise that what is required is encouragement and hope and the knowledge that new initiatives are coming. I hope that he will, on reflection, feel able to welcome the scheme. It will not solve the massive problems, but it is an important start in that direction.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of my constituents for the £2 million that has been extended to Workington. This is only the beginning. If the severe and substantial problem of dereliction in Workington is to be dealt with, further substantial sums of public money must be made available, and we shall be coming back to the Government for those sums of money.
Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are interested in seeing improvements in areas such as that which he represents. The Government are conscious of the problems resulting from closures in the steel industry in that area. The Government are anxious to make that area and other areas places in which the private sector is willing to invest. The Government are willing to give encouragement in the form of public money to support and attract such investment.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The House must welcome these splendid initiatives, but does my right hon. Friend realise that many of the problems of the urban areas have been created by too much central and local government intervention? Will he ensure that, in putting the urban initiatives into practice, he will get Government off the backs of the people and involve people in helping themselves as far as possible?
Mr. King: I very much endorse my hon. Friend's comments. As he, with his interest in such matters, knows very well, it is essential that we enlist the support and enthusiasm of those who live in the areas. We shall give encouragement and support, but those areas cannot survive permanently if they must be propped up permanently. I hope that this announcement will be a step towards a rather different approach to encourage areas, with public support, to help themselves.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister tell hon. Members whose constituencies have been named in programme areas that that means very little? Will he tell them that Bootle has been in a programme area for the past three years, that the number of people claiming DHSS benefits has increased by 35 per cent. and that unemployent among active males has risen from 12 per cent. to 26 per cent.? Will he also tell them that all the firms that came to Bootle with the support of public incentives have closed down and left?
Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to release his authority from programme status or whether he chose to confuse two entirely different issues. I hope that he will welcome the scheme. I thought
164
that he took some interest in the matter. He will be aware, from his experience in local government, of the problem to be tackled, for example, in Manchester, which will benefit from some of the proposals.
Mr. Hal Miller: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the difficulties of the west midlands and the principle of helping people to help themselves. Does he recognise, from his visits to the region, that large-scale problems of derelict land are still to be tackled, and when he comes to consider the rating reform will he bear in mind the need not to increase that dereliction by allowing void rating of industrial premises, thus leading to the destruction of industrial buildings?
Mr. King: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in bringing that matter into this discussion. I am reviewing the position, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the proposals that I have announced will involve, on our present calculations, new investment of about £55 million in the west midlands. I hope that that will be welcomed.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the spectacle of a Conservative Minister taking pride in an increase in public spending so that jobs will be safeguarded is especially welcome to the Opposition, as is the clear recognition in his statement that the private sector alone cannot undo the damage that the Government have wreaked on many urban areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, although all of us welcome small mercies, the clear truth is that in Blackburn and every other area that has been decimated the damage of the past three years and the increase in unemployment and dereliction have followed not only the general economic policies of the Government but the withdrawal of public spending, especially on industrial assistance? Will the Secretary of State now urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry forthwith to restore industrial assistance to all areas that lost it and that have suffered increased unemployment as a result?
Mr. King: In my statement I took pride in announcing the more effective use of public resources. I know that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the background to some of those subjects, and he will know that in the past many such programmes have been applied on a blanket approach, often regardless of whether there was to be further investment or whether the resources would be put to effective use. What we are trying to do, in what will always be a position of limited public resources, is to get the maximum benefit for the public from such investment. I take pride in the fact that today's statement marks an important departure in that direction.
Mr. Jim Lester: May I tell my right hon. Friend how pleased I am that the queen of the midlands has found its way to the heart of a King? The project and the exciting partnership prospects that lie ahead are important not only for the creation of jobs but to an increase in the quality of life for the wide range of inner city inhabitants.
Mr. King: Hon. Members may be interested to see the range of schemes that we have approved under the urban development grant. Nottingham is one example where we considered several aspects of the problem. I hope that it

165
will be felt that we have supported schemes that are different in character but each of which can make a contribution towards the area.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I thank the Secretary of State and his colleagues for recognising at long last the fact that inner city problems exist in London as elsewhere and for his selection of the London borough of Brent. What are the mechanics for achieving a quick start in taking the initiatives needed? Does the Minister expect an approach from the local authority, or will there be a joint meeting? Has the right hon. Gentleman read a report of the south-east region TUC published this week, which shows that London and the south-east are two of the most dispossessed areas in the country?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his rather more generous comments than those that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) felt able to make. I have today written to the leader of Brent borough council. We hope to initiate the earliest possible discussions on this matter because we are anxious to get ahead in establishing the new status and the new work so that it can be effective in the coming year.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the Government's commitment to doing something about the problems of urban renewal, especially with reference to the £10 million that will be allocated to Merseyside as part of the Government's continuing initiatives in that area. It will be much appreciated. Will my right hon. Friend remind people on any and every occasion that the problems of dereliction have not happened overnight and cannot be put right overnight? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who pretend that there is an instant solution to the problem are deluding themselves and are being extremely dishonest to those who live in the areas?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. With his close knowledge of Merseyside, he will know the scale of the problem. I am also grateful to him for reminding the House that several of the problems that we are trying to tackle have existed for many years. We are now embarking on a more effective approach to try to marry such resources as exist in the public sector with the undoubtedly substantial resources of the private sector.
Mr. George Park: The announcement of programme authority status for Coventry will be warmly welcomed. The city has been seeking such status since 1978 and today's announcement is a recognition of the tremendous difficulties that we face. Will the Minister confirm that in giving this recognition the proposals will provide an opportunity for access to European Community funds?
Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the scheme, and I confirm that it will provide such an opportunity.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is widespread support for a policy of using public funds as a lever to obtain private investment in the hard-pressed inner urban areas? Does he also accept that many of the schemes that he approved for urban development grant involved the provision of new or refurbished industrial or commercial
166
accommodation? What guarantee does he have that they will be used, when there are many empty factories, offices and warehouses throughout the urban areas?
Mr. King: There was a careful appraisal of the schemes that I have announced today. They were independently appraised and we rejected several schemes where we did not believe that it was likely that the units would be taken up. The schemes that I have announced today are those where we believe that it is probable that the units will be occupied. I point out that matter to the hon. Gentleman because it is an important aspect of my announcement. Each of those projects involves private investment backing its judgment. Previously public funds were invested as a result of the judgment of Ministers, civil servants and others in the hope that it would prove to be right. Now the private sector is backing its judgment that it can make a success of it and let the undustrial units.
Mr. John Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that inner city dereliction started with the flight of private sector capital from the inner cities and that what he has announced today provides a new lease of life and a new deal for inner cities in general and the west midlands in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to encourage the job creation sector back into inner cities is to encourage the service sector back into inner cities? Will he therefore consult the Secretary of State for Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that the service sector takes up industrial buildings allowances wherever possible?
Mr. King: I note my hon. Friend's point. He is absolutely right to point to the fact that we face difficulties because of the flight of private sector investment. The purpose of this scheme is to reintroduce it to areas where, without initial pump priming, it might not be willing to go. I also note what my hon. Friend said about the service sector. If he examines the schemes, he will note that there is no such discrimination in them.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I welcome the decision to designate Knowsley as a programme authority. Does the Secretary of State agree that deprivation there, as on Merseyside, has been created largely by the Government's economic policy? Would it not be much more sensible to restore the cuts in public expenditure and the rate support grant and to reverse the Government's economic policies that have cost 80,000 jobs on Merseyside and 22 factories in Kirkby since the Government came to office?
Mr. King: I paid my first visit to Kirkby when the hon. Gentleman's party formed the Government. If he is trying to present the problems of Knowsley and Kirkby to the House as being the result of the Conservative Government coming to power in 1979, he is indulging in a huge distortion. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the problems there are of long standing. I am sorry that he did not feel able to give this effort, which is obviously not a solution, a more generous welcome.
Mr. D. A. Trippier: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the new initiatives that he has announced. Will he seriously consider the case that was made to him by the Rossendale borough council which is anxious that that area should be designated as a zone for Operation Groundwork? Could he be a little more specific about the timing of his final decision on the issue?
Mr. King: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that my reference to the extension of the groundwork scheme will include Rossendale. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter. I hope that that important scheme, which was originally launched around St. Helens, will be of great benefit especially to my hon. Friend's area and other areas of the north-west that need that approach.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Although I must welcome the inclusion of Sandwell, in which my constituency lies, in the programme, is not its inclusion a measure of the disaster that the Government has imposed on a previously highly active industrial area? Should not the inclusion of Sandwell have been decided upon years ago when the damage caused by the Government first became apparent?
Mr. King: We all know that the hon. Gentleman has represented his constituency for some time. Other people have been to that part of the country for many years. He knows well that the problems of dereliction in Sandwell and some of the problems of industrial decline and industrial obsolescence in that area are deep seated. If he believes that something should have been done a long time ago, he should ask his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench about it. I am just happy to have made my announcement today.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new proposals will be greatly appreciated by the self-reliant people of Halesowen who never complain and never expect anything? Nevertheless, I understand that a new factory is to be built there. Is he aware that they especially welcome the participation of the private sector in that development?
Mr. King: The self-reliant people of Halesowen are represented splendidly by a self-reliant Member of Parliament. I am grateful to him for his welcome.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from each side of the House and then to move on to the other business.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that his recognition of Wandsworth's special problems with regard to being a deprived inner city area will be welcome, although his recognition of that fact is long overdue? How much money will go to Wandsworth as a result of his proposals? Will he now call on Wandsworth council to stop cutting its services, as it has been doing for the past three and a half years, to the great disadvantage of the people of Wandsworth who are now suffering more than ever before?
Mr. King: I know that the efforts that have been made in Wandsworth by the admirably run Conservative council have done more to protect jobs in that borough than have the efforts of the neighbouring borough of Lambeth, the rating policies of which are in stark contrast and have done everything possible to drive people over the boundary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funds. There is a problem with regard to the time that it takes to develop and effect a programme. I have informed Wandsworth borough council that for next year £1 million will be available. I expect that figure to increase significantly as the programme develops.
Mr. Robin Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, and especially on the ratio of public to private investment—a ratio of 1:4 is projected. Will he, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Industry, keep under close review the need for more small units of 1,500 sq ft for office and factory requirements in inner city areas? Does he agree that that would be a major step towards increasing employment opportunities
Mr. King: As I said in an earlier reply, my hon. Friend would be interested to examine the schemes in detail. The schemes are the result of the judgment of the private sector that the industrial units can be let. I agree that the most important area of development for industrial units now is to make smaller premises available for businesses.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that north Staffordshire has one of the best land reclamation programmes in the country and yet has one of the fastest growing rates of unemployment as a direct result of the Government's policies? Is there any way in which he can offer special help to north Staffordshire?
Mr. King: I am familiar with some of the reclamation projects in Staffordshire. The right hon. Gentleman will concede that several of them have been for amenity and environmental purposes. What I have announced under category A is specifically different. I do not disparage the importance of environmental improvement, but it is geared directly to new private investment and construction. I hope to see Staffordshire and other parts of the country participate in that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the impressive and constructive proposals that he has announced today. They emphasise the importance of public and private capital expenditure as against revenue expenditure. Does he agree that there are several towns in shire counties as well as towns within metropolitan areas that have industrial deprivation? Will he consider the circumstances of towns such as Macclesfield and Congleton which played their part in the industrial revolution centuries ago? Will he consider them for assistance under the excellent proposals that he has announced today?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend will understand that analysing deprivation and trying to achieve a fair balance when designating areas and authorities that have special needs is a peculiarly difficult problem. I understand his point. He may not be aware of the fact that I have been examining schemes for what I call the peripheral approach to towns and Operation Groundwork. I have decided that, in addition to the ones in Lancashire and the north-west, Macclesfield could also be the subject of such a scheme.
Mr. John Sever: In the event of the Minister not including the now long-established derelict site in the centre of Birmingham known as the Snow Hill site in his scheme today, will he undertake to write to me or publish his Department's views on how that enormous site in the heart of the country's second largest city can be developed?
Mr. King: I have not the details immediately to hand, but I will certainly look into the point raised by the hon. Member.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: I proposed to ask the same question as that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I am very glad that the Minister has told us about the judicious priming of the pump in co-operation with free enterprise. Will he make another statement in a week or two on help for those towns in the shire counties referred to by my hon. Friend, many of which could do with similar assistance?
Mr. King: Although my hon. Friend was about to ask the same question, I am not able to give him the same answer. I can tell him, however, as he will have noticed from my statement, that the announcement I have made about urban development grant projects is only the first announcement of the first schemes. I hope that the next announcement, which may be in another form, will be made in a few weeks. Priming the pump and using public money in this way is a most exciting development. I hope that the House will recognise its potential.
Mrs. Renée Short: Does the Minister realise that the scheme he has announced today is a direct result of his Government's policies since 1979 of bringing about the dereliction of British industry? In my constituency we have the Guy Motors site, the latest example of a derelict site following the Government's refusal to help the industry to carry on. What does he intend to do to help areas such as Wolverhampton that have not been included in the scheme—God knows why not—where we have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. and where thousands of young people have been on one scheme after another but cannot find jobs?
Mr. King: The hon. Lady is repeating something that her hon. Friends have said, that the problems of these areas all began in 1979. I can no more accept it from her than from anyone else. The project I have announced today, in which I hope Wolverhampton will play its part and in which there is a possibility of schemes coming forward,
170
is one that I hope she will welcome because she knows well enough the long-standing problems of these areas. In the current recession the problems of some of the traditional industries of the west midlands and the black country are grave enough. However, I hope that some of the initiatives that we are taking, particularly these which will help in certain areas, will be welcomed.
Later—
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we understand why you did not call Scottish Members to ask questions on the statement which covers only England and Wales, may I ask the Leader of the House, who is present, whether a parallel statement covering Scotland will be made in the usual perfunctory manner through a written answer; or is there no parallel programme for Scotland and have the Conservatives abandoned Scotland now and for the next election?
Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Member follows that up in another way. I am afraid that I cannot help him.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for the Environment indicated at the beginning of his statement that he had lodged accompanying documents in the Library. I have been to the Library for one of those documents, and it appears that the Department has lodged one copy and that the staff of the Library have to photostat the necessary number of copies. Since this document is of interest to a great many Members, is there no way whereby the House can be better served in relation to the deposit of documents by copies either being available at the Table Office or being distributed to Members, as they are distributed to the press?
Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether I am responsible in this matter, but of course I will examine it.
Following are the data:

171

District

Population 1981

Population change 1971·81

Mortality rate

Unemployment

Single parent households

Pensioners living alone

Overcrowded households

Households lacking exclusive use of basic amenities

Residents in new Commonwealth and Pakistan households

Number

Per cent.

Number

Per cent.

Number

Per cent.

Number

Per cent.

Number

Per cent.

Number

Per cent.

Number

Per cent.

Partnerships

Birmingham

1,006,527

-91,432

-8·3

1·06

72,083

15·2

23,986

6·7

52,066

14·6

21,265

6·0

18,436

5·2

149,301

15·2

Gateshead

211,333

-13,792

-6·1

1·20

14,128

14·0

3,926

5·0

12,079

15·3

3,818

4·8

1,870

2·4

967

0·5

Hackney

180,434

-39,846

-18·1

0·92

13,403

15·3

7,241

10·6

10,459

15·3

6,179

9·0

8,151

11·9

49,417

28·0

Islington

160,890

-40,985

-20·3

0·93

10,803

12·9

5,384

8·4

10,170

15·8

4,030

6·3

7,102

11·0

26,044

16·9

Lambeth

246,426

-61,088

-19·9

0·91

16,402

12·7

9,673

10·1

14,159

14·8

7,037

7·4

9,614

10·1

56,071

23·5

Liverpool

509,981

-100,135

-16·4

1·12

47,030

19·8

12,948

7·2

28,407

15·7

10,051

5·6

13,151

7·3

8,383

1·7

Manchester

448,674

-95,193

-17·5

1·13

34,393

16·8

14,011

8·5

27,491

16·8

9,299

5·7

12,196

7·4

33,944

7·9

Newcastle

277,829

-30,448

-9·9

1·09

18,346

14·1

6,095

5·8

17,671

16·8

4,790

4·6

2,319

2·2

6,514

2·4

Salford

243,865

-36,023

-12·9

1·22

16,024

140

5,865

6·5

15,071

16·8

3,641

4·1

3,916

4·4

3,119

1·3

Programmes

Blackburn

141,928

840

0·6

1·19

8,727

13·5

3,163

6·3

8,289

16·4

2,820

5·6

4,732

9·4

16,039

11·5

Bolton

260,654

1,108

0·4

1·14

14,291

11·6

5,223

5·5

14,811

15·5

4,117

4·3

5,936

6·2

16,677

6·4

Bradford

457,423

-4,359

-0·9

1·05

25,449

12·0

10,395

6·3

25,990

15·9

9,001

5·5

7,392

4·5

50,442

11·2

Brent

253,275

-27,385

-9·8

0·86

13,191

10·1

6,958

7·8

11,159

12·5

7,745

8·7

7,233

8·1

83,023

33·5

Coventry

313,815

-22,930

-6·8

0·98

22,798

15·2

6,929

6·2

14,624

13·2

6,184

5·6

3,877

3·5

29,494

9·6

Hammersmith

148,447

-38,749

-20·7

0·94

8,786

11·1

4,686

7·7

9,843

16·1

4,535

7·4

9,262

15·2

21,441

15·3

Hull

269,539

-16,428

-5·7

1·09

19,222

15·8

6,530

6·7

15,295

15·6

4,201

4·3

9,123

9·3

2,083

0·8

Knowsley

172,957

-21,138

-10·9

1·12

18,660

22·6

4,701

8·5

6,052

110

4,398

8·0

1,145

2·1

1,048

0·6

Leeds

704,885

-34,046

-4·6

1·01

34,249

10·3

15,291

5·8

41,288

15·7

8,759

3·3

6,172

2·4

27,807

4·0

Leicester

280,324

-3,884

-1·4

1·04

18,180

13·6

6,968

7·1

15,041

15·3

6,187

6·3

8,836

9·0

58,966

21·7

Middlesbrough

150,430

-6,882

-4·4

1·10

13,646

19·9

3,851

7·6

6,240

12·2

2,740

5·4

1,907

3·7

4,808

3·3

Nottingham

272,141

-28,488

-9·5

1·05

16,653

13·1

7,822

7·8

15,921

15·8

4,700

4·7

5,242

5·2

21,251

8·0

Oldham

220,017

-3,952

-1·8

1·09

11,918

11·1

5,334

6·6

12,857

15·9

3,381

4·2

4,147

5·1

11,091

5·1

Rochdale

207,430

4,296

2·1

1·11

12,821

12·9

5,175

7·0

11,133

15·0

3,699

5·0

3,307

4·4

10,647

5·2

Sandwell

307,992

-22,170

-6·7

1·09

22,499

15·3

5,474

4·9

16,029

14·5

6,143

5·6

6,872

6·2

34,942

11·4

Sheffield

537,557

-35,117

-61

1·05

27,645

11·0

9,347

4·6

34,773

17·1

6,652

3·3

9,785

4·8

16,839

3·2

Sunderland

294,894

1,656

0·6

1·16

22,545

16·7

5,903

5·6

14,459

13·7

4,774

4·5

3,282

3·1

1,652

0·6

Tower Hamlets

142,841

-22,936

-13·8

1·04

10,912

15·5

4,230

8·0

8,599

16·2

5,305

10·0

3,239

6·1

27,657

20·3

North Tyneside

198,209

-9,710

-4·7

1·11

11,544

12·3

4,068

5·4

11,638

15·6

2,452

3·3

1,484

2·0

1,246

0·6

South Tyneside

160,410

-16,672

-9·4

1·14

12,545

16·8

3,328

5·6

9,549

16·1

2,729

4·6

1,868

3·1

988

0·6

Wandsworth

254,898

-47,358

-15·7

0·96

13,069

10·0

7,911

8·1

15,339

15·6

6,424

6·5

11,053

11·3

46,490

18·8

Wirral

339,494

-16,320

-4·6

1·12

20,426

13·3

6,970

5·7

18,618

15·2

3,198

2·6

4,290

3·5

2,574

0·8

Wolverhampton

254,561

-14,552

-5·4

1·04

19,133

16·1

5,136

5·8

11,960

13·5

5,177

5·8

6,606

7·4

38,858

15·5

Designated Districts

Bamsley

225,084

-494

-0·2

1·04

10,581

10·5

3,899

4·8

11,235

13·9

2,969

3·7

2,517

3·1

847

0·4

Bumley

94,078

-2,516

-2·6

1·37

5,348

12·0

2,206

6·4

5,833

16·8

1,387

4·0

3,323

9·6

3,365

3·6

Doncaster

289,532

8,575

3·1

1·07

15,797

12·0

5,562

5·4

12,765

12·4

3,108

3·0

4,152

4·1

3,523

1·2

Ealing

279,846

-21,265

-7·1

0·92

12,451

8·6

5,914

5·9

12,388

12·4

7,642

7·6

7,444

7·4

69,755

25·4

Greenwich

211,840

-5,823

-2·7

1·04

9,907

9·6

5·288

68

11,462

14·7

3,215

4·1

4,262

5·5

16,519

8·0

Haringey

203,553

-36,522

-15·2

0·93

11,196

10·7

6,028

7·8

10,586

13·7

4,604

6·0

9,262

12·0

59,632

29·8

Hartlepool

94,870

-4,581

-4·6

1·14

7,944

17·9

2,234

6·7

4,410

13·3

1,375

4·2

2,237

6·8

467

0·5

Langbaurgh

150,215

2,473

1·7

1·25

10,699

15·8

3,204

61

6,574

12·6

1,924

3·7

1,493

2·9

1,097

0·7

Lewisham

231,324

-37,150

-13·8

0·94

11,942

10·2

6,932

7·8

13,417

15·2

4,421

5·0

5,739

6·5

34,463

15·1

Newham

209,494

-27,898

-11·8

0·97

12,668

12·7

5,101

6·9

10,713

14·4

6,318

8·5

11,143

150

55,334

26·6

Rotherham

251,775

8,645

3·6

1·07

13,390

11·6

4,490

5·1

11,114

12·5

2,986

3·4

2,793

3·1

3,397

1·4

St. Helens

189,759

758

0·4

1·21

10,931

12·4

3,185

4·8

8,827

13·4

2,280

3·5

4,341

6·6

914

0·5

Sefton

299,724

-7,825

-2·5

1·07

17,321

12·4

5,473

5·2

15,783

15·0

2,799

2·7

4,592

4·4

1,904

0·6

Southwark

211,858

-50,277

-19·2

0·99

13,454

12·5

7,369

8·9

13,941

16·8

5,269

6·4

5,297

6·4

33,990

16·5

Walsall

267,042

-6·290

-2·3

1·03

17,465

13·6

4,568

5·0

11,198

12·1

4,322

4·7

3,153

3·4

18,950

7·2

Wigan

309,083

6,178

2·0

1·18

16,244

11·2

5,202

4·7

15,732

14·2

3,399

3·1

4,634

4·2

1,439

0·5

Definition of Key Indicators
The data shown in the table are assembled from the 1981 census and the "Veal Statistics" published by the Office of Population Census and Survey (OPCS). The definitions of the data are specified below.
(a) Population: Population present on census night Source: 1981 Census
(b) Population Change: The percentage change in the population present on census night between 1971 and 1981
Source: 1971 and 1981 Census
(c) Standardised Mortality Rate 1980: The ratio of the locally adjusted death rate to the national rate
Source: 'Vital Statistics' OPCS
(d) Unemployment: The percentage of economically active residents who are unemployed
Source: 1981 Census
(e) Single parent households: The percentage of private households which contain at least one single-parent family with dependent child(ren) aged 0–15
Source: 1981 Census
(f) Pensioners living alone: The percentage of private households containing only one pensioner (males over 65, females over 60) living alone
Source: 1981 Census
(g) Overcrowding: The percentage of private households in permanent buildings living at more than one person per room
Source: 1981 Census
(h) Households lacking exclusive use of basic amenities: The percentage of private households in permanent buildings which lack the exclusive use of a bath and inside WC
Source: 1981 Census
(i) Residents in New Commonwealth & Pakistan households: The percentage of residents in households where the head of the household was born in the New Commonwealth or Pakistan.
Source: 1981 Census
Note 2
The census data give a broad indication of the scale, intensity and concentration of deprivation, but in selecting additional authorities for designation or programme status account has also been taken of the availability of resources and the prospects for effective joint working with the Government and the private sector to alleviate the conditions giving rise to social need. Account has also been taken of the availability of alternative means of dealing with deprivation.

Boundary Commission Report
4.14 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter concerning the rights of this House and the propriety of the Government's behaviour when laying before it the report of the Boundary Commission for England in the name of the Home Secretary. I ask you, Sir, not for a ruling today but for an investigation and for a ruling when your inquiry is completed.
You will recall that on 25 January the Master of the Rolls dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Divisional court concerning the Boundary Commission's recommendations. However, the Court of Appeal enjoined the commission not to submit its report to the Home Secretary for presentation to this House if an appeal to the House of Lords was lodged within seven days. The enjoinder applied until the petition was determined. That petition was lodged within two days and the appeal was heard on Friday 11 February—last Friday. The appeal was dismissed on that date at 11.50 am. Until that time the enjoinder applied.
The Home Secretary reported in a written answer that he had received the report on the same day, Friday 11 February, although the date on the report is 1 February. The Home Secretary, however, says—and I do not doubt his word—that it was officially received by him last Friday. It was made available to this House at 3.30 yesterday afternoon and to lobby journalists several hours later. Draft orders were made available to the House and to lobby journalists at the same time.
For the proper procedure to have been followed, the report itself—269 pages—the accompanying volume—53 pages of elaborate maps and complicated overlays—and the draft order—83 pages—would have had to be prepared, published and distributed in 72 hours. Because of what that seemed to reveal, I made some inquiries about the printing of that report. It is my information that the material within it was delivered for typesetting to Burrup Mathieson of London and for printing to Lawrence Allen of Weston-super-Mare on 7 and 8 February respectively. In other words, the Home Secretary delivered this information for printing four days before he was officially and legally entitled to receive the report, according to the enjoinder, and that he delivered the information for printing and publication four days before the House of Lords finally made a ruling on the validity of the issue. I draw no conclusions from that whatsoever. I allow the House and the wider public to draw the conclusions themselves.
I simply ask you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate these matters, both in your capacity as Speaker and in your capacity as Chairman of the Boundary Commission, and report to the House at the first opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has submitted his point of order, and not least for the fact that he has not asked me to reply today. I will examine the matters that he has raised.

International Monetary Fund (Interim Committee)
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Some may say that the most important meeting on international affairs last week was that of the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that today, instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to the Dispatch Box to make an oral statement on decisions taken at that meeting, the Government have sought once again to make a written reply, thereby ensuring that hon. Members are precluded from asking questions on this very important subject? Is it not an abuse of our procedures for the Government to act in this way?
Mr. Speaker: No, it is not an abuse of our procedures.

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that tomorrow night there will be a debate on the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983. May I seek your guidance on the allocation of time for the discussion of the order which is far-reaching in its effects, especially when it carves up one constituency and causes great problems in my area, Ogmore? It is only fair that we should have sufficient time to discuss what has taken three years for the commissioners to prepare.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the normal procedure will be followed tomorrow and that an affirmative resolution will be required.

Rating (Caravan Sites) (Scotland) (Amendment)
4.19 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976 so as to give Scottish caravan sites parity with those in England and Wales.
My reason for introducing the Bill is that I believe that for a country such as Scotland, which depends so vitally on tourism, it is absurd that the mean rateable value per caravan should be in excess of £100 when in England and Wales it is less than £50. Tourism is now Scotland's largest industry with total earnings of more than £700 million per year, providing employment for 90,000 people. The caravan park sector provides 36 per cent. of the total holiday bed spaces in Scotland, creating approximately 10,000 jobs and contributing about £80 million to the Scottish economy. Within the self-catering sector, which includes chalets and holiday houses, caravan parks provide 82 per cent. of the holiday bed spaces in Scotland. Sadly, in the past three years occupancy of self-catering accommodation has fallen by about 20 per cent. at peak periods.
The combination of changes brought about by the 1976 Act and the general revaluation of all properties in Scotland in 1978 led to an increase in caravan assessments of between four and six times the original assessment, while assessments for other domestic subjects rose on average by two and a half to three times. Consequently, caravans have been doubly penalised in Scotland.
Before the 1976 Act, all static leisure caravans were separately assessed and entered in the valuation roll, the individual caravan owner having a right of appeal and direct responsibility to the local authority. This meant that for a large caravan park with 500 caravans the local authority issued 500 demands to 500 individuals, most of whom lived in other parts of the country in other local authority areas. Under the 1976 Act, static leisure caravans were no longer separately rated but were combined in one global assessment for the whole caravan park in which they were sited. The site operator thus became directly responsible to the rating authority for the total rate payment. He also became responsible for the apportionment and collection of rates from the individual caravanners. Parallel provisions for England, Wales and Scotland implemented that fundamental change in rating law and put caravan site operators in the unique and unenviable position of being responsible for rates on property not in their occupancy.
The 1976 Act was intended to benefit the caravan industry and to ensure lower rate payments on caravans both north and south of the border. In the Second Reading debate, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said:
"A side effect of the Bill which will be of considerable interest to caravan owners is that the total rateable value of the combined caravans and site will be less than if they were valued separately. In other words, the owners of leisure caravans will in most cases be paying less than if their caravans were to continue to be separately rated."—[Official Report, 3 March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 1327–8.]
That has not been the case in Scotland. In every instance, Scottish caravan owners and site operators are worse off.

177
Since the introduction of that Act, they have been paying more than their counterparts in England and Wales. In England and Wales, rateable values were reduced in some cases by up to 40 per cent. but there were no similar reductions in Scotland. I believe that that is contrary to Parliament's intentions.
My Bill seeks to give Scottish sites and leisure caravan owners parity with those in England and Wales by reducing the rateable value by 40 per cent. I cannot see any Scottish Member objecting to that. Indeed, the Bill has all-party support in Scotland as what I judge to be a proper and just attempt to put one of Scotland's tourist facilities on an equal footing with its competitors south of the border. I trust that no English or Welsh Member will object to the Bill, as the 1976 Act in its present form as it applies to Scotland has clearly failed to implement Parliament's original intention. That is why I seek leave to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mr. Ian Campbell, Mr. Tom Clarke and Sir Hector Monro.

Rating (Caravan Sites) (Scotland) (Amendment)
  RATING (CARAVAN SITES) (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976 so as to give Scottish caravan sites parity with those in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 February and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker have leave of absence to-morrow, Wednesday 16th February, to attend the funeral of Michael Roberts, Esquire, formerly Member for Cardiff North-West.— [Mr. David Hunt.]

Immigration
4.27 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (H.C., 982–83, No. 169), a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be disapproved.
The Opposition will vote against the rules for many reasons, but for four principal reasons and for four reasons of principle.
First, the rules discriminate against women. The discrimination is formal, intentional and undeniable. If a man who is settled in Britain but is not a citizen marries a foreign national, his wife can join him in this country and live with him here. If a woman who is settled in Britain but is not a citizen marries a foreign national her husband is not allowed to enter Britain and settle here. I begin, therefore, by asking the Home Secretary the question that I asked him in December, and in November when the rules were previously debated. What possible justification can there be for that degree of overt and deliberate discrimination? How can the Minister say that the rules fall equally on all British citizens and all British residents when they include that fundamental distinction between the treatment of women resident in this country and that of men who enjoy the same condition?
Secondly, we shall vote against the rules because they discriminate against the black and Asian British, for it is their families and friends who are usually wrongly denied visitor's visas, and it is their dependent relatives who are prevented from joining sons and daughters who live in this country. I know that the Home Secretary will argue that the rules, as they are written, in no way and in no place distinguish between people on grounds of race and colour. That is true on paper, but it is not true in the reality of the application of the rules, as every hon. Member who has dealt with individual cases of this kind must realise. It is little consolation to the ethnic minorities to be told that the immigration rules are not racist in theory, but only in practice.
Thirdly, the rules inevitably cast much doubt upon the status of children born in this country and create much anguish for the parents of children born here who may not achieve and acquire British citizenship because of recent changes under the British Nationality Act.
Fourthly—this is the inevitable focus of today's debate—we shall vote against the rules because of the provisions that they make for women who are British either by birth or by registration and who wish to marry foreign nationals and to live with their husbands in this country.
I can describe in two sentences what the regulations provide. There is the assertion that all British women, irrespective of how they became British, whether by birth or by registration, shall be granted the right to bring their husbands into the country. But then a limitation is imposed on the exercise of that right. As a result of that limitation, which is real and in some cases will be desperate, many partners in genuine marriages will be kept separate.
All that will be achieved by the statement, which is qualified virtually out of existence, is that the Home Secretary will be able to proclaim his liberalism to the European Court of Human Rights and tell the 1922 Committee that he is not quite as much of a libertarian as

179
it fears. He will be able to say both at the same time in two different places. That is the object of the compact that has been achieved between the Home Secretary and his Back Benchers and that has been enshrined in the regulations.
To understand that, it is necessary to recall how the Home Secretary has managed to manoeuvre himself into this disreputable position. On 11 November the House debated a White Paper which purported to describe the Government's intentions for new immigration regulations. The regulations were said to flow naturally and inevitably from the British Nationality Act 1981. The White Paper contained one wholly desirable change from its predecessor. The husbands of all British women, however those women had gained their British citizenship, were to be granted the right of entry. That provision was described by the hapless Minister of State, now shunted into the Foreign Office siding, in this way:
"the approach that we have adopted in the White Paper and in the debate is not merely defensible but positively right."—[Official Report, 11 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 751.]
It remained defensible and right until the votes were cast that night when a number of the Home Secretary's hon. Friends decided to disapprove of this one single act of liberalism. They said they disapproved of it because it breached a Conservative election promise. I have never sought to deny the truth of that allegation. Of course, what was proposed in the White Paper was a direct denial of the policy on which the Conservatives had chosen to fight the election. The manifesto said:
"We shall end the concession introduced by the Labour Government in 1974 to husbands and male fiancés."
Having considered the justice of that simple fact I repeat, as I said in November, that it seemed to some of us typical that with so many broken election promises to choose from—on taxes, law and order, unemployment—the one that should cause a revolt on the Conservative Back Benches is that which provided a concession that would have united divided black families. Government Back Benchers choose the grounds of their rebellion for themselves, and on that night rebel they did; inevitably the Home Secretary retreated in the face of that rebellion.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that that manifesto commitment indicated that white women would not be able to bring into the country white men from abroad whom they married and that was reneged upon as soon as they got into office? They changed the rules because they would not go that far, but none of the Conservative Back Benchers claimed then that that was a breach of their manifesto.
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is right. The first abandonment of the commitment was when it was adjusted so that women who were British by birth rather than by registration should have the right to bring in their husbands. That adjustment was intended to ensure that Asian and black women could not bring in their husbands but white women could.
I return to the point that in November Conservative Back Benchers chose to rebel on the ground of a broken election promise. Inevitably the Home Secretary retreated in the face of that rebellion. He offered the rebels three so-called safeguards. The onus of proof that the marriage was genuine was to be shifted to the applicant who, under the second set of rules, had the duty of satisfying authority that
180
he was not entering into the marriage so as to evade immigration control. Secondly, the period during which a husband could be sent home if the marriage broke down was extended from one to two years. Thirdly, the Home Secretary announced that deportation of the husband would be the normal course if the marriage broke down during that period.
The result of the Home Secretary's retreat was as predictable as the retreat itself. He held out the hand of friendship to his bitterest critics on the Back Benches and they stamped on his fingers. Instead of accepting what he had thrown to them, they encompassed the humiliation of the December debate. They voted against him and defeated him. Again there was the same inevitable dreary response that the Home Secretary always makes to these matters; he began once more to court the rebels who had caused him so much discomfiture and humiliation.
As the Home Secretary well knows, he could have gone back to the White Paper proposals which he solemnly told the House were his preferred course and he could have carried those proposals through the House in January or February, as he carried them in November. But instead of doing that and behaving like a Home Secretary, he chose to behave like an assistant Whip, and a very inefficient assistant Whip at that. For two months there was constant public speculation, constant press briefings, constant managed leaks and constant Home Office denials about the deal that was being cobbled together. I believe that in the Conservative central office it is known as the resolute approach.
Throughout all this time there has been no evidence, despite the threats, the cajoling and the horse trading, that any consideration was being given to the merits of the Home Secretary's proposals. No one seemed to be concerned about the husbands who were parted from wives and the families that were divided. All that concerned the Home Secretary was making a fragile unity over this issue with the wilder shores of the Conservative party. I offer the Home Secretary a description of the events that have culminated in today's debate—the sacrifice of principle, people and patriotism for party ambition. If some hon. Members think that that is overstating it, they had better make their complaint to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) who said that in Oxford yesterday evening. In this particular, although I suspect in no other, I endorse his view completely.
The outcome of that shameful act as described by the hon. Gentleman has not just made the Home Secretary look weak and unprincipled but it has made every participant in the incident appear ridiculous. There are the erstwhile Right-wing rebels who refused six weeks ago to accept three safeguards which they described as inadequate. Now they are going to troop into the lobbies for a single safeguard, having been denied two of the items that were described six weeks ago as being insufficient to meet their needs. But their shame is nothing like that of the moderates, whom I believe the Prime Minister calls wets, within the Conservative party, the men who hung around the corridors, lurking behind statues of Mr. Disraeli to announce to every passing journalist and politician that this time the wet worms would turn and insist on the White Paper and nothing but the White Paper; this time the Monday Club had gone too far. Of course, the Prime Minister and the Whips knew that when the time came they would turn and run, and turn and run they did, and their reputation has been completely vindicated.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman in his usual colourful style made a reference to hon. Members lurking behind statues of Mr. Disraeli. Would he tell the House how many statues of Mr. Disraeli there are and where they are located?
Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is more than kind to refer to my "usual colourful style". In referring to the author of "The Two Nations" I was speaking metaphorically.
It is those who claim to be on the side of the immigrant families, on the side of those who will be so cruelly separated, for whom I feel the greatest contempt. They seem not to be very concerned about the real outcome of the changes to be debated and, I fear, approved today. Someone should talk about the real outcome rather than party management. I know that I shall speak for all my hon. Friends who take the same view. We are talking about many genuine families—of genuine marriages—that will not be allowed to live in the peace, harmony and tranquillity in which they would be allowed to live in a truly civilised society.
I know that the Home Secretary has dropped the two-year rule which stated that if a man was parted from his wife he would be deported from Britain after two years. I said in November that I regarded the extension from one year to two years as deeply offensive. However, I never regarded it as genuinely relevant to the immigration issue and a deterrent to marriages that should rightly be allowed to take place. The length of the period prior to potential deportation after a marriage break-up may be one year, two years or 10 years, but it will not deter genuine applicants who are about to enter into genuine marriages.
My constituents who marry men from the Indian subcontinent do not care about the threat of their husbands being sent home if there is a break-up after one year or two years. They are not worried because they enter into genuine marriages which, at the time of marriage, my constituents believe will continue for ever. The one-year or two-year rule does not deter the genuine marriage about which we are concerned. The factor that deters it is the shift of the onus of proof from the immigration authorities to the applicants.
That shift of onus and the reversal of the two-year rule is based on a complete misunderstanding that afflicts the Home Secretary and, no doubt, the Minister of State, with whom he is in rapt conversation. They are unable to distinguish between the arranged marriage and the bogus marriage. The shift and the reversal are based on their inability to distinguish between a marriage that is different from our customs and habits, and almost certainly different from our preferences, but which is a genuine marriage in every decent sense of the word, and a bogus marriage. It is that misunderstanding which has caused so much difficulty. It is that misunderstanding which lies at the heart of Conservative policy. It reflects a basically racist attitude. That is, in effect, that customs that are different from ours are offensive customs and must be penalised and prohibited.
Mr. Nick Budgen: Rubbish.
Mr. Hattersley: A substantial part of the population believes for social, ethnic and religious reasons that the arranged marriage is the proper course. It is within the knowledge of many hon. Members on both sides of the
182
House that these marriages are genuine, stable and permanent. To prevent them is a deeply shameful decision for the Government and the House to take. However, that will be the effect of moving the onus of proof from the immigration authorities to the applicants.
The Home Secretary must understand and recognise the difficulty that applicants will face in trying to prove a negative. How does an applicant prove that his intention to marry is not based on, or influenced by, his wish to live in Britain and to obtain a job here?
All of us who have had difficulties with the immigration authorities can imagine the tragic conversation. The parties will say, "We met, we courted and corresponded. We have saved for the fare, the wedding and the furniture. We have booked a register office"—or it may be a church or temple—"and rented a flat." They will then be asked, "When you made all those preparations, were you not really, in heart and mind, wanting a job in Britain?" Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how an applicant can prove that the answer to that question is no.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he expects immigration officers to behave more reasonably than that. The hard truth under a variety of Governments is that immigration officers have invariably taken a harder line than compassion and reason required. When the word is passed down from the Government that the hard line is the order of the day, many genuine marriages and genuinely permanent relationships will be prevented.
I remind the Home Secretary of another result of his blundering. In future, all British women—not only those who are not British by registration—will have to face these rigours. They will be faced by women who are British by birth. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is not in his place—I am sure that there is a good reason for that—talked in November about the prospects for his daughter were she to wish to marry a foreign national. Were that to happen to his daughter or to the daughter of any hon. Member, the young lady would be required to demonstrate, as would her American, Canadian, French, Pakistani or Indian husband, that she and her partner were not entering into marriage for the purpose of the husband obtaining a job in Britain.
By describing what the right hon. Gentleman has provided for us, one is describing the utter unacceptability of the proposals when set against compassion and civilisation. The immigration authorities will be required to judge a man's motives and men will be required to demonstrate that their motives are those which it is impossible to demonstrate.
All this is being done to appease the more unsavoury elements in the Conservative party. It is being done in the name of an assault on illegal immigration. The bias that afflicts so many Conservative Members means that they cannot distinguish between illegal immigration and immigration for purposes that they do not themselves support. However, it is worse than that. It is more desperate and despicable than that.
The numbers involved are really a trickle. All this is being done to limit at best or, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, at worst, or on any valued judgment that the House cares to choose, 2,500 or 3,000 applicants. Anyone who reads what the right hon. Gentleman said in column 696 of the Official Report on 11 November will discover that towards the end of the column he struggled as hard as he desperately could to construct the largest possible figure when talking about potential

183
numbers. Being an honest man, and having explained all the qualification bearing on his large figure, he said with great integrity that probably the figure was wrong. He had chosen to adopt all the largest assumptions. Even on that basis we are talking about 2,500 applicants. They are not coming here for the first time. It is not what is described as primary immigration. We are talking about genuine husbands who wish to join their British wives and live with them in peace and amity.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to return to the proposals which he once espoused and carried through the House, proposals which carried an element of decency within them. The results will be the separation of families, suffering and harship. In any decent person's judgment it is a shameful position and we shall vote against it.
4.49 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): It is interesting when some right hon. and hon. Members protest too much. We have just heard a speech in which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) protested too much. What is more, he did something else that is always a mistake, and which I would have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have learnt by this time. It is that people in glass houses do not throw stones. After all, think of the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, talking about someone saying the same thing at the same time in two different places. He has been doing that all his political life. That is how he has got where he is.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about courting the rebels—a most interesting phrase. What has he been doing in Bermondsey? Does he really believe in the Labour candidate for Bermondsey? Therefore, it was a little dangerous for him to embark on the course of referring to courting rebels.
The problem with the right hon. Gentleman is that at the end of all his speeches there comes the same feeling. He is also always talking to two different audiences at the same time with the result that no one knows, as his speech showed today, whether he and his party are in favour of strict immigration control. That is a fact of life.
As the House knows, the immigration rules, which I laid on 6 December, and which came into force on 1 January, were disapproved and have to be replaced. The rules now before the House will come into effect on 16 February and will replace those now in force.
I remind the House very briefly of the background against which it is necessary to bring forward changes in the immigration rules. The British Nationality Act came into force on 1 January this year. The rules have to reflect these new provisions in nationality law and some change in them is therefore unavoidable.
The debates in the House about the rules have focused on the provisions relating to husbands and male fiancés. There was no doubt that the wish of the great majority of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, as expressed in the debate in December, was that all British citizen women should have the same right to be joined here by a husband or fiancé, irrespective of whether they had a connection with this country by birth. Several Members spoke with great force and conviction. I have
184
considered the matter carefully since the debate, as I was bound to do. I remain firmly of the view that this is the right course.
It is right in principle that all women who share our citizenship should have the same opportunity to live here with the husband of their choice. The test that we used in 1980 of citizenship and birth was necessary at that time, in the absence of a definition in our nationality law of who belonged here. But now that the British Nationality Act has given us such a definition—and the Act is already in force—it is right and reasonable to rely on it in this context.
At the same time it is necessary to ensure that there are proper safeguards against abuse of the rules by people using marriage as a convenient means of obtaining settlement here. Successive Governments of both complexions have recognised that that was a difficult problem. No one found it more difficult than the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) when he was Home Secretary. In view of his article in The Guardian I am entitled to reply to him in kind. I intend to do so. When he was Home Secretary the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind repeatedly. In case he has forgotten these facts, I shall remind him of them. Perhaps he has floated away to other pastures and forgotten what happened before. I shall tell him now. In March 1974, just after the right hon. Gentleman had taken office, he was thinking of relaxing the rules, but he had reservations. He said:
"I have to consider the practical consequences as well as the problems themselves … were Ito admit husbands on the same basis as wives, in my view it would lead to a substantial and continuing new wave of male immigration".—[Official Report, 28 March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 612.]
But three months later that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did. He candidly admitted that he had changed his mind:
"When I first considered this I believe that I put too high the likely immigration consequences … On further consideration of all the issues involved in this difficult problem, I am persuaded that there are no sufficiently compelling reasons for denying the parties to a marriage the freedom of choice that I believe they should have."—[Official Report, 27 June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 535.]
But it was not long before the right hon. Gentleman had to think again. Two years later he told the House that there was "sufficient evidence"—of abuse—"to justify counter measures" and that he was
"examining urgently possible proposals to deal, in particular, with cases involving a bogus marriage designed to avoid removal for breach of conditions or illegal entry".
He was forced to admit that the concession that he had introduced in 1974
"left some room for abuse by way of marriages of convenience aimed solely at achieving entry or avoiding removal."—[Official Report, 5 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 984.]
Then the right hon. Gentleman left the scene, leaving this problem and many others to his luckless successor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). The investigation set up by the right hon. Member for Hillhead led to the Labour Government's rules of 1977, when they introduced some tests, but inadequate ones, against the abuse of the rules. That is the nature of the problem. In 1980 this Government introduced far stricter tests against abuse.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: What does the right hon. Gentleman now regard as my catalogue of sins? In both my periods of office as Home Secretary, with the exception of the first three months when I gave the matter balanced consideration, I had complete equality between the sexes and complete racial equality with regard to the

185
admission of fiancés and husbands. If the Home Secretary stuck to that position, he would be in much less difficulty than he is now.
Mr. Whitelaw: I was referring to the safeguards. Before the right hon. Gentleman left office he came back to the problem of safeguards and the need to deal with abuse of marriage. He said that. I read it out. He left it to his successor to put through the Labour Government's proposals, which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook supported.
That is the nature of the problem. In 1980 the Government introduced far stricter tests against abuse. However, we thought it right, when introducing rules which extended the right to bring in a husband or fiancé to all British citizens, to look again at the safeguards, and as a result I decided to make further changes.
There was a great deal of discussion about those safeguards in the December debate. There was agreement that safeguards were necessary, but less agreement about what were the right ones. There was, however, a widely expressed dislike on both sides of the House of the extension of the period of temporary stay of a husband in this country from one year to two years. Some hon. Members drew attention to the hardship which a longer period would lead to, mentioning the greater risk of a marriage breaking down, and pointing out that the husband could be an innocent party.
I have considered the whole question of safeguards carefully, in the light of the debate. It is not an easy matter to get the balance right between adequate safeguards and those that are too restrictive. I have decided that it would be right not to proceed with the rules that extended the period of a man's temporary stay here from one to two years. In reaching this decision, I have taken account of the strong views expressed on both sides of the House that it is unreasonable to delay the grant of settlement for more than a year. I accept the argument that this period places too much uncertainty over a marriage. I have therefore restored the earlier rule under which a husband may be granted settlement at the end of one year. At the same time I have omitted the change in the rules on deportation, which was linked with the proposed extension and which meant that a husband could be deported irrespective of the reason for the breakdown of the marriage or the length of his residence here.
On the other hand, I believe that it is right to retain the new safeguard, which places the onus on an applicant to show that he qualifies to come here under the rules. This is, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook thinks, a reasonable requirement and those who have a genuine relationship that was not contracted for immigration reasons have no cause to fear it. At the same time it will help to ensure that those whose motives are not genuine will not be able to benefit under these rules. I believe that this extra safeguard, together with the already stringent tests that we introduced in 1980, provide the best basis for firm action against abuse of the rules by people using marriage as a way of entering this country.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary has repeated several times that he believes that the change in the onus of proof is best, essential and right. When did he come to that belief? He did not include it in his White Paper.
Mr. Whitelaw: After the first debate, I decided that I would include that as one of the safeguards because there
186
were widespread views that we needed safeguards against abuse. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and others, and the Labour party at various times, took the same view and introduced safeguards. Therefore, I was perfectly entitled to take that view after listening to the views of the House. I am reinforced in what I say by what I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). While we were in opposition, he visited the Indian subcontinent and studied the work of entry clearance officers. He is convinced, from his experience, that this safeguard will be of considerable value. He has stressed that to me and to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is well aware of public concern about pressures that exist from the Indian subcontinent for young men to gain access to the United Kingdom. He is also well aware of the tradition of arranged marriages—which no one wishes to criticise in this debate. The custom has been, within the arranged marriage, that the young woman should join her husband. In the application of these rules, against the burden of proof, would my right hon. Friend—I do not want to make it difficult for him—say that if the young man within an arranged marriage is seeking to join a woman here it could be an indication that that marriage might well be being contracted for the purpose of migration to this country?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the basis on which we have put the burden of proof, these are all the questions that are rightly considered by the entry clearance officers.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That is scandalous.
Mr. Whitelaw: It is true. It is not scandalous at all.
Mr. Lyon: Of course it is.
Mr. Hattersley: I ask my question of the Home Secretary slowly in order that he may consider the answer that he has just given. Clearly and rightly immigration officers are conscious of the Home Secretary's statement on these matters and are influenced by him. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has just suggested that automatically any man who wants to come to this country to marry an Asian woman must be the party to a bogus marriage—
Mr. Marlow: Rubbish.
Mr. Hattersley: —because the normal cultural pattern is to go in the other direction. I do not ask the Home Secretary to condemn that judgment; I merely ask him to say that the fact that a man is coming to Great Britain rather than a woman going to India or Pakistan is not evidence of anything.
Mr. Whitelaw: I did not understand my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to say what the right hon. Gentleman says he did. I do not believe that he did. I am entitled to reply again that, of course, entry clearance officers have, on the basis of the rules laid down and passed by the House, to judge whether a marriage is genuine and whether it should be proceeded with. That is what I was trying to say and I believe that it is perfectly clear.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This is absolutely crucial, because the ECOs in the subcontinent will follow the debate and the Home Secretary's statement closely. Will the Home Secretary repudiate the suggestion that the fact

187
that the husband goes to live with the wife is so different from Indian custom that it must mean—[Interruption.] —that is what was suggested—that there is something wrong with the intention?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am not prepared to answer questions put by hon. Gentlemen who distort what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said. I have made the position abundantly clear: the entry clearance officers do their duty in accordance with rules laid down by the House, as I have described them. I simply do not accept the interpretation of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) of what my hon. Friend said. I have ears as has the hon. Gentleman and I could hear what my hon. Friend said. He did not say that.
Mr. Clinton Davis: There is clearly an enormous amount of vagueness about this. The criteria deployed by immigration officers will differ almost certainly from one to the other. Does not the Home Secretary think that in these circumstances—although I believe his perspective about this is wrong—that there should be at least some guidance from the Minister as to the criteria that should be adopted by immigration officers in resolving these matters? In the absence of that, vagueness will be the order of the day and vagueness is dangerous for civil liberty.
Mr. Whitelaw: I have set out for entry clearance officers what has been clear for a number of years. These rules are simply changing the burden of proof. I do not believe that there is any vagueness for entry clearance officers. If there is I am perfectly prepared to look into it.
Mr. Marlow: The word I used in connection with the question that I put to my right hon. Friend was "could". All the questions put and remarks made by Opposition Members are complete distortions of the point I was making.
Mr. Whitelaw: It is important to set the debate on these rules, which are centred on husbands and fiancés, in a wider context and to remind the House what the Government's policies of strict immigration control have achieved in the past four years. The figures show that under this Government the number of people accepted has dropped sharply. In fact the statistics for acceptances during last year were the lowest since Commonwealth immigration control began 20 years ago. That is what we intended and, I am glad to say, that is what we have achieved.
The great majority of those accepted are wives and dependent children of men who are already settled here. They accounted for as many as two thirds of all those accepted last year from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. Wives and children of men settled here either have a statutory right to come, or have been the subject of undertakings by successive Governments. Since 1979 the queues of such dependants waiting to come here from the Indian subcontinent have become very much shorter, and there is every reason to think that this trend will continue. Figures are regularly published. The queues are now less than half what they were at the beginning of 1979.
The majority of people granted settlement are wives and children. If one looks at the other categories,
188
acceptances now are limited to the absolute minimum. In each case there are strict controls. The criteria for the grant of work permits have been tightened by the Government and they are now available only for people who have scarce skills. Just over 1,000 of those granted settlement were special voucher holders, who came here under the quota system for former citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, mainly in East Africa. The Government are committed to continuing this scheme, but admissions will continue to be at a carefully controlled rate and we have recently refused to increase the quota for India.
This accounts for the main categories, apart from husbands. We said in the manifesto that we would end the concession introduced by the Labour Government. We have done that and we are not going back on it. The only husbands who will be able to qualify under our rules are those whose wives are British citizens and they must satisfy strict tests against abuse. In the 12 months ending on 30 September 1982, fewer than 3,000 husbands were accepted for settlement from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan, and most of those were accepted under the previous Government's rules, which we changed.
The Government remain committed to strict immigration control. It is an essential element of that policy that the Government should ensure that they have the best possible statistical information on present and likely future patterns of immigration. In that way they can be aware of underlying trends and can examine the results of their policies, as well as being able to respond to new circumstances as they develop. It is because of this that we have set up important new arrangements for examining immigration from the Indian subcontinent. The first results from this exercise have already been published and in time we expect it to provide valuable information about future trends. We shall continue also to collect the comprehensive figures that are published regularly on immigration control, including those that show the number of husbands who gain settlement by marriage.
Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the numbers have dropped considerably. Can he give the House a categoric assurance that the rules he is laying before the House, together with the implementation of the Nationality Act 1981, will not result in any increase in primary immigration and that the ratio of reduction will continue at the same level? If he cannot give that assurance I think that he will find that some Conservative Members will not be able to support him in the Lobby tonight.
Mr. Whitelaw: The trend of settlements is down and I trust that it will continue to be so. However, it would be a brave man who, in an uncertain world, could go any further than that. But I have given a clear assurance.
Sir William Clark: The House understands the dilemma of my right hon. Friend. However, would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the figures proved that immigration was on the increase, he would take action to see that that increase was reversed?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am just coming to that point, if my hon. Friend will allow me to continue.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the movement of peoples is much conditioned not just by immigration rules but by

189
employment and economics? One of the reasons for the fall in immigration, apart from the stringent immigration control, is the unattractiveness of this country. In the future, does the right hon. Gentleman agree, no one could tell, if we have another economic upswing, how many EC nationals would chose to come to live and work here and bring their families? Is this not an imponderable question?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall not broaden this debate to an economic one. I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising that the Government have been carrying through a policy of stringent immigration control. I am grateful for that.
The House will be aware that any Government must be prepared for unexpected developments affecting immigration.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to whom I gave notice that I would raise this matter, and who apologises for not being present, was forced by events in Africa not only to change his policy but to introduce new legislation to control the immigration of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I am speaking of the Labour Government's Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which extended immigration control to people from our former colonies who, as a result of the policy of Africanisation, were being driven out of East Africa and coming here in large numbers. I strongly supported that Act myself. I remember it well, because I was the Chief Whip of the Conservative party at the time and did my best to get our party to support it—I am bound to say, not wholly successfully, but there were different arguments then. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East found that it was essential to do this. The Opposition, who like to forget about strict immigration control when they are not in government, were forced to push through the 1968 Act by the pressure of unexpected developments, and to pursue a policy of strict immigration control.
This Government were driven by events in Iran to impose a visa requirement on Iranians and the plight of south-east Asians led us, as well as Governments overseas, to take exceptional steps to accept refugees from there. I cannot foretell what changing circumstances may bring in the next few years. These uncertainties do, however, make it all the more important for the Government to continue, as now, to keep a close watch on immigration trends. Our policy therefore will be subject to continuous re-examination in the light of changing circumstances, in order to achieve our objective, which is strict immigration control.
Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for the third time, but this is a crucial question, not least because this debate is largely about the husbands of British citizens coming into this country—that was the occasion of the previous revolt and that is what is on the minds of many of his hon. Friends. Is the Home Secretary saying that there are any circumstances in which he might conceivably change his present position and prevent the husbands of British citizens coming into this country?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall repeat what I said, and it is in line with what any Home Secretary would have said in the past, and what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would have said when he had to introduce a completely new Act. My position is clear. Our policy will be subject to continuous re-examination in the light of
190
changing circumstances—that is the whole policy—in order to achieve our objective, which is strict immigration control.
We shall not abandon the strict policies that we have been pursuing. Indeed for the future, we shall be reinforced by a better basis on which to build those policies. The British Nationality Act has not taken away the right of abode from those who had it before, but it has created a separate status for people who belong here. This is important because it means that people who do not have a close connection with this country are no longer encouraged to think that they have this right. These are the 4½million people who have now become British dependent territories citizens and British overseas citizens. The Act has also stopped children acquiring our citizenship by birth here when both their parents are here only temporarily or unlawfully. I understand that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook thinks that this is wrong, but I remind him that this will make it easier to take firm action against people who are in breach of immigration control, and will prevent a pool of people building up abroad who have the right to come here although they have no close connection with this country. This clearly diminishes long-term immigration potential.
It is against this background of strict action based on firm proposals and of the Government's clear resolve to maintain strict immigration control that I ask right hon. and hon. Members to reject this motion.
5.17 pm
Dr. M. S. Miller: I ask myself what the Government are so worried about that they have to bring forward regulations of this kind. Only a relatively small number of men, mainly from India and Pakistan, might be admitted to this country. The whole atmosphere is bedevilled by the strong feeling that the problem has strong racist overtones and undertones. Do the Home Secretary and his Ministers accept that people who have come to this country from the new Commonwealth, have settled here, are good citizens and play a part in the cultural, social, political and business life of this country should in no way be looked upon as not contributing to every aspect of our life?
I am sure that if both parties in what we are discussing this evening—the woman and her fiancé—were white, there would be no problem. I say this in the context of decent people coming from the new Commonwealth who have been badgered by immigration officers when they arrive. They have been badgered, heckled and hassled by the officers when they come only to visit relatives. There are few right hon. and hon. Members present who have not had experience of this from constituents who complain to them that close relatives have had to undergo what is in effect a degrading third degree before they are permitted into the country. That is outrageous. It does not happen to white people and as far as I can determine, it does not happen in any other democratic country. I have never had any complaint from people who visit relatives in the United States, France, Germany, or any democratic country that they are treated as these visitors to our shores are treated, just because they do not have white faces.
Paragraph 41 on "Fiancés" is in many ways deeply offensive. The entry clearance officer is the person who has to be satisfied
"that it is not the primary purpose of the intended marriage to obtain admission to the United Kingdom".

191
What are the qualifications of the entry clearance officer for so deciding? Or does he know quite well his instructions, which are perhaps not overtly but certainly tacitly spelt out? He has the strong opinion that he has to keep everyone out if he possibly can, and let no one in. That appears to him to be the implication, the gist, the thrust of the Government's policy on immigration.
I have no objection to his deciding or giving the opinion
"that there is an intention that the parties to the marriage should live together permanently as man and wife".
I say that I have no objection, but again that is offensive, because it applies only to them, not to anyone else.
Then there is the third point. The entry clearance officer has to be satisfied
"that the parties to the proposed marriage have met".
Why? Our society feels that it is desirable that marriages should not be arranged, and that people should meet, fall in love and then decide to marry. We have this romantic notion. There is nothing wrong with that, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell me that the system of arranged marriages that applies in other parts of the world is a worse system? In Britain, one marriage in four—perhaps one in three—is destined to end in divorce. I am not a betting man, but I would venture to wage a small sum that it is not nearly as high in arranged marriages. I am not making a moral judgement about divorce, but why should the implication of this paragraph be that because we do not agree implicitly with arranged marriages, the parties to the proposed marriage should have met? I feel that those words have been put in deliberately to tell the entry clearance officer how the Government view the situation.
Why is there discrimination against women? I agree with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) who asked the Home Secretary why he did not go back to the point where men and women were treated equally in this regard. I resent the relegation of women to a lower class of citizenship than men. If men have the right, I do not see why women should not have that right.
I am satisfied that immigration officials in the New Commonwealth who are supposed to interview applicants in many instances do not attempt in any way to help applicants. I hear the claim over and over again that these officers seem to take the view that every applicant is a liar. I do not say that there are no liars, but the officals try to trip up the applicant by asking various questions, the implications of which in most instances the poor would-be immigrant is totally at a loss to understand.
As evidence of the way in which immigration officials in the New Commonwealth do not attempt to help, I ask the Home Secretary why it takes so long for them to interview even applications which go in on the nod. He may know of the case of a family in Glasgow who used to be my constituents. I knew the father, who unfortunately has since died. The sons were born in Glasgow. They went to school in the Garnethill area of Glasgow, and then they attended Woodside secondary school. One of them, who is 24 years of age, has an honours degree in science. He is a Bachelor of Science of Glasgow university. He went to India recently, and met a girl whom he married. He thought that there would be no problem in brnging her back to his own country. However, he had to return without her. He was told that there was a 10-month waiting list, even to look at a case that was as
192
simple and open as his. I am afraid that the whole thrust of the Government's intention is bedevilled by a racist position.
Sir Frederick Burden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that under his Government the waiting lists were very prolonged, that application had to made in India through the High Commissioner, and that it often took considerably more than 10 months before applicants knew their fate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to give the impression that there is delay only under this Government.
Dr. Miller: I was never a starry-eyed admirer of some of the Labour Government's policies. The hon. Gentleman may remember that I, and one or two of my hon. Friends, including John Mackintosh, who was the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, but is now deceased, voted against our Government on one of their immigration orders. I do not say that one Government have clean hands and that the other have not.
I am also perturbed that people who are quite rich have some preference. The sum involved is substantial:
"£150,000 or income of not less than £15,000 a year".
That gives the impression that perhaps the Government are not averse to having some of their financial problems solved by immigrants bringing with them large sums of money.
Paragraph 84 on page 19 states:
"Any passenger who is currently subject to a deportation order is to be refused leave to enter".
In other words, the judgment is made. He has to be deported before any other decision can be looked into. This involves an inordinate amount of expense to people who otherwise might qualify to enter this country. That should be changed, at least to allow an applicant to stay while new or other evidence is submitted.
In at least two places—at page 2, paragraph 2 and at the top of page 22—the statement claims that matters of race, colour and religion are not relevant. When the Home Secretary said that he thinks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) "doth protest too much", surely the same can be said of him. I do not see why, unless he is worried about the statement's implications, that should be mentioned twice. In any case, I am sure that in spite of that claim having been made twice, the vast majority of people who feel that we are living in a multiracial society—a pluralist society—people who are not intrinsically racist, will not, I regret, look at the statement in that way.
5.30 pm
Sir Edward Gardner: I can say in all honesty that the concern shown by Conservative Members about the number of immigrants coming into Britain is real and deep. It is a concern that troubles most people in Britain who want to see immigration cut to a minimum. We cannot afford, certainly at this time, the strains on our resources and our social services to be increased.
For my part I am delighted to have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reaffirm to the House this afternoon that it is the Government's aim to continue with strict immigration control. All that I would like to say respectfully to him, is that I can assure him that we want to see that process continue whenever and wherever it is possible.
We needed that assurance because, although the British Nationality Act 1981 will undoubtedly reduce, and reduce

193
substantially, the number of immigrants who will in future come into Britain, there is no doubt that the new rule relating to foreign husbands and male fiancés is likely to increase the number of that limited and special category. But—I think this is fully understood—it is not because of that that the Opposition will vote against the rules tonight. They will be voting against the rules not because we have opened the door to this special limited category but because we have not opened it enough. They will be voting against the rules tonight, not because we have not taken the precaution of imposing a safeguard but because we are using a safeguard that they believe and understand will work in a way of which they do not approve. That is a matter of opinion for them but it is right that one should understand the distinction between the way in which we approach the problem and the way in which they approach it.
Furthermore, the Opposition have made it clear in debate after debate on immigration that they want to see this right in the new rules not only applying to women who are British citizens but extended to all women who are settled in Britain. I do not suppose for one moment that anyone could mistake the consequences of the rules that are now before the House, and the consequences of the kind of rules that would be before the House if the Opposition had their way. We know what the effect would be upon the number of immigrants who would then come into Britain. There would be no control; there would be none of the distinctions and safeguards that we are putting down.
The necessity for the rules is the British Nationality Act and the reforms, which are of the highest constitutional importance, that it introduces. There are two features of the British Nationality Act which it is right that one should consider in the context of the new rules. One is that for the first time the United Kingdom can now base its immigration policies on citizenship, and that was advocated by the Labour Government's Green Paper on nationality law in 1977. It said that one of the defects of the old nationality law was that it prevented the United Kingdom from basing immigration policies on citizenship.
The second, and perhaps the most obvious and vivid, point that comes out of the new British Nationality Act, is that, as we all know now, again for the first time we can be identified and identify ourselves as British citizens. Those alterations in the law, which have come about by the introduction of the British Nationality Act, in my view, and I hope in that of most British people, make complete sense. One thing that must be followed in a sensible application of the Nationality Act is that all British citizens are equal. One set of citizens cannot be more equal than another. It is right that the House should recognise that if the old rule had been kept it could not have made sense because it would have made some British citizens more equal than others.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the equality of British citizens but I am sure that he will appreciate that under the nationality legislation both sexes have formal equality in terms of conferring citizenship upon their spouses. Why does not the same formal equality apply to the immigration of husbands or wives into Britain?
Sir Edward Gardner: My view, and I think that it is the view of most people in Britain, is that, whether we like
194
it or not, there is a distinction between husbands and wives, the way in which each lives and the duties that they carry out. In Britain at the moment—if hon. Members will not recognise this they blind themselves to all reality—in the vast majority of cases the husband is the head of the family.
Mr. John Stokes: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that, far from the supporters of Labour Members agreeing to the equality of men and women, such people never tell their wives what they earn.
Sir Edward Gardner: My hon. Friend has gone into a detail in which I do not profess to be an authority. I say only that by the rules we have prevented a distortion of the law which I for one would have felt was unacceptable.
If one tries to discover the effect of the rules when they are applied to immigration figures, it is fairly clear that it is likely—one cannot put it higher than that—that about 3,000 applications will be made—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said it would come to only 2,500, and so be it. They will not necessarily be successful applications. One must compare the effect of the British Nationality Act with the old law and ask what will be the effect of the Act on the number of immigrants.
The first thing that stands out and persuades one that, for a reduction in the immigration figures, the British Nationality Act is a statute that can be relied upon, is the fact that no longer will birth give an automatic right to citizenship of this country. Although one cannot be precise about the figure, that alone in the future is likely to reduce further increases of British nationals in this country by about 5,000 a year in excess of those 2,500 or 3,000 applications which will come, or may come, as a result of these rules. In addition, there is the discipline of a precise Act which allows one to say who is and who is not a person who belongs in this country.
Finally, I should like to deal with perhaps one of the most ridiculous anomalies of the old law and the consequences of that old law. According to the Labour party green paper of 1977, as a result of the British Nationality Act 1948, there were in 1977—heaven knows how many there are today—950 million people scattered throughout the world who were entitled to call themselves, and to be considered by our law, British subjects, all of them with hopes if they knew about their rights and some of them with incipient claims to our citizenship.
Since 1 January 1983, we are all British citizens. The Conservative party in its election manifesto of 1979 declared:
"The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed."
These rules to the letter fulfil that pledge.
5.43 pm
Mr. William Pitt: I had hoped, when I heard the Home Secretary's remarks, that I might at a very late stage be convinced that it would be wrong to disapprove the rules tonight. Unfortunately, I am not. So far, all that we have heard from the Conservative Benches is a paranoid attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and a repetition of what we have heard before. Therefore, the Liberals will vote against the rules tonight.
The Home Secretary could have gone back to his original White Paper which he introduced and which was

195
accepted by the House, but he chose to bow to the considerable pressure of his maverick Right wing. He brought forward one set of rules of which this House firmly disapproved. He then went back, did some deals and now he has brought forward this modified set of rules of which the House, I hope, will equally disapprove, for two reasons, if not more: they are sexist and racist. The only real change in the rules is that all women who are British citizens can, at a considerable cost, to which I shall return in a moment, bring their spouses or fiancés into this country.
Paragraph 41 of the immigration rules states:
"An entry certificate will be refused unless the entry clearance officer is satisfied:

(a) that it is not the primary purpose of the intended marriage to obtain admission to the United Kingdom; and

(b) that there is an intention that the parties to the marriage should live together permanently as man and wife; and

(c) that the parties to the proposed marriage have met."

Under the old rules, the entry clearance officer had to have "reason to believe." Now he has to be "satisfied".
Ironically, on 10 February, after the rules were published, the House of Lords judged in two cases of illegal immigration that the burden of proof was upon the Home Office. Yet these rules, published by that same Home Office, have put the burden and onus of proof on the person coming into this country. How can an entry clearance officer be absolutely satisfied when a young couple say to him, "Yes, we have carried out all your instructions; yes, we have a flat; yes, this is a proper marriage, we have met and courted"? As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it rests purely and simply, according to the rules, on a subjective judgment, on a judgment by the entry clearance officer as to whether he is satisfied. There are no strong criteria. The clearance officer merely must be satisfied that what the young couple are telling him is the truth. The reason for this is not a mistaken idea of what an arranged marriage is all about, but because, if I may use the phrase again, of the paranoid obsession about arranged marriages of a number of Conservative Members who believe that they are, per se, wrong, that they are bogus and that they are entered into primarily and absolutely because the men who come over here want to come to work.
We speak of the love match. Those of us who have been married for a long time according to the traditions of this country believe that our system of marriage works, and in many cases it does. If Conservative Members would like to know, I met my wife in the Young Conservatives. Thank goodness she changed my mind. Our marriage has lasted for 22 years. I am a lucky man. We married according to the traditions of this country, but there is very good reason for saying that an arranged marriage can last equally long and be equally effective.
It has been rightly pointed out that all British women will now have to go through these rigours. The daughters of Conservative Members may have to go through these rigours, as, indeed, may my daughter if she decides to marry someone who is not of EC citizenship, as well she might. They are white and predominantly middle class. If they have inherited their parents'—their fathers' in most cases—gift of the gab, they will be articulate.
I should like to contrast that with the plight of a young Asian woman, who, by the very dictates of her society,
196
especially if she is a Hindu, will not have lived at such a high profile, to use a jargon phrase. She will probably be of a retiring nature. She will certainly not have English as her mother tongue and her fiancé will not have English as his mother tongue. They then have to go through these rigours.
That is one of the principal reasons why we oppose the rules tonight. The rules have been changed but marginally and at considerable cost to one section of the community.
Mr. Bidwell: It is precisely the type of woman to whom the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) is alluding that the Government have not regarded at all—women who have been well educated in this country and who marry non-EC citizens. They were most up in arms before the original changes in the rules and were most overjoyed when the rules were changed back. I know that because of the considerable lobbying that took place at that time.
Mr. Pitt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Women settled in Britain will have no rights. I wish to quote from an article in a magazine called Life and Work entitled
"Missionary families are British, too!".
It wondered whether, when the rules were drafted, it was intended that they should inhibit the rights of a number of people abroad who are preaching the word of God. I am sure that many Conservative and Opposition Members are anxious that that word should be preached. The article by Mary Philp states:
"I would like, as an example, to describe the case of my sisters and myself … Our situation is particularly difficult, because our parents, also, were born abroad—our father when his father, too, was a missionary in Kenya and our mother when her father (also British) worked for a British company in Spain. Since neither we nor our parents were born in Britain and because we were born female, we are among the small group of Britons currently denied immigration rights for a foreign husband or fiance. We are not the only missionary family affected in this way."
Certain women have settled in Britain and made their lives here. Perhaps they cannot afford to become British citizens, or they may, for valid reasons, not wish to do so. They cannot bring their fiancés or spouses into Britain to lead a normal married life.
I am even more confused than when we last debated the rules. On 15 December I drew the attention of the House to the case of Mrs. Soni, who was refused entry into Britain because the Minister said that she had no emotional attachment to her family. The adjudicator at the appeal recommended that the Minister should use his discretion.
On 3 February I asked the Minister a question about the plight of elderly dependent relatives. He told me to read the 1980 rules. He said:
"We cannot return to a situation in which every member of a man's family is entitled to enter this country, no matter how remote the relationship."—[Official Report, 3 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 413.]
I hope that the Minister misheard my question and was not giving me a specific answer.
Paragraph 52 of the rules deals with parents, grandparents and other relatives. It states:
"Widowed mothers, fathers who are widowers aged 65 or over and parents travelling together of whom at least one is aged 65 or over should be admitted for settlement only where the requirements of paragraphs 46 and 47 and the following conditions are met. They must be wholly or mainly dependent upon sons or daughters settled in the United Kingdom who have the means to maintain their parents … They must also be without other close relatives in their own country to turn to."

197
Time after time people contact me and other hon. Members asking how they can bring their aged dependent relatives into Britain. One case involves the mother-in-law of a Mr. Miah. She did not wish to settle in Britain. However, on her last visit her son-in-law mistakenly applied for entry rights, which were refused. She is now being refused entry into Britain when all she wishes is to visit her family for a holiday. When the Minister replies, will he explain the implications of paragraph 52?
The Liberals cannot support the immigration rules—although we had hoped that we could do so. They are racist, sexist and primarily aimed at one minority section of society, many of whom are British citizens—those who are black or brown. I am profoundly disgusted that that should be the case. I and my colleagues will vote in the "No" Lobby tonight.
5.54 pm
Mr. Marcus Fox: As one of the 23 Conservative Members who voted against the revised rules, I owe it to my constituents and to the House to explain my change of heart today. I must tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that I do not consider myself a part of the unsavoury element to which he referred. The truth is that any unsavoury element in the Chamber comprises those who seek to enlarge immigration whenever the opportunity arises.
Since we last debated the rules, we have not been skulking behind statues of Disraeli or anyone else. We have sought to find a compromise that would unite—[Interruption.] I realise that Opposition Members have no idea of the meaning of the word "unite". We have been seeking a compromise to unite our party on the vexed issue of immigration. There is nothing wrong with that. We are the majority party, and the only party committed to stricter immigration control. I have no desire to go once more into the same Lobby with Members from the Labour, Liberal SDP and other parties who are committed to easing immigration, rather than restricting it. Therefore, I thought it desirable to find a solution to the problem.
It is true that we could have maintained our position. However, there are not enough of us to rebel—[Laughter.] I do not find anything strange in that. The votes can be counted in Hansard. Do we, ostrich-like, continue to ignore what we can do as a minority, or do we try to obtain the best bargain available?
Opposition Members are always referring to the European Court of Justice or the intervention of the European Commission of Human Rights. Any victory that we had achieved would have been short-lived because that body would soon tell us to put our affairs in order. It must be right for us to do everything in our power to prevent a return to the original rules, which would have been far more lax and would have brought about the very position that we are trying to defeat.
A charge has been made that the rules have been weakened. No one group in the House can claim a victory because the two-year rule has been dropped in favour of a return to the one-year rule. That proposal was attacked by all sides of the House. I would prefer stricter control before people enter Britain rather than depend on some other restriction, following which we must deport people with all the consequences on wives and children. The dropping of that provision is common sense.
198
The Opposition attack us for criticising arranged marriages. We are not doing so. I represent Shipley, which borders Bradford. Who better than I can draw a distinction between arranged marriages and marriages of convenience? We are opposed both to marriages of convenience and to those who will use the easing of the immigration rules to settle in Britain, irrespective of marriage. They will use the rules as a vehicle to do so.
When I refer to strengthening the rules, I refer also to the burden of proof. A number of my hon. Friends will vote differently from me for honourable reasons. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) that I have not been offered a trip to the Far East. I admit that I have had a drink with the Chief Whip. The House may find it surprising that, on occasions, I have even been known to buy the Chief Whip a drink. I welcome the reversion to the burden of proof. It is the most important condition in the rules.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), whom we thank for what he has done in the interim period to bring home to us the importance of this change. The 50 hon. Members who voted against the Bill or abstained under-estimated the importance of that. If I have to reinforce that view, I can do no better than to quote Opposition Members. I quote from the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in the debate of 15 December, who said:
"I believe that the Home Secretary's proposal will reduce rather than increase, the entry of husbands into this country".
I assume from that, and I am sure my interpretation is right, that these tougher rules are not only to apply to women who were not born in this country, but are to apply to—the House will approve of the fact that we should not discriminate against any one group—to women seeking to bring in husbands or fiancés, especially from the Indian subcontinent. The toughening of the rules in that respect makes them much stronger than the 1980 rules.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook concluded:
"If the new requirement to provide information and the movement of the onus of proof is to have any effect, it will bear on a category of persons who were not previously affected".
That is exactly my interpretation.
I regret that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is not in the Chamber, because I also wish to quote him. He always takes a very active part in these debates. We know his record well, as did a former Prime Minister who once sought to remove him of a certain responsibility. I shall leave it to hon. Members to decide the grounds for his removal. Perhaps his speech of 15 December will tell us what they are:
"It is an immense change to put the burden of proof on the applicant. It is far worse than any other factor introduced into the debate. It is much more likely to lead to a reduction in the number of people who can come. That may please some Conservative Members. It does not please me".—[Official Report, 15 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 368–84.]
I am one of those it pleases. This condition is paramount to my acceptance of the rules. I see the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) sitting in his usual corner. On the basis of my view he will classify me as a racist. I am comforted by the knowledge that I am in good company, not just in the House but in the country, where the overwhelming majority of people support strict immigration control, especially in areas such as his where many of his constituents are without jobs.
An accusation was made about the Conservative party's election manifesto. It is true that the Government fulfilled

199
only five of the eight commitments that were contained in the manifesto. A register was deemed impractical, but it can always be returned to. The word "quota" horrifies some people. I am not sure why it should. I shall not go to the stake simply on the use of the word "quota". By listening to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am reassured that the downward overall trend of immigration, as shown by the figures, will continue. By any standard, there must be phased immigration into this country—limiting numbers. I assume from that that some quota is operating. Those are my words. I do not ascribe them to anyone else. The overall control matters in this subject. It is described in common parlance as "the numbers game". The public are concerned about the overall total in any one year. I have no intention of allowing one aspect of immigration to let me lose sight of what I believe to be the principal objective in the Government's policy.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) talked about other compensating factors to ride any increase in this area where we have decided to make some movement. As I understand the British Nationality Act 1981 about 4·5 million people who previously thought that they had the right of abode no longer do so. They understand quite clearly under which of the three classes of citizenship they come. With my hon. Friend, I welcome this provision and the fact that children now born here whose parents have no right of abode will no longer automatically become British citizens.
From all the evidence that I have heard, it is reasonable to assume that any increase in immigration brought about by these changes in the rules will not result in an increase in the total number of people admitted into the United Kingdom. Hence the conclusion that any increase in one area will be more than compensated for by the declining numbers in other areas. I welcome some of the figures given by the Home Secretary in his speech.
There are one or two lessons to be learnt. With better presentation and more facts available we could have saved ourselves much anguish in the House during the past few weeks. Many fears could have been allayed if certain examples could have been given. In my area, many people believe that dependent relatives flow into this country in their thousands. Wives and children have already been referred to. The dependent relatives about whom I am talking are parents, elderly grandparents and children aged over 18. Many people outside the Chamber believe that immigration from the Indian subcontinent is still enormous. Last year the figure in that category was 600. I have spent 34 years of my political life in areas where immigration has been and remains a problem, such as in Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Shipley. I wish to see those genuine fears removed. A more open approach from the Home Office is needed to achieve that, and I look forward to that happening. I gathered from the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that that lesson has been learnt.
For all the reasons that I have put forward, it is my conclusion that it is my duty to support the Government tonight. I draw particular comfort from the response of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 8 February 1983, when she said:
200
"The Government remain committed to strict immigration control and immigration policy will be subject to continuous re-examination in the light of changing circumstances in order to achieve that objective."—[Official Report, 8 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 880.]
6.7 pm
Mr. William Wilson: There is considerable interest in this matter in my constituency. I have had a fair amount of experience of it in the time that I have been a Member of the House. I served on the former Race Relations and Immigration Select Committee for almost nine years. In the past 10 years I must have been engaged professionally in dozens of immigration appeal cases, before either the adjudicator or the appeal tribunal. I have seen the operation of the entry certificate procedure in the Asian subcontinent on various occasions.
As I have said previously in the House, I do not accept the criticism that is levelled against entry certificate officers and immigration officers. There are occasions, obviously, when one wonders how they came to their decisions. But, by and large, it must be said that they have a difficult task to perform, and, by and large, we must be grateful for the way in which they carry out their duties. It is unfair to lambast all entry clearance and immigration officers for not carrying out their duties fairly and properly.
From my experience of such matters, I wonder how much difference the change of words in the rules—from "reason to believe" to having to be "satisfied"—will make. As anyone who reads adjudicators' reports will know, the onus of proof regularly falls upon the appellant. Adjudicators may say, "I am not sure about this case," but the onus is on the appellant. I say to the Home Secretary and to those who are convinced that they should follow him into the Lobby tonight that I do not expect the change to be great.
Conservative Members have asked whether a man seeking to come to Britain is coming here for the purpose of getting a job. The question is asked, "Why does not your wife or your fiancee go to live in India or Pakistan?" Those questions are put today by the entry clearance officer when the application is made. The girl who lives in Britain is interviewed by immigration officers and she is always asked whether, bearing in mind her cultural background, she should not live in India or Pakistan with her husband-to-be. According to the answers that they receive in India, Pakistan or here, at the end of the day the entry clearance officer will grant the certificate.
We hear a great deal about cases where entry certificates are not granted, but we do not hear much about the numbers that go through without difficulty. I say that because of my experience. If it were intended to make one change in our immigration rules, the change that I would wish deals with one-parent families, because there is undoubtedly great unfairness. It is sad to realise that a husband and wife—a mother and father—can live in this country without having contributed to the upkeep of their child abroad in any way, but as long as that child is under 18 years of age he can come to Britain. However, if the parents have separated—it often happens in West Indian families—and only the mother is in this country and she supported the child, she may ask for the child to come here. Before the child can enter the country she must show that she has had sole responsibility for it.
The question is then asked, "Who has been looking after the child while you have been in the United

201
Kingdom?" Invariably, the answer is the grandmother. She is then told, "You do not have sole responsibility for the child." When that rule was first brought in, it was intended to apply to parents, where one parent had sole responsibility for the child, but a wider interpretation has been placed upon it. A mother who lives in this country and who has contributed for a long time to the upkeep of her child cannot bring him here.
From my experience of the way in which investigations are carried out, I must say to the rebels, as we hear them called, who are following the Home Secretary into the Lobby tonight that they have been easily satisfied.
6.15 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am sorry to find myself opposed to the Government on this issue. It is a matter of principle and honour and I have no choice but to oppose the Government and to vote for this motion. I am especially sad to have to do so because this Government are the best of my political life. The coming to power of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her Administration in May 1979 was the best thing that had happened to the people of Britain for many years. She has brought to the conduct of national affairs a grip, an assurance and a determination to achieve stated objectives that the public finds refreshing and for which she has been rightly rewarded in popularity. But, unfortunately, that quality of determination and continuity of policy does not apply throughout the range of Government responsibilities. The Government's firm grip on economic policy, for example, can be contrasted with their handling of immigration, which has been flabby.
With most hon. Members, I am an admirer of the political qualities of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, especially of the way in which he carries out his duties as deputy leader of the Government. I do not wish anything that I say to be construed as personal criticism of him, but he is responsible for our immigration policy and on many occasions he has been wrong. There is not one positive statement of policy on immigration by the Government that has not been abandoned subsequently. When we came to power we made three promises in our manifesto. One was to institute a register of eligible dependants of immigrants already here. The second was to introduce an overall system of quotas so that the rate of entry of immigrants in future could be adjusted to the capacity of the country to absorb them. Thirdly, we said that we would not allow foreign husbands to have the absolute right of entry and settlement in this country. Those promises were made in the manifesto. The Government were elected on those promises and the electorate expected the Government to carry them out. However, the first two were abandoned almost immediately and we heard nothing more about them. The third was first watered down, was then implemented and is now being abandoned.
That fumbling in immigration policy has a parallel in the reform of our nationality law. When the British Nationality Bill came before the House, one of its main provisions was that the transmission of citizenship abroad should be limited to people born to parents who were themselves born in Britain. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend strongly defended that provision. So did the rest of us in the Conservative party. Yet the Division on Second Reading had hardly been counted before my right hon. Friend abandoned that provision. If formal pledges
202
of a firm immigration policy such as these can be abandoned and cast aside so soon, what faith can we put in mere words such as we have been offered today by my right hon. Friend?
One of the Government's many failures on immigration policy has been their failure to prepare the country for their abandonment of a manifesto commitment, not to speak of the Government's supporters in the country. Even now, I have heard no adequate explanation for the casting aside of solemn promises that were made during the general election campaign. We have heard, of course, that the change is necessary to bring our immigration rales into line with the principles of the British Nationality Act 1981, but nothing was said during the passage of that Act about a change of this significance. If, indeed, the principles of the British Nationality Act 1981, especially the concept of equality and the exclusive rights of British citizens in future, were to be the model, why have the Government refused to amend our electoral law? Would it not be correct now to restrict the vote in Britain to British citizens and to exclude people who are not British citizens? There are other people who say that the explanation for the change is the European convention on human rights. No country in Europe gives an absolute right of entry to foreign husbands. I quote:
"My understanding is that France admits husbands only if special considerations render their exclusion undesirable. West Germany does not permit the entry of fiancés. … In Sweden husbands are allowed to join their wives there only if they have lived together for some time. Switzerland has no right of entry for husbands."—[Official Report, 10 March 1980; Vol. 19, c. 1028.]
Those were the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, then the Minister of State, Home Office. There has been no real justification for the change that has been made.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that no country in Europe has ever entered into an arrangement that, by any stretch of the imagination, would be detrimental to that country at the diktat of the European Court of Human Rights?
Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that significant fact. The pusillanimity of the Government in facing possible collision with the European Commission is deplorable.
There is no justification for the change and no excuse for contradicting an election pledge. My right hon. Friend needlessly revived controversy about immigration control and reopened old wounds in his party. He will derive no comfort this evening from seeing in his Division Lobby colleagues who only two months ago rejected an almost identical set of immigration rules. Nevertheless, they will be voting for them tonight. It will be a pyrrhic victory.
People in Britain are worried not so much about the numbers of any category as about overall numbers. They are still far too high. My right hon. Friend could do something about that. He could implement one of the manifesto commitments. He could impose a quota. Is there anything so wrong in principle about implementing a quota that appeared to be right to the party leadership when such a promise was inserted in the manifesto? Why is it not equally right now? The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, (Mr. Callaghan) has a reputation for seeking party advantage, but he did not hesitate to put the interests of the nation first in 1968 when he was faced with the threat of an influx of Asians from east Africa who had

203
United Kingdom passports. He told them that they could keep their rights but that they must get into a queue so that they could be admitted as and when Britain could absorb them peacefully. He set the quota for admission from that queue very low—only 1,500 vouchers a year. It was typical of a later Conservative Government that that figure was doubled. My right hon. Friend should take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in that respect if in no other.
I am well aware that on this issue, I and others like me will be accused by Opposition Members of being racist. If they do that, it shows just how stupid they are and how weak their arguments must be if they must resort to such a smear. In reality, the issue is not about race. No civilised and tolerant society in the world can absorb millions of people who have a different language, religion and custom over a shortish time without suffering considerable harm. It is a deception of the British public to pretend that we have not suffered acute social friction as a result of the large number of immigrants that have been brought into Britain in the past few years. There has been a great deal of unhappiness and misery among individuals in both the host and immigrant communities, especially in the poorer areas, most of which are represented by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
It is not immoral to say that because of these ills we should not increase the number of people coming into this country and should not open fresh doors or create new categories of entry. The long-suffering British people should not be asked to grant rights to any more to come in nor to welcome them nor to give them homes and jobs, particularly in the prevailing economic circumstances.
Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend is quite right. What one must always remember is that the British people were never asked whether such numbers were acceptable. Part of the antagonism towards the immigration policies of both parties has stemmed from the fact that the people themselves have never been consulted or been able to give their opinions on the vast numbers who have arrived on our shores.
Mr. Stanbrook: I fully accept what my hon. Friend has just said. The people of this country are entitled to expect the Government to protect them against such ills. It is in that respect that my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have let the country down because they never took the actions that should have been taken to protect the country against the ills we have suffered through excessive immigration. If only the Government would promise that in future they will admit immigrants only at a rate at which they can be absorbed peacefully then I would be with them in their Lobby tonight. However, as I understand the words already used, they are not doing that. I shall therefore censure them for their folly and vote in favour of this motion.
6.33 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I understand the difficulties tormenting him tonight, but my contribution will reveal a totally opposite point of view. I do not call him racist. I call him exceedingly muddled and I shall try to show him why most reasonable Tories in this country favour a family policy in
204
immigration and family rights, for that is what this debate is about. It is not possible for a race relations Minister, in particular, to visit the immigrant community in Britain, and to talk about the principles of the Tory party in this regard, and then to carry through policies which are opposed to this concept of family rights.
I address my remarks directly to the new Minister responsible for immigration and race relations, because after this debate not only will he have the task of overseeing the application of the new rules; he will also have the job of going round the country to explain to immigrant communities, in particular, that the Tory party has not abandoned its principles.
It will surprise no one to learn that I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Orpington about the Prime Minister. Asian and other women say to me that they find it uncanny that a woman Prime Minister should preside overe a Government who attack women's rights in regard to equality of the sexes in the matter of choice of partner and country of residence.
I have tried to explain to the Home Secretary in interventions in the debate that the marriage system, as it has been described by hon. Members tonight, is a fading system. The number of girls of Asian origin in this country who choose their partners from overseas will neither grow nor even remain at the present level. They discuss these matters very openly with me in Southall. I am aware of the number of marriages that break down within one year or two, and I expect that the Home Office is aware of it, too. It was only in the previous debate that we were given figures on this. Because a number of these cases are brought to my attention and a girl has said, throwing a passport on the table, "He's no good, send him back," I had thought that the number was growing tremendously, but apparently it is not. I think that the figure given was 150, which has to be set against the 2,000 admissions of one particular year.
Therefore, if one took into consideration the balance—a favourite word of adjudicators—of probabilities on the success of marriages, it is not a large number compared with the whole if we consider the marriage system to which we have been accustomed in our country. I know of many successful marriages that originated in the arranged system.
Hon. Members have shown in many cases a genuine concern about the numbers of people involved. Quite rightly, there has always been national concern about figures, but, over and above it, has been the question of principles, the question of civil rights.
That is what the Government are seeking to meet. At the conclusion of our last debate, I abstained from voting—I should like the Minister responsible for immigration to understand this—because I could see the progressive change in the content, in the sense of according to the woman not born in this country but a British citizen the same rights as are possessed by those who are born in this country. This country is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court will uphold that convention and Britain, as a party to it, would inevitably have been found guilty if those cases had been processed by the court. So the Government are moving in concert, as it were, rather than in a regimented way because, as the hon. Member for Orpington has been at pains to point out, these applications of principles are very uneven in other EC countries.

205
However, the hon. Gentleman will find that, while he may point to examples of fiancés being excluded, the ban does not apply once the marriage has been achieved. At least, this was the case before the new rules, which are supposed to have prevailed since the last debate. That is the part I did not understand, I must confess. I did not realise that under the Immigration Act 1971 the new rules would have to apply until the Government came forward with their changes, which is what they are doing tonight; otherwise I would have been in the Opposition Lobby, too.
As I told many of the young women in my constituency who had been caught in the position of having been born outside this country but who have achieved citizenship, it was very important to me that they should achieve that change, and they are doing so under these rules. But there seems to be a need to try to placate hon. Members who, for various reasons, perhaps because of their constituents, made certain pledges at the last election. There is a genuine fear in parts of this country.
I do not believe that, taking the country as a whole, we are a multiracial society yet, but there is certainly a multiracial society in the London borough of Ealing. What has been left out of account in these debates is the friendships that have developed over many years. I take second place to no one in acknowledging the anguish and the difficulties caused by the coming of immigrant labour. First, it was recruitment of labour for a rubber factory on the Hayes-Southall border and then there was a shortage of labour in a period of full employment. I have never, in my speeches in the House, suggested that that did not bring headaches and tears when there were families, to whom the hon. Member has referred, who could not speak English and who had other difficulties. He must understand, however, that we now have not just the second generation but the third generation—the babies of the babies of those earlier immigrants. It is now a mixed culture and the next generation will be more British than many of the Britishers themselves.
Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bidwell: I will give way in a moment. I wish to conclude this part of my speech. I am trying to bring a note of realism to the matter.
As I tried to show in my intervention to the Home Secretary, the fear is not of immigration in general but of Asian immigration in particular. We are all over 21 and we all know that that is so. There is a far looser attitude to the settlement of innumerable white immigrants who can prove lineage from a grandparent. I refer, for example, to New Zealand, Australia, Canada and what may be described as the old white dominions. Those people have an absolute right to come here under the present rules, although we tried to take the grandparents provision out of the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) referred. He mentioned his long service on the Select Committee in the last Parliament. Mine was the longest period of service of all—from 1968, after the sensation-mongering speeches of the then right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, now the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Just because the right hon. Gentleman, whom I call the Wolverhampton wanderer, made himself a star, that is no reason for his successor to imagine that he
206
reaches his predecessor's shoulders intellectually or that he has to follow what is now becoming an antiquated racist attitude.
Mr. Budgen: I am grateful for the gracious way in which the hon. Gentleman has given way. He referred earlier to mixed culture. I am sure that all of us who have large formerly immigrant communities in our constituencies are aware of that. Is it his impression from his own constituency that a growing proportion of girls of Asian background now reject the arranged marriage and wish to be able to choose their partners on the same basis as the rest of the indigenous population?
Mr. Bidwell: I thought that I had covered that point. I agree that that is so. Some arranged marriages are taking place between Southall and Birmingham, Coventry, Gravesend and so on within the Sikh culture. There are also mixed marriages of various cultural backgrounds because there is a mixed cultural connection in the schools. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is a discernible revolt in the attitudes of the young women as they become involved in women's rights and the general climate in which the new generation of young women in this country assert their independence and the fact that they can earn a living independently in this country without being married at all. That has now dawned on them, and many of them now oppose not only arranged marriages but marriage in general. Naturally, that causes anxiety for parents who believe that it is their duty to pressure their daughters into marriages that they do not want. All that is perfectly true. It is a balancing act as to how long such arrangements will continue.
I hope that when the Minister applies his mind to the general questions, especially outside the House, he will take that very much into account. The Asian people are very intelligent. They have an above-average knowledge of international matters because originally they came from so far overseas. I have never envied the Minister or his predecessors of either party, as the task is not easy. The Minister has the ability to make exceptional rulings. I hope that he will approach those matters in the same spirit of openmindedness and with the facility that Ministers of both parties have shown. I hope that his appointment does not mean that there will be a weakening of that attitude when the cases are actually put under his nose and he has to go into them in depth from a human point of view and in relation to the family rights to which the Tory party so heavily subscribes.
I shall, of course, be voting against the rules in general today. The Asian people would be astonished if I did not. They will certainly be very depressed at the attitude of the Government today and especially that of Tory Back Benchers. The Minister responsible for immigration and race relations will have even greater difficulty in trying to justify the changes which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East pointed out, have already prevailed for some time. That does not give the rules any more merit, but those of us who are deeply involved in these matters are only too well aware that they have applied for some time.
Although I did not take part in the last debate on this matter, I put this to the Home Secretary on a previous occasion and, to do him credit, he said that he would take very much on board the plight of single aged people overseas who have sons in this country. As a result of the

207
cultural pattern the daughters may be scattered, so the widow or widower—mostly the widow—looks for succour to the sons but may not fit within the "wholly or mainly dependent" rule. It may be held that because the widow is living with in-laws or with some cousin she therefore has a close relative and her application to come here is therefore refused. Nevertheless, when an aged relative of 70 or 80 years of age comes to visit, I know of no case in which anyone in the Minister's shoes has said at the end of the year of visiting permission that the visitor must go back to India or Pakistan when it is known that the bulk of the family circle is here.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt), who led for the Liberals, also emphasised this. I hoped that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) was coming round to some progressive proposals on this as he, too, was a member of the Select Committee. I hoped that he was about to say that the plight of these old people should be re-examined because for the Asians it is now a matter not of two generations but of three. I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to this in a liberal fashion. Certainly the rules would allow him to do so in the majority of cases in which the bulk of the old person's offspring are living and earning in this country and thus able to look after the old folk without their being a burden on the state. Many of those offspring are now prospering. They are a credit to the British community and the British economy.
Conservative Members should get that into their brain boxes, but they do not seem to do so. They do not give the immigrant community the credit it deserves. There is a wing of the Tory party who seek to snuggle up to the Asian business people. As a result of this debate, I shall probably get another 2,000 on my already substantial majority. Many of those who have a leaning towards the Tory party in Luton and the other places in which so many Asian people live understand what is happening. They are not fools. They know what is going on in the House. It does not do us credit to put through rules like these.
Mr. John Carlisle rose—
Mr. Bidwell: They are lopsided. They are racist. They do not take into account the drive in Europe for equality of the sexes. They do not apply to relatives of white people who have an opportunity to come.
Mr. Carlisle rose—
Mr. Bidwell: The Asian people will understand the regulations, and I doubt whether the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) will get a single vote if he gets his justice from the Asian community in Luton.
Mr. Carlisle: I am at last grateful to the hon. Member, who seems to have taken upon himself the right to speak for my constituents. Although I have deep respect for his knowledge on these matters, I suggest that I speak for them rather better than he does. To take him back to the question of aged entry, he said that successive Home Secretaries had showed compassion. That we all applaud. If I understood the hon. Member aright, and if we go down the road that he seems to be suggesting, whereby all old people—by definition there will be more and more aged relatives as people keep coming in—have the absolute right to come into the country, that would open another door for another wave of immigrants who would feel they
208
had a right to come in. His surmise that the Asians in this country are standing on their own feet may be broadly correct, but he must appreciate that there are further down the social scale others whose aged relatives, if allowed to come in, would be a burden on the state and on taxpayers.
Mr. Bidwell: I cannot comprehend the hon. Gentleman, who must have gained some knowledge of the ways of Asian people. They understand unemployment. They are intelligent. They do not want to bring people from overseas to be a burden. They are conscious of the position here and they are fighting to keep their end up. I did not suggest that all the aged relatives should be allowed to come. I was talking about a case where the bulk of the family was here, or particularly the eldest son who had been working in Britain for many years and who was a credit to the British economy in all sorts of ways. That is generally the position of Asian people here. They came initially to do the dirty work that the white worker did not want to do, but they have moved on from that. They are go-getters for education.
If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the Asian people, as he should do representing Luton, and has discussed their anxieties with them, he should understand these matters much better than he appears to do. I am not saying that there should be an automatic right for the older generation to come to Britain in all circumstances. I am prepared generally to rest on the rule that applied under the Labour Government. It did not say that they had an absolute right to come. If there is a close relationship with offspring in this country in such circumstances, if I were in the shoes of the immigration Minister, in view of the small figures which we have been given, I would be compassionate in my approach. I hope that a civilised Tory in Luton would approach the matter in a similar way.
6.53 pm
Mr. Den Dover: As one of the rebels in December and one of the diehards this evening I owe it to my constituency and to the House to explain my reasoning. It is indeed a fact that the Conservative Government came to power in 1979 with one of the major planks in their manifesto being the promise to close the loophole created by the Labour Government over the entry of male fiancés and husbands. We closed that loophole and it has given me no pleasure to listen to all the speeches in December and this evening from the Government Benches explaining why, perhaps to meet a requirement in the British Nationality Act 1981, as mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), we need to bring in these rules.
With all the knowledge and background that our party and Government possess, surely we could have come up with a British Nationality Act which would have meant that there was no need for sexism or racism. Surely this evening we could have been making sure that we removed the loophole for ever and a day.
At a time of difficulty in the economic scene the people in Lancashire and in the north-west do not want further immigration. What is more, those who are here as immigrants do not want further immigration. It is perhaps the pulling up of the rope ladder effect, but they realise that their livelihood depends upon firmly controlled immigration. They want to see the economy expand. They want more jobs in the north-west and in my constituency at Chorley. They realise that this will come about only if we tighten the rules and do not loosen them.

209
In the newspapers and on local radio it has been difficult to get the message across as one of the rebels or diehards. So often we hear that the Government are bringing in new immigration controls. The ordinary layman in the street thinks that these are rules to tighten up on immigration, because that was one of the planks on which we won the last election. So it is incumbent upon the rebels and the diehards to explain our reasons and to make it clear to the country and to our constituents that we want less immigration. That is why we shall be voting in support of the motion and against the new rules.
Earlier we got from the Home Secretary the impression that he was introducing further safeguards. He also tried to say that we have no intention of going against our 1979 election manifesto commitment and that we would not reintroduce the loophole. But that is exactly what will happen if the Government get their way.
We heard the figure of 2,500 or 3,000 bandied about. The impression was given that that was the sum total of those applying to come in. But that is the estimated figure per year in the official statistics for those who want to come here in the category of fiancés and husbands. After their entry there would be their dependants and the dependants of those dependants and so on. We do not want these rules. Why should the rebels of December 1982 vote in support of the Government this evening? We have before us looser regulations, which will give rise to higher immigration.
I praise the Government for having brought the figures down so far, although much of that is perhaps due to the difficult economic position and the world recession. Surely the Government cannot object to hon. Members such as myself, who believe that we should honour our manifesto commitment and work in conjuction with the wishes of our constituents. That is why I shall be voting for the motion.
6.58 pm
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It has not been a pretty sight to see the Home Secretary and some of his Back Benchers twisting and turning on this issue since the time when the first draft of the immigration rules was introduced towards the end of last year. The first set of rules was objectionable to me and my hon. Friends and, I think, to all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. Since then the Home Secretary has responded to the roasting that he got from some sections of his Back Benchers by tightening the rules and making them more restrictive and discriminatory. In the third draft he has twisted and turned again and has gone back slightly towards the original draft that he sought to introduce.
It has not been a pretty sight because, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, all this would have been unnecessary if the Conservative party and its deputy leader, the Home Secretary, had been firmer and, if I may say so, slightly more honest before the general election in the commitments that were made.
The register was one of the commitments set out in the manifesto. A Select Committee and the Home Office had considered in great depth establishing a register of dependants. There was a great debate about it and it was palpably obvious to anyone who studied the facts that it would be impracticable to introduce a register and that the scheme would not work. It is because the leadership of the Conservative party was not prepared to do what it should have done that it finds itself hooked on the commitments
210
in its manifesto and on the problems surrounding the immigration rules. It need not have been so hooked if it had confronted and refuted the racialist sentiments that were flowing in the country at the time of the election. Those sentiments are less conspicuous now but they still lie beneath the surface. The Conservative party should have confronted and refuted those sentiments by pointing to the facts.
In recent years primary immigration has ended—
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: No.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: It is dependants who are coming into Britain. We are having this great debate about male fiancés and husbands entering the country but there is evidence that, increasingly, young people, especially from the Asian community, will not be looking to the Asian subcontinent for their husbands and fiancés as time goes by.
It appears that beneath the surface there is some antagonism towards the arranged marriage. That custom is also breaking down as young people in the Asian community gradually become more used to the culture in which they are living and reject the attitudes and processes of their mother country and of their parents. This will happen because they have been brought up in Britain and more and more adopt the attitudes of this country.
Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many Asian girls are forced into arranged marriages by their parents, and that this occurs particularly because of the financial advantage to the parents of such a marriage? If we stop the arranged marriage in substance, we may be doing a great kindness to many Asian girls who are increasingly taking on the culture of Britain.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: It never ceases to amaze me that hon. Members who represent areas with large immigrant populations display such apparent ignorance of the culture of the people that they talk about. Most people in the Asian community would find the hon. Gentleman's remarks grossly offensive.
Mr. Budgen: But true.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: The system that he has described is a well-established fact. It is a well-established procedure in the subcontinent and is not misused and abused in the way that he suggests.
Mr. Budgen: It is. I can produce evidence that it is.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: It is not misused or abused to any substantial extent. If he considers the evidence, as I suggest he and his colleagues should, he will find that it is not as he suggests. The issue has been investigated by a Select Committee and by others in great detail and with great care. The hon. Gentleman will find that the facts refute his suggestions.
For example, in the two years to March 1979 the number of marriages of convenience found by immigration officers was 156. There was a total of 356 refusals of entry in those two years. If we consider the number of foreign nationals coming into Britain, either men accepted for settlement on removal of the time limit because of marriage or fiancés given leave to enter for the purpose of marriage, and discount the fact that some of them came here to work or for other reasons and then met someone here and applied to stay because they had married in this country, we find that the figures are not on the scale that Conservative Members suggest.

211
The leadership of the Conservative party should have drawn the figures to the attention of the electorate before the 1979 election and not pandered to the racialist sentiments that were flowing strongly at that time. Although they have ebbed to some extent, they still lie beneath the surface.
Mrs. Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He is always scrupulously fair in what he says and decides in the House. May I draw his attention to a case that I raised earlier in the House? It concerned a British woman who, the police said, had married at least 80 times because of the extremely large financial inducements that were offered to her. She had done it partly by disguising herself and always by using different names. The case is on the record. It is only one case but does it not prove that financial incentives to circumvent the rules are extremely powerful?
Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the case to which the hon. Lady refers is true, I hope that the lady concerned was punished. I hope that action was taken against all those concerned to ensure that justice was applied in the case and that others were deterred by that action. However, one cannot generalise on the basis of one case of that sort and say that thousands of others, as is implied and stated by others, are similarly abusing the system.
I know of no evidence—I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can offer any when he replies—to show that cases of the sort to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has referred are rampant and giving rise to a massive influx of immigrants. The Home Office figures, the investigations of the Select Committee and the investigations of others who have taken a great interest in these issues do not suggest that that is happening. There has been gross exaggeration.
I guess that it is unlikely that the changes that are being made in the immigration rules—which I consider to be objectionable in principle, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be voting against them tonight—will make a substantial difference to the number of people entering Britain. The window-dressing that is satisfying the consciences of some Conservative Members who will support the Government tonight, although they did not in December, will be proved to be misleading and wrong. The rules that are being introduced will not make a substantial difference to the number of people entering the country. That is why some Conservative Members will not support the Government tonight.
My position and that of my party is that the rules as they stand are discriminatory on the grounds of race and sex and, therefore, should be opposed. It seems highly likely that they will fall foul in due course of the European convention on human rights and that they will have to be changed again. I hope that before that arises a new Government will have changed them willingly to bring them in line with the convention.
The most objectionable feature about the latest change is the retention of the burden of proof on the couple. Mention has been made of the impact that the rules will have upon family life. It is interesting to note the difference of view between the two sides of the House. I am puzzled by the attitudes expressed by Conservative Members who represent areas such as Luton and the midlands because they must come across the same cases
212
that come to the attention of myself and others. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are concerned about those whose families are split up, whose family lives are being disrupted and who are being caused a great deal of heartache and upset by the imposition of the rules. We want to help the people who are living in those circumstances, make their lives easier and bring more family harmony by allowing families to be united and by allowing marriages to take place on a basis of equality, which the rules will not permit.
I plead with Conservative Members to think about the impact of the rules upon family life. If the burden of proof remains as it is in the new set of immigration rules, it will mean a subjective decision by an immigration officer on the relationship between the two people who are married or about to get married. It means prying into the most personal details of the relationship in a most objectionable way. I am sure that Conservative Members would find it objectionable if members of their family were asked about intimate and personal details of their relationships. Therefore, I hope that Conservative Members will think about that aspect of family life being interrupted and damaged, and will think again before they vote for the Government's proposals.
Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for giving an example that he thought was not general. I could refer in the same way to the destruction that he says will occur in family life. The picture that he painted made it look as if it would occur in every Asian family. He knows that that is nonsense. I remind him that any form of immigration into this country is voluntary. Any country that one wishes to enter has rules of some sort. The final decision is taken by those who wish to enter. If they do not like the rules or the country to which they intend to go, there is no reason for them to go there.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated the difference of opinion between Conservative Members and Opposition Members on these matters.
Some of us look at the history, not only of this country but of Europe and the world, and see that one of the greatest dangers and one of the most damaging things has been nationalism in all its forms. Beneath the surface of much that has been said by Conservative Members there is that feeling of nationalism, that has done so much damage in the past. Some of us see friends and neighbours not only in Europe but right round the world as members of one community, with whom we want the maximum contact, and co-operation. People should be able to move around the world as freely as possible. We take a fundamentally different view of foreigners and access to one another's countries.
It is more important in times of economic difficulty that we sustain that belief, try to bring about much closer relationships between different countries and do not put up barriers, not only to trade, but to people. The rules, in their length and complexity, are barriers to people moving around and learning more about one another and one another's cultures. Nothing has illustrated that better than the differences of opinion about arranged marriages, the implications and the misunderstandings that have occurred as a result. Conservative Members have talked about the impossibility of people of one culture living within another

213
culture. If that is their attitude, there is little hope for the future of Europe and the world. People should be prepared to learn to live with other coloured faces and other cultures. That is the fundamental difference between the Conservative rebels and many of us in the rest of the House.
That fundamental difference will drive some of us on the Opposition Benches to vote against the rules. If we could have a secret ballot in which the record of how hon. Members voted was not known—not only on this issue but on many others—some Conservative Members would back the same view as us. The Government would have had a majority for their original immigration rules and not this squalid set of rules, which I hope will be defeated.
Mr. Neville Sandelson: Will my hon. Friend note that, in spite of their much vaunted concern about these matters, only three Labour Members are present for this extremely important debate?
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I note my hon. Friend's point. There have been a number of contributions from Opposition Benches. I do not think that my hon. Friend would disagree with them. However, there is a notable absence of Opposition Members at the moment. I hope that the Chamber fills up before the debate is over.
7.16 pm
Mrs. Jill Knight: I am one of a number of hon. Members who is not having a happy day. It is the third agonising day that we have had on this thorny subject. I fear that it will not be the last. What we are doing today will lead to endless scrutiny. There will be parliamentary questions, early-day motions, debates and Adjournment applications as we look and look again at the results of what we are doing tonight.
The Home Secretary said that the numbers of people entering Britain were declining. However, he did not give us any figures. No clear statement was made that the numbers were X thousand a few years ago and now are only Y thousand. It would have been helpful to some of us to have a little more information to back up the general supposition—I am sure that if the Home Secretary says it, it must be right—that the numbers of people entering Britain are declining. But some figures would have been comforting.
I must tell the Home Secretary about my worries about the new rules, why I previously voted against them and what I feel now. I accept what he said about the numbers declining, yet it is true that about 30,000 extra people came into Britain last year. I shall not apologise to the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) or anyone else for my concern about the numbers—not the colour, which has nothing to do with it—of people entering this country. Can any of us deny that we have enormous problems? We do not have enough jobs, homes, hospital beds or schools for our own people. In many parts of the country we suffer from great difficulties because of the shortage of all those things.
I do not know what sort of cloud-cuckoo-land some Social Democratic party Members live in. If they think that Britain is an elastic citadel that can go on and on taking in more people, I warmly invite them to visit parts of the west midlands. They will see the problems of sheer numbers there. That has nothing to do with colour.
The important thing about the numbers of people who are still entering Britain is that by and large they have not
214
been contenders for jobs. They have been old people, the parents or grandparents of the people who are already here. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is well aware that on many occasions I have personally pursued the case of an elderly person who is a relative of one of my constituents, who wishes to join the rest of his family because no other relatives are left in the country of origin. I would help anyone in those circumstances. I recognise that it is immensely important always to be compassionate.
The people who have been coming into the country have not been looking for jobs. Tonight we are making sure that the new source of primary immigration to Britain will be all young men, who will be seeking jobs. They will take on responsibilities, riot only for those whom they marry, but ultimately for their children. They will be looking for jobs. They will not find them in Birmingham. That is what worries me more than anything. It has absolutely nothing to do with colour. There are not enough jobs to go round in my area.
Unemployment is a serious problem and we are proposing to allow in X more young men looking for jobs. Some hon. Members have told me that they do not have an unemployment problem, but there is no use saying that in my area. Young men coming to marry girls will not be going to the constituencies of my hon. Friends. They will not be going to where the grass is green and there are no problems. They will be coming to Birmingham, Southall, Wolverhampton or Luton because that is where people from the Indian subcontinent are concentrated.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but we should be realistic about what we are doing. It is inevitable that this flood, trickle or handful—whatever it may be—of young men will go to areas where there are no jobs. I am sorry that I have wholly failed to make my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary understand the depth of my anxiety about unemployment, let alone get him to do anything about it. I have tried to explain to t House and my constituents that my problem when facing this difficult business is my knowledge that there are no jobs available for these young men. It should be possible to make it a condition that these young men had a job to go to which had been perhaps advertised locally and found impossible to fill. Let anyone try to enter Australia without a job. Marrying until he is blue in the face will not help a man unless he has a job.
I am not so worried about abuse of the system. As I told the hon. Member for Thornaby earlier, I raised a matter that was a scandal at the time. It was one of a number of similar cases and it was dealt with. I am worried about the principle we are pursuing. The rules say:
"Entry clearance will be refused unless the entry clearance officer is satisfied: (a) that it is not the primary purpose of the intended marriage to obtain admission to the United Kingdom."
I do not know how the entry clearance officer will discover that. The marriage may be perfectly legal within the arranged marriage system. That is not at issue. It will be difficult to prove that the primary purpose of the intended marriage is to obtain admission to this country. The entry clearance officer must decade whether to give approval.
He has to be satisfied that the parties to the marriage intend to live together permanently as man and wife. I hope that they will, but I am not worried about that. I am worried about the young man marrying a girl, living with her and having children, in an area where there are no jobs.

215
It is easy to overcome the provision relating to the purpose of the proposed marriage. No one is likely to feel that that is an insurmountable burden or that it will keep people out.
Much has been said this evening about arranged marriages: the way we arrange marriages and the way they are arranged on the Indian subcontinent. Arranged marriages are probably a jolly sight more firm and likely to last than those based on a clap of thunder, a peal of bells and falling in love. We are talking about a culture that for hundreds of years has had a system of arranging marriages. In many instances the fact that the two families have similar backgrounds, and that the parents know one another, has proved an invaluable basis for a good marriage. We are not talking about keeping one starry-eyed youngster away from another with whom he or she is in love. If we were, it would be reasonable to suppose that many more people would cease to marry as a result of arranged marriages in the future. However, at the moment many marriages are contracted in the Indian subcontinent and among immigrants from that area in the time-honoured way.
We shall be making it easier for such people, although it would be possible for them to marry someone in this country, because there are people here on whom their eyes could alight. It is no good the hon. Member for Thornaby saying, as he did earlier, that it was a scandal to suggest that money might have anything to do with it. Money has a great deal to do with nearly everything. It is a sad but cynical fact that one realises as one goes through life. The House will be saying to people, "You may make an arranged marriage. There is nothing on earth to stop you having a normal arranged marriage where money changes hands," because money is short. We have had a great deal of evidence of arranged marriages taking place because money has changed hands. I am not presuming to judge; I am saying that those are the facts.
I find myself torn in two on this issue. Since I came into the House, it has always seemed to me that my first duty must be to my constituents who sent me here to uphold and further their interests, to voice their fears and help them all I can. I am not convinced that I shall carry out this duty if I vote in favour of the rules. My second duty is loyalty to my party and, perhaps, to give the benefit of the doubt to its spokesman.
We are told that the Government are aware of public feeling on the matter. I am delighted to hear that, but I should hardly have thought otherwise. There are some hon. Members who do not seem to understand the position. Immigrants themselves are frequently more aware than anyone else of the dangers facing them if more and more immigrants enter the country.
I spent some three years on the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. I learnt that immigrants feel that they are under threat and that if we cannot protect them and we allow more and more people into the country, they will be the first to suffer. I am impressed by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirmed this afternoon that the Government were committed to strict immigration control. He also made it clear that the Government appreciate the need to keep the problem under constant scrutiny. We are told that the whole trouble arises because of the British Nationality Act, which has not only clarified the immigrant problem, but has reduced immigration to Britain. I accept that. There is also the sex
216
equality argument, that if a man is able to marry whom he chooses, wherever she may live, then a woman should have that right as well. That is a strong argument.
There are two opposing points of view. I must do my duty to my constituents—I cannot support the rules. However, I am loyal to my Government, and I shall not oppose them. Nevertheless, I am very worried about the possible consequences of our actions tonight.
7.30 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: The speeches of Back-Bench Conservative Members show that their concern is about the numbers involved. Few, if any of them, have given any thought to the effects of the rules on people. Anybody listening to them would hardly know that we already have extremely tight immigration controls, the effect of which is to keep husbands and wives apart, children away from their parents and elderly parents from joining their children in this country.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is using the same old hoary fallacy about keeping husbands and wives apart. It is true that in certain circumstances a husband may not be able to join a wife here or a wife a husband, but in most of those cases there is nothing to prevent them from joining together in the other country where the husband or wife may reside. Nobody is keeping anybody apart, and the hon. Gentleman does nobody a service, and he does the debate and the clarity of the argument no service, by bringing this hoary old fallacy before the House again.
Mr. Dubs: I am sorry that I gave way because the hon. Gentleman is repeating the point that he has already made on countless occasions.
The effect of our immigration rules is to keep families apart. Normally one would expect families to have the choice as to where they go, but those who choose to unite here are being kept apart by the workings of our immigration rules.
Furthermore, the reality behind the debate concerns United Kingdom passport holders, as they were before the British Nationality Act came into force, normally called east African Asians, who were given promises by successive British Governments of both parties that they would be allowed to come to this country and who year after year wait to get their entry certificate or voucher to come here. That is the reality and that is the effect of the immigration rules and Acts upon people. It is damaging to them and it affects their family life. That is why I listened with alarm to the point made by Conservative Members who are simply concerned to measure the effect on numbers and did not pause to think of the effect of the rules on individuals, on lives and on human relationships.
Other Conservative Members talked about election pledges and the Conservative election manifesto, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, what about all the other election promises on which the Government reneged—promises on law and order, unemployment, and keeping the family together? Not much thought is given to those election promises and the Conservative Members have picked on one point in the manifesto and complained that the Government are not doing what they promised to do. However, Conservative Members have forgotten about the other promises on which they were elected.
I have watched with interest and concern what has been happening since the White Paper on immigration rules was

217
debated last November. We have had a shabby spectacle of an unseemly bartering for votes so that the Government can scrape through. To quote the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) in The Guardian today,
"The modern techniques of the parliamentary thumb-screw are many and varied—a whisky here, a trip to the Far East there, the friendly chat, the unfriendly chat, appeals to party loyalty—these are the stock in trade of the politicians."
That refers to what has been happening in the Conservative party over recent weeks. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) objects to these things, why does he not address his criticism to his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon who made these points? I am entitled to quote them. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say something, why does he not stand up and say it instead of muttering at me from a sedentary position?
It is legitimate for people to ask, in the country and on these Benches, what is the deal that has persuaded some Conservative Members who voted against the Government last time not to do so this time. One finds no concessions in the rules that would make them change their position from what it was only a few short weeks ago. The only reason I can find is that the election is that much nearer this time than it was when we last debated the immigration rules. If that is not the reason, I can only assume that some other deal has been struck about which we do not know, but about which we are entitled to know. This has been a shabby and unedifying spectacle and it is no wonder that the Conservative Benches in the early part of the debate were full of shame-faced hon. Members who did not know how to react to the criticisms from the Opposition Front Benches.
Our main anxiety about the changes that have been introduced in the past three years concerns the onus of proof. This affects all women, whether or not they were born in this country, provided that they are British citizens. I cannot help feeling that this is a sorry step for the Government to have taken. Marriages will be subjected to this scrutiny and snooping, because how else will the immigration officers decide whether they are satisfied that the marriage is working according to the immigration rules? It will mean snooping—I do not see that there will be any other way. Snooping will lead to an increase in the number of representations that are made to Ministers at the Home Office, because many of us will be approached by our constituents who if they have managed to get to this country and marry, will object to this scrutiny. On occasions, the Home Office officials may not feel satisfied and will make further representations to us.
In passing, as an hon. Member who has made many representations to the Minister of State, I feel that the unfailing courtesy of the officials who work in the Minister's office should be commended. They have to apply a miserable system that is not of their making. I appreciate the courtesy with which they respond to telephone calls and representations.
Another aspect that concerns me is the fact that delay will have a damaging effect on individuals. I quote the example of a United Kingdom passport family waiting for their vouchers to come to this country, living in the Gujarat province north of Bombay, who applied for a quota voucher. At the present rate of progress, it will take about six years before such a quota voucher is granted. That means that in about 1989 the family might be allowed to come here. Five years later, they will be allowed to apply
218
for British citizenship, and in a year or two that citizenship may be granted. Only at that point could the fiancé of one of the women in that family apply for an entry certificate to come here to join his fiancée and get married. Fifteen or 16 years could elapse before a United Kingdom passport holder woman living in Gujarat province could marry what at that time was the boy next door. There may be long and intolerable delays before such a marriage can take place, and that is wrong in principle.
Another matter to which the Home Secretary referred earlier concerns the basic position of United Kingdom passport holders and the very limited quota per year that is allowed to them. I understand that 600 quota vouchers per year are issued to families. At the present rate of progress, that can mean waiting up to six years before reaching the top of the queue to come to this country.
The Sub-committee on Race Relations and Immigration of the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, looked at all these procedures. We looked at the entry certificate procedures in Bangladesh, and we looked at the position of United Kingdom passport holders in Gujarat province. We decided that the process should be speeded up. It was most disappointing that the Home Secretary decided not to meet any of our main recommendations, particularly from a Conservative point of view, because, if those recommendations had been met, there would have been no overall increase in the numbers coming here, except in the year or two after such a change was made. In the meantime, people are waiting for their quota vouchers and for a British Government to meet promises that were made many years ago.
I want to refer to two other items of particular concern in these rules. Occasionally the wife of a man living here who does not have an entry certificate arrives here and wants to stay. Even if the lady is pregnant, she is obliged to return to the country from which she came, apply for an entry certificate and then come all the way back to England. In my opinion, that is unreasonable. It is an unreasonble application of the immigration rules. In the case that I have in mind, the Home Office allowed the lady to stay here and have her baby, but she then returned and had to apply to return to this country. In my opinion, that is quite unreasonable, because it is perfectly obvious that the entry certificate will be granted in the British high commission in the Asian subcontinent, or wherever it is.
My final worry concerns elderly dependants, about whom a number of hon. Members have spoken. The immigration rules, as they are now, and as they have been for several years since we debated them and changed them early in the life of this Conservative Government, have imposed very tight controls on elderly dependants who in their declining years wish to join their adult children in this country. They have to pass through a mesh so fine that few of them succeed in getting here. The conditions imposed by the immigration rules are totally unreasonable, and it is an exceptional elderly parent, living, say, on the Asian subcontinent, who does not have some other relative on the Asian subcontinent, and the existence of another relative virtually prevents parents from joining their children here. The numbers are not large, but the principle is important.
That is yet another aspect of the immigration rules which has existed for several years and which has unhappy consequences on individuals. I meet distressed people in my constituency who would like to support their elderly

219
parents in their declining years as part of a united family but are prevented from doing so by the immigration rules, a further instalment of which we are discussing tonight.
Conservative Members have said that the British public simply want immigration controls as a stop on the numbers. The implication that has run through their speeches is that this applies only to people who are not white. That has been the tenor of their speeches this evening, although some hon. Members may deny that they have said anything quite as specific as that. However, that is the effect. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that she was not concerned about the colour of the skin of individuals, only about the numbers. However, the total flows of population into and out of the United Kingdom show that, if anything, there has been a net outflow over recent years. Therefore, the hon. Lady's point hardly applies.
Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman cared to have a look at the west midlands conurbations, he would see exactly what I am talking about. However the number game is played, there is no question whatever but that in the west midlands there are not enough of the things to go around that every family needs.
Mr. Dubs: If the hon. Lady is saying that there are not enough jobs to go round in the west midlands or anywhere else in the United Kindom, I agree. There are not enough jobs, but that is not the fault of the people we are discussing. It is the fault of the hon. Lady's Government. Why does she not complain to her Government about the unemployment that has increased in recent years? The hon. Lady talked about whether we as a country could cope with more people, but, if we look at the total inflow and outflow of people, we see that there is a balance, or indeed a net outflow of people. The problem of jobs in the west midlands is a matter that the hon. Lady should address to Ministers other than the Home Secretary, except in his overall responsibility for the policies of this Government and the unemployment that they have created.
Hon. Members have said that the British people are concerned about numbers. My contention is that if one puts the issue fairly to the British people—I endeavour to do so whenever the issue arises in my constituency—whether families should be united, whether elderly parents should join their children, whether children should join their parents, and whether promises made by repeated British Governments to United Kingdom passport holders should be kept, almost always the answers to those questions by people in my constituency and elsewhere is, "Yes, of course we believe in family unity. We believe in the promises of British Governments, we accept that that is a sensible and humane policy." That is why we do not need to fly in fear of our electorates. We should put the facts to our electorates and ask them to support a humane policy and, by implication, throw out these immigration rules, not because of the Right wing of the Tory party, but because of some of the more objectionable features, particularly about the onus of proof of marriages, that this Government have introduced.
7.47 pm
Mr. David Mudd: Two months ago I was unable to support the Government in
220
their attempt to introduce these rules. Tonight I speak not as a rebel, not as a diehard, but as someone who has seen the light on the road to Damascus, or perhaps the light on the road to Queen Anne's gate, the light of reasonableness and consistency.
My element of reasonableness goes nowhere near as far as that of the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who seemed to imply that if his party were to assume government or hold the balance of power, all controls would wonderfully be swept aside and the British people would have the undoubted social pleasure of mass integration, whether they liked it or not.
Tonight I shall support the Government on two grounds. First, since the debate two months ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made genuine attempts to accommodate the fears of all sections of the party, and the fears that have been expressed to him throughout the nation. Secondly, I am delighted that both he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have reaffirmed the outlines of the Government's general policy towards controlled immigration and the constant monitoring of the figures.
On reflection, I admit that I have found my position on the immigration rules highly inconsistent. On many occasions over the past few years I have approached the Home Office for permission either for existing visitors to be allowed to prolong their stay in the United Kingdom, or for specific members of their families to be granted permission to join them.
I know that it is argued that the local population does not want that. Yet my experience has been that where there has been a question of reuniting a split family the local community—school teachers, neighbours, traders and others—knowing the people involved, have supported the application.
Equally, it is argued that to increase immigration must of necessity increase unemployment. Again, I can speak only from my experience in my constituency, which has the misfortune to have one of the highest levels of unemployment in Britain. But my experience is that where people are granted permission to come to the United Kingdom their friends and families rally round to offer them the security of a job which would not be available to any local applicant. Therefore, the immigrant not only becomes a bread-winner but becomes a payer of taxes and of national insurance.
Although my gut reaction to the principle of the rules was to abstain tonight, my conscience tells me that if I am prepared to make a specific pleading for those families and immigrants whom I happen to know as my constituents, surely I do not have the right to seek to impose a blanket obstruction on those for whom I would be arguing were they already known to me. For that reason I shall admit to a change of face, stance, principle and philosophy and with a clear conscience I shall support the rules tonight.
7.50 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) reflects a point of view that is different from that of most of his hon. Friends. It must be said straight away that primary immigration into the United Kingdom ceased a long time ago, yet some Conservative Members wish to give the opposite impression, to convince the British people that floods of immigrants are still coming in without effective control and so on. But, as the hon. Member rightly pointed

221
out, those hon. Members who deal with constituency cases know full well how effective and tough immigration controls are. Certainly many of my constituents have contacted me about persons wishing to enter as visitors, but who have been refused admission, and, when representations have accordingly been made to the Minister, almost without exception he has refused to change the ruling. Indeed, if anyone has any illusions about the effectiveness and toughness of immigration control let them go to Heathrow airport to see what happens when people from the Indian subcontinent or Cyprus try to visit Britain.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, there has been much arm-twisting of the Tory rebels over paragraph 54. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, it is only when one tries to persuade an immigration officer that one's marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom that one recognises how difficult it is. Indeed, at times one must ask what the rebellion is about. Certainly immigrants from the Indian subcontinent will have extreme difficulty in persuading an immigration or entry clearance officer that their marriage has not been entered into for the reasons stated in the rules. How could anyone prove that a marriage has not been entered into primarily to enter the United Kingdom? Therefore, one must recognise that the rule is drafted in such a way as to make it difficult to overcome the obvious obstacle.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston mentioned unemployment, and I am sure that it will be referred to again in the course of the debate. I certainly would be the last person to deny that unemployment has risen substantially. Certainly mass unemployment has returned to my constituency's travel-to-work area. But I must say that about the only time that one hears Conservative Members talk of unemployment, particularly those hon. Members who are unhappy about or oppose these rules, is when immigration is discussed. It cannot be said with justification that those hon. Members who rebel against the rules are those who criticise their Government's economic and social policies. They are hardly what one would describe as the Tory wets. Indeed, it is precisely those hon. Members who tell us, with tears in their eyes, that it is impossible for husbands to come over because of the level of unemployment, and so on, who are the first to defend their Government's hard-line economic policies. I see hon. Members nod in agreement, so let not those who are willing and enthusiastic supporters of their Government's economic policies, which have done so much harm to our constituents, lecture us about unemployment and the misery and devastation it causes.
What I am now going to say is political, not personal. The hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) and Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) in particular are almost professional mischief makers on matters of colour and race. They lose no opportunity in debate or at Question Time to stir up as much hostility as they can against one section of the community which just happens to comprise those who do not have white faces. Of course, it is farcical to believe that those hon. Members can be persuaded to accept the immigration rules in any shape or form. They believe not only that people who do not have white faces should be refused entry to Britain, certainly for permanent settlement, but they are in favour of repatriation. Certainly the hon. Member for Basildon is because he has said so on numerous occasions. He would pursue a policy that
222
would in effect force people—although he would deny that it would be a matter of force—to leave Britain. He believes in a policy of repatriation which, through pressure and intimidation, would result in enforced repatriation. I do not suppose that the views of the hon. Member for Luton, West are very different from those of the hon. Member for Basildon. Certainly when it comes to matters about South Africa—cricket teams and the rest—the hon. Member for Luton, West is always the first to see what sort of racial mischief he can stir up.
Mr. Proctor: I think that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I place on record that I support the principle of repatriation for all those who wish to take advantage of it, as the hon. Gentleman well knows? That has been the policy of the Conservative and Unionist party since the time of the leadership of Sir Alec Douglas-Home and it was also one of the election manifesto pledges that help should be given to those who genuinely wished to go home. That was contained in the 1979 election manifesto and is still to be implemented by my Government.
Mr. Winnick: I am sure that Ministers will be pleased to know that their policies are the same as those of the hon. Member for Basildon. I imagine that the Home Secretary and his junior Ministers would somehow wish to dissociate themselves from his policy. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman believes that election promises are not being implemented, two points arise. First, he should do what Labour Members do when they believe that their Government are not implementing party policy, and presumably he will do that tonight. Secondly, if he is so concerned about that aspect, what about all the other policies that have not been implemented? The Conservative party did not win the last election on the basis of bringing Britain back to mass unemployment on a scale not seen since the 1930s.
I have referred to the particular rule that is causing all the controversy, but in common with a number of my hon. Friends, there are one or two other aspects of the rules which I am far from happy about. Paragraph 52 refers to parents. I have handled a number of cases involving parents who wish to come to this country for permanent settlement. It is extremely difficult to try to persuade the immigration authorities, the adjudicator or the immigration tribunals that one falls within this category. The rule states:
"They must be wholly or mainly dependent upon sons or daughters settled in the United Kingdom who have the means to maintain their parents".
Normally there is no difficulty about the means to maintain them. I accept that if adult children could not maintain their parents there would not be a case for entry, but to try to argue that the parents are "wholly or mainly dependent" upon their adult children is extremely difficult. Moreover, one has to show that the parents have no other close relatives in their own country to whom to turn. That is also very difficult because they may have other children but those children may not be in a position to support them. I believe that there is a case for some flexibility with regard to aged parents.
Perhaps arrangements could be made on a different basis. It must also be remembered that originally the rule was going to be even tougher, but as a result of representations outside and inside the House, at least the more difficult part of the proposed rule was dropped at the

223
time. We have heard the argument about unemployment. No one, I think, is suggesting that people who come here in their late 60s or 70s will take jobs. They are unlikely to do so and, as I understand it, that is not the argument for having the rule as it now stands. But the way the rule is drafted and the way it is interpreted is undoubtedly causing a great deal of hardship.
The other rule which causes a great deal of concern and gives rise to representations to Ministers is the one that relates to visitors. Again, I accept that there must be control and that it is not good enough for someone to say that he wants to be a visitor when it is obvious from all the evidence that he has no intention of being a genuine visitor to this country. I am not suggesting that the controls should go overboard, but I do believe that, sometimes, certainly when the people involved come from the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies or from Cyprus, it is extremely difficult to persuade an immigration officer at Heathrow or Gatwick that he or she is a genuine visitor. Sponsors in this country ask me—perhaps the Minister will bear this in mind—why it is not possible to hand over their own passports to immigration authorities or why cannot they give a sum of money which, when the visitor leaves, they can recover. There may be snags to that and it may well be that it would discriminate against those sponsors in this country who are not well off, but I do believe that there could be more flexible arrangements while, at the same time, recognising the need for effective immigration control over visitors.
Mr. John Carlisle: Is the hon. Member as much against illegal immigration as any other Member of the House? Assuming that he will agree with that statement, does he also agree that overstaying visitors are probably the largest source of illegal immigration into this country? Consequently, should he not rephrase some of the statements that he has just made in which he virtually criticises the immigration authorities? Are they not right to be cautious about visitors who come here because of the large numbers who overstay and cause the trouble that they do?
Mr. Winnick: No one would wish to deny that there are overstayers, but whether they are in the large numbers as described by the hon. Member for Luton, West is another matter. It could well be argued that, with computers and all the rest, the Home Office should be able to locate those who stay beyond their time. Let me make it quite clear that I make no excuse for those who stay here without permission. If I go to any country I, like any other hon. Member or people outside the House of Commons, would not wish to stay without permission. I make no such excuse and therefore it is quite wrong to misinterpret what I say, but I come back to my point that there could be a more flexible arrangement. While some of the people who are refused entry are, quite likely, not intending to be genuine visitors, my view is that a good number are. They have no intention of being here illegally and have no intention of overstaying as described by the hon. Gentleman.
There have always been hon. Members—it goes back to debates in the 1950s, the 1960s as well as the 1970s—a minority fortunately, who have tried to use immigration rules and immigration debates to create a feeling of hostility against people who come to this country. It must
224
be said—if it is not said the point can be overlooked—that the vast majority of people who have come into this country—whether in the post-war years or at the turn of the century, when they happened to be Jews, when there also was a great deal of agitation, and the immigrants long before the Jews from Czarist Russia, or Poland—whatever their racial origins or colour, have been good, law-abiding citizens. They have made and continue to make a good contribution to our country.
I deeply resent the attempts that are made to make it appear that the arrival of people in the post-war years who are non-white has created such terrible problems. I reject that view with contempt. We need to have effective immigration controls, but we need to have fair controls. We need to be able to be reasonably satisfied that we do not have on the statute book rules that discriminate. The Opposition have come to the view that the rules are not fair and that they should not be accepted. In putting forward that view, we certainly have nothing in common with the rebels on the Conservative benches.
8.6 pm
Mr. John Stokes: I do not think that anyone here has ever attempted to bully or bribe me before a vote and they certainly have not done so today. I want to state as shortly and as simply as I can why I am voting the way that I am tonight.
I have always believed, as the House knows, that control of immigration into this country is absolutely vital for our national indentity and cohesion. It is in my view as important socially as the control of inflation is important economically. Indeed, after defending the nation and keeping the Queen's peace, the Government's responsibility for the control of immigration is of next importance. It is no use being mealy-mouthed on this subject. It is not sufficient to say that control of immigration is necessary in the interests of good race relations. It is necessary in the interests of something even more important than that. The control is necessary for our very survival as a nation—so that England, which has survived for 1,000 years, with its incomparable history and contribution to civilisation, can remain recognisably and unmistakeably English. There is nothing ignoble or shameful about that sentiment which, as we know, is shared by the vast majority of English people.
Mr. Sandelson rose—
Mr. Stokes: May I continue for a little longer? I have been here for the whole debate, unlike most of the party of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson).
Hon. Members may wonder why, since I feel so deeply on this subject, I am now going to support the Government on these revised rules which will add to the numbers of immigrants to these shores and increase the categories of foreign people allowed to come and settle here. I do so with sadness and extreme reluctance, simply because, with a general election likely either this year or at the latest next spring or early summer, I feel it absolutely vital that our party should go into that most important election completely united. The possibility of a Government formed by the present Opposition is too awful to contemplate and fraught with the greatest danger to the nation.
I note the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in restating unequivocally that the

225
Government remain committed to the strictest control of immigration. That is in sharp contrast to the opposition parties, who appear to favour with relish the diminution of English people and all things English into some sort of international mish-mash of races and cultures. That was the sentiment expressed especially by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who departed some time after his speech.
Mr. Sandelson rose—
Mr. Stokes: I shall not give way. I wish to make my speech in my own way. I, and others who feel as I feel, will watch the future immigration statistics with the closest attention. No fewer than 120,000 immigrants have entered Britain since the Government took office four years ago. That is a horrifyingly large number—30,000 people a year, which is sufficient for a small or medium-sized town.
It is my wish, and that of the vast majority of people in Britain, that those figures should be reduced drastically. The fact that many immigrants are women and children is no comfort, as they will produce more children themselves. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with whom I have always had an excellent personal relationship, will realise how deeply I and my colleagues feel on that subject. Millions of people outside this place will look to our party, and our party alone, to control immigration more strictly. Many of us campaigned in previous elections on that platform. I beg my right hon. Friend to ensure that we are not let down and that countless numbers of people outside this place, whose views are not heard sufficiently in the Chamber, are also not let down.
I have listened to every speech from both sides of the Chamber since the debate began. Two things have struck me about the Opposition — first, the extremely small numbers who bothered to turn up for the debate—usually about three at a time—and, secondly, the fact that not one of them mentioned the feelings of the vast majority of people in Britain. We heard a great deal about families. What about the families in Britain who have had origins here for centuries, have lived in the same street for many years, were born, bred and married here and will die here? Why should their lives be uprooted and disturbed by newcomers in enormous numbers? No Opposition Member mentioned that fact. No wonder the Opposition have such a low rating in the opinion polls.
Unless the numbers of immigrants are reduced rapidly, everyone knows in their heart of hearts—although they are rather shamefaced to say so—that eventually England will disappear as the nation we know and love. That is the issue for us tonight—not merely the question of some 3,000 additional men coming to Britain from the Indian subcontinent.
8.14 pm
Mr. Nick Budgen: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) on this important issue. He is my neighbour both in the country and the House. It is true that those of us who intend to support the Government tonight have had to face a difficult question. It is also true that the issue has much concerned the Tory party during the past few months. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) complained about the parliamentary thumbscrew and the modern techniques of those wishing to exercise some form of influence within
226
the House. Of course, the techniques of the thumbscrew have been applied on all sides, and by all sides, on this issue.
Perhaps I can explain a little of the background that brings me to my present position. I first began to take an interest in politics as a candidate in Birmingham in the mid-1960s, when I became aware of the importance of the problems of immigration in the west midlands. By 1974, it was plain that the possibilities of reducing immigration had been constrained by the many previous promises of successive Governments. There was only one reasonably large area where reductions in immigration could be achieved, that being in husbands and fiancés entering in large numbers, the fiances principally to marry Asian girls.
It was necessary to take a view about arranged marriages and how they might be adapted to British society. All of us of middle years may know that the arranged marriage is often a more successful way of contracting a marriage than the so-called love marriage. It may be that the arranged marriage, even if contracted in a European society, will have a vastly better chance of surviving as a stable unit than the love marriage. But the argument put forward by those who wish to reduce the restrictions upon immigration is that we must allow people to enter Britain because, if we do not, the bonds of matrimony and of relationship will cause suffering to those kept apart. It cannot be said that the arranged marriage creates suffering if it is not allowed, because the girl does not know the man who may be selected for her in far away Jullunder. Such a girl is increasingly coming to the view that she does not wish a man to be selected for her in Jullunder.
The House might remember my brief interchange with the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) who agreed that the mixing of the cultures is causing an increasing number of Asian girls to reject an arranged marriage. It appears to me now, as it did in 1974, that whatever the theoretical arguments for an arranged marriage between two persons in neighbouring villages in Pakistan, it should not be a means of entering Britain.
I was one of those who, in putting forward those arguments then, persuaded the then Tory spokesman on home affairs to include a specific promise in our 1979 manifesto to revoke the concession to husbands and fiancés. In 1980 we almost carried out that promise. I make it plain to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon that my strong preference would be to return to the 1980 rules in substance.
Politics is not just about protest; it is not just about saying to a constituency association, "I have been consistent, I have protested, I have been whiter than white." Politics is also about getting a bit of what one wants—about sometimes accepting half a loaf rather than doing without bread altogether. My hon. Friend talked about the parliamentary thumbscrew. As a retired Whip, I have both applied the thumbscrew and had it applied to me. Those of us who wish to return to the 1980 rules have applied as much of the thumbscrew as possible to the Government, more especially to the Home Secretary and to those who have worked under him.
I have known the Home Secretary for eight years and I do not think there is any hope of returning to the 1980 rules. What are we left with? The political reality is that we either settle for the White Paper plus the safeguards, or the Government will decide that they cannot attract our

227
support and they will obtain more liberal, that is to say less restrictionist, rules with the acquiescence of the Labour party.
Hon. Members know that those who intend to vote against the Government tonight are secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will not defeat the Government. They do it secure in the knowledge that some hon. Members have been inconsistent because they are settling for a compromise. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) suggested that there should be an explanation from those hon. Members who intend to change their position. We wished to have some safeguards.
There are three points on which there may be restrictions on immigration. The first in time is a restriction before entry. The 1980 rules were effectively a restriction before entry. That would be my first choice. Secondly, there can be restriction at the time of entry. That is what the change in the burden of proof produces. I understand the arguments of those hon. Members who say that that safeguard, applied as it will be to all applicant husbands and fiancés, will in some instances cause irritation and embarrassment. That is the disadvantage of control at the point of entry, and it is one reason why I prefer the solution of control before entry. However, perhaps many hon. Members who voted against the Government on 15 December under-estimated the restrictive effect of changing the burden of proof.
It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) who investigated this problem in 1978 on the Asian subcontinent was right to say that it will have a significant restrictive effect upon those 3,000 applications.
There should always be plenty of cynics in the House who say that when the Government say that they will review something, especially when they are under pressure, one should disregard it. I remember that during many discussions in the House one of my colleagues said: "Whenever I get a bore in my constituency who has a pet idea, I say that I will keep it under constant review." The Government may be able to fob off one or two bores, but it is on record that about 50 Conservative Members disagreed with the Government on 15 December. Perhaps some Conservative Members hope that a few of the 50 will lose their seats at the next general election. Not all hon. Members will lose their seats. We shall remember the promise that we believe was given to us this day. We are committed to the firm control of immigration.
If the prediction of the Home Secretary that the change in the burden of proof will restrict the number of appliants is incorrect, hon. Members, either in this House or outside, within the next year or so, will remind the Home Secretary of the promise made today. We are the living safeguards that the Tory party is in favour of restrictions upon immigration. It is true that there is an apparent inconsistency between the votes that we propose to cast tonight and the votes that we cast on 15 December. Hon. Members are facing the reality of power and not the fantasies of protest.
Hon. Members are tonight getting the half loaf with at least a promise of the other half. That is more important, at any rate to the people of Wolverhampton, than my saying that I have always acted consistently even if on occasions that has actually worked to people's disadvantage because it has ushered in, albeit at
228
secondhand, more liberal rules than otherwise would have got in. I am for honourable and fair restriction in this important area, which is the single remaining area of primary male immigration.
All Conservative Members, with reservations and with wry amusement at the way in which politics is so often the art of having to accept second best, should support the Government rather than parade ourselves as protesting heroic figures.
8.27 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I had no intention of intervening in this debate until I heard some of the speeches. I represent a constituency with an immigrant population that has come to us during the past 20 years, and I have been spurred into saying a few words about the contribution of the immigrant community to my town. I was especially stunned by the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) and felt especially bitter that such a statement could be made in 1983, when the sons and daughters of immigrants have made such a tremendous contribution to our society.
I am in a sense the son of an immigrant family, because some time ago my great great grandfather, who was a Huguenot silk weaver, settled in Spitalfields. Britain has a long history of immigration, and the more recent immigrants have made tremendous contributions to our communities. In Huddersfield and west Yorkshire I have seen the enormous contributions of entrepreneurs. I believed that the Tory party and even the Back-Bench Members who spoke this evening were in favour of entrepreneurs and of bringing into our society people with great ambition, integrity, drive and energy. That is the sort of person who lives in the immigrant community in Huddersfield. I am talking not just about the traditional restaurants and service industries, but about the tremendous contribution that West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis have made to manufacturing industry.
Mr. Sandelson: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Does he agree, as a Member of the Labour party, with me, as a Social Democrat, that we do not want our immigrant population to be tied to one political affiliation? Does he agree that many of those entrepreneurs are potential supporters of the Conservative party? Will he share with me, divorcing our party political attachments, the belief that it is in the overall interests of Britain that those immigrants should decide on their political affiliations by criteria other than that of race or recent entry into this country?
Mr. Sheerman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the immigrants whom I know support all the political parties. In my town there are active members of the Conservative party, the Labour party and even a few of the SDP and the Liberal party. There is a tremendous danger of erecting a stereotype of how the immigrant population acts and behaves. It does not act in that way. It is active in a range of parties.
I was not going to mention the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) because I could not find him after I had decided to speak in this debate, but I can tell the House that some people in the immigrant community have the sense to look at politicians who say one thing when they need to be elected and when they know that a crucial element in a marginal seat is that

229
immigrant community, but who, when they decide to leave the industrial heartland of west Yorkshire for greener pastures, as is the case with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, dismay the immigrant population by dramatically changing their stand on immigration and on how one treats fiancés. Many immigrants in Huddersfield are disillusioned and feel that they have been betrayed.
When I see the trouble and mischief that a sizeable minority of the Conservative party causes, and I listen to the immigrants who come to my advice surgery, I understand the despair caused by the unsettling influence of debating such matters month after month and year after year. The immigrant population wish to get on with living here and with making a positive contribution to society. They no longer wish to be called immigrants. I do not know how many immigration problems the hon. Members who have spoken this evening come across, but in my advice surgery I see people who have harrowing problems with elderly relatives or loved ones who wish to join them here. It is a natural feeling.
Many of my family emigrated to the United States. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge should be aware that there is a real problem on the west coast of the United States with overstayers. English people, especially young people who are attracted by the sunshine and work opportunities have been driven out of Britain by our workless society and overstay in the United States.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Have a word with Nigeria.
Mr. Sheerman: We cannot adopt such a "holier than thou" attitude about people who overstay as we know how they want their families to be together. I know how strongly the part of my family that emigrated wanted the rest of the family to emigrate with them.
Only this week, I came across a tragic case of an old lady who had overstayed. She is sick, elderly and 83 and is to be made to leave Britain. She had lived in Britain for 12 years and returned home when her husband was dying. She then stayed abroad and did not return at the right time. She is living with her only relative—her daughter—in Britain. Moreover, her husband fought for Britain in the second world war. I do not know how hon. Members feel about that case. I think that it is tragic that the rules cannot be altered to accommodate such human elements.
Some Conservative Members may change their mind about that 83-year-old lady when I tell them that she is Polish. Nevertheless, she is in exactly the same circumstances as many people who come from other parts of the world. When it comes down to what we used to call the nitty-gritty in the 1960s, Conservative Members do not want to keep out people with white faces; they want to keep out those people who have brown faces. That is what the debate is about. That is the unacceptable face of the Conservative party. Conservative Members dress up their words, there is camouflage and code, but we all know what they are talking about. It is a pretty unpleasant point of view that has been demonstrated in a despicable group of speeches today.
My party opposes the rules because they are not made for human beings. They are not flexible or sensitive enough.
8.33 pm
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I shall set out to the House immediately the premise upon which I base all
230
my arguments. We have now and have had for many years too many immigrants from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan to be integrated peacefully in our society. Those who witnessed the riots in our inner city areas, members of the public if not Members of this House, know full well the common sense of that statement. They will agree that enough is enough.
The House will not therefore be surprised to learn that I will be supporting the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) in the Division Lobbies tonight against these immigration rules. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) put his finger on the starting point of this sad adventure, the British Nationality Act 1948, when we shared our citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies with 500 or 600 million people around the globe. That kind of imperial or Commonwealth romanticism was in order until these fellow citizens started to flow into the United Kingdom. Successive parties, including to its credit, the Conservative and Unionist party legislated to stop the flow. In 1962 we had the Commonwealth Immigrants Act which, like so much legislation designed to curb immigration, was opposed by the Labour party, by the Liberal party and, had it been founded at the time, would no doubt have been opposed by the Social Democratic Party. Further legislation followed in 1968 and 1971.
Whilst successive Governments have sought to control immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan by statute law, usually too little and too late, the main battlefield in defence of national identity has beer located in the debates on the immigration rules. These rules are laid down by the Home Secretary and concern the practice to be followed in the administration of the Immigration Act 1971 for regulating the entry into and the stay of persons in the United Kingdom. Changes in the definition of citizenship as a result of the British Nationality Act 1981 required changes in the definition of these rules but, by subterfuge, the Home Office insisted upon a change of substance and we are largely debating that change.
One would have thought that our party, committed to the election manifesto pledges of 1970 and 1979 would, if any opportunity to change the immigration rules arose, seize the chance to strengthen and tighten those rules. Yet some of my colleagues have decided to support a compromise. They admit that it is half a loaf. The time will come when they will discover that it is but a crumb, a crumb consisting of words.
In defending his rules, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the Government were carrying out a policy of "stringent immigration control", that they had "firm immigration control" and that there was to be "a continuation of the previous commitment to strict immigration control". He also said that we had reached the lowest level of immigration in 1982 since figures had been kept. Let us look at the facts. Since 1970 and the election manifesto commitment of our party that there be no further large-scale permanent immigration, 600,000 immigrants from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan have settled here legally. Since the election of a Conservative Government in May 1979, with the continuation of all those commitments to firm immigration control, 120,000 immigrants from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan have settled in Britain legally.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not give the figure—it has not been published, so presumably only

231
he has it—for the number of immigrants who came here from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan last year. That figure cannot be much under 30,000. In 1973, in the last full year of a Conservative Government, the figure was 32,247. The splendid triumph upon which this compromise is based and this firm immigration control is established is a drop of 2,247 or so.
There used to be very few opportunities for the House to debate immigration and certainly few opportunities to debate its consequences. Now, however, we seem to have plenty of opportunity to debate the issues but a rapidly decreasing number of opportunities and circumstances for the House actually to reduce immigration.
I welcome my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to his new duties and his first engagement in an immigration rules debate. As he well knows, of the 30,000 who came into this country in 1982 a large proportion had the right to do so because they were dependants. One may argue about definitions, but the number is about 65 per cent., so the area of discretion in which he can operate to reduce immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan is less than half the number who came in. That is all the more reason not to increase the categories of people who have the right to come here, given that the Home Secretary has discretion to allow in anyone he wishes.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) pointed out, this whole debate is about the reality of politics? Although I respect him for what he intends to do in the Division today, will he admit that that will not defeat the Government and that if enough of us supported him, because many of us agree with him, we could bring about a situation in which more people rather then fewer would be admitted to this country? In other words, is not the compromise that many of us have been forced reluctantly to accept the best way to limit immigration into this country?
Mr. Proctor: If the rules are defeated today, they will still take effect and the Home Secretary will have 40 days in which to table new rules more in keeping with the political reality outside in the country and that of the people whom I represent and to whom I gave my promise at the last election that I would do my best to control, restrict and reduce immigration from the New Commonwealth.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Proctor: In view of the time, I am afraid that I must continue, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) wishes to speak before the winding-up speeches begin.
Why are we in this position? I believe that it is because the Government do not wish to introduce primary legislation on immigration. That is why they fear the quota and the register and indeed the demands of myself and others, which will increase in the months and years ahead, that those who currently have the right to come here will probably have to lose those rights if we are to maintain law, order and liberty in this country. The consequences and the alternatives mean that that will be the better of the two evils that will face us in the future. I regret that I shall
232
have to vote against my Government tonight but I am consistent to my principle and to my constituents on this issue.
8.50 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). If brownie points were awarded—if hon. Members will forgive the phrase—to those who have sat through these debates, as he and I have without missing a single speech in over 20 hours on the three occasions we have debated the rules, we would do very well. It shows our deep concern. I am in the dilemma that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) put before the House—whether I should be loyal to my constituents and whether, at the same time, I can be loyal to my Government. My mind is still not fully made up as to whether I should support my Government. I await with interest the speech of the Minister of State in winding up.
In the whole unfortunate affair the fact that these rules have come back to the House yet again does not mean that blame should be laid at the door of the Home Secretary or his Ministers, who have tried throughout to find an honourable settlement. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon I do not take exception to the cajoling and discussions that have taken place inside and outside the House over the past few days, because that is what politics is about.
We are here with different constituency interests. I may not take issue too strongly with hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) who has long experience in the subject. I take perhaps with a pinch of salt, the various accusations he levelled so readily at myself and my colleagues. We are sent here from varying parts of the country which have changed dramatically over the past 20 years because of large-scale immigration. Parts of my constituency, parts of London and parts of the west midlands are unrecognisable from the streets and roads of 20 or 30 years ago. That has not been to the betterment of my constituents or of the country. I respect those with an opposite view but on subjects like this each Member should put forward his own view according to his conscience and should vote accordingly.
I regret that the representative feeling outside this place is not reflected here and will not be reflected in the Lobby tonight. It is an issue of great importance to those who represent constituencies such as mine, as well as to those who represent constituencies where there has been no immigration. People are deeply concerned about the large numbers of immigrants from alien cultures and lands. They are concerned that those alien cultures are, by definition, strange to them. Customs that may be usual in Barbados, Bangladesh or Calcutta are not necessarily accepted by the English. We are lucky that our constituents have been tolerant in spite of the strain that has been put upon them and upon the social services.
What has upset me, many of my colleagues and some of those who will reluctantly support the Government, is that we gave an absolute manifesto pledge. I do not need to be lectured by Opposition Members about broken promises, particularly on law and order. It ill befits some Opposition Members to speak as they did because no party could have done more in the circumstances than we have in trying to rectify the mess that we inherited from the Labour party and in trying to restore the morale of the police that was so low in 1979.

233
When one asks a number of electors for their support on a prime issue that has been in the forefront of Conservative party policies since large-scale immigration began, I have the deep feeling that we should try to reflect their feelings. When a manifesto pledge is given, and is well paraded during an election campaign, as I believe ours was on this issue, we should not now see fit to renege on it, despite all the troubles that the British Nationality Act 1981 has brought upon the House. If I have an argument with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary it is that he has refused consistently to admit that the British Nationality Act, welcomed as it was by my right hon. and hon. Friends, was intended to be a form of immigration control. I am sorry that he has not seen fit to admit that. However, I think that he believes that it was, as do most of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The British Nationality Act was an essential part of our immigration policy. It was also an essential part of the pledge contained in the Conservative party's manifesto. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so aptly said, people were fearful of being swamped. Streets in my constituency would bear out that rather sorry tale. We introduced a major constitutional change when the British Nationality Act was enacted and I think that we should admit that it was a form of control. I hope that it will work.
The debate has inevitably centred on the arguments that have raged over the past weeks, and well before that, on bogus marriages and marriages of convenience. I and, I believe, most of my hon. Friends are not against the arranged marriage. However, we are against—there is evidence that they exist—marriages that take place for the convenience of bringing people into Britain in a form of primary immigration.
I do not need to be told by Labour Members that such practices do not exist. The speeches of Labour Members have been remarkable, especially that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Never in the long speeches that he has made and in those of other Labour Members, have I heard it admitted that deceit exists in certain marriages. When Conservative Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, make a protest the Opposition adopt a "holier than thou" attitude, as though the practice of marriages of convenience does not exist. That is nonsense.
I have evidence that money has passed hands and so have other hon. Members. There is evidence that such an arrangement was used as a form of immigration, and quite unashamedly. In some instances the perpetrators of the crime have been found. That is why the numbers committing such crimes are so small. However, in many cases the perpetrators have got away with it, in the way that overstaying visitors get away with it. It is the easiest thing in the world to disappear in the morass of people that abound in the midlands and some parts of London. If the House accepts the rules, I regret that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will have an enormous workload and postbag.
The source of primary immigration will bring in those who, frankly and sadly, Britain could well do without. I am referring to the primary immigration of young, active men. They will enter a country with terrible unemployment problems and they will go to areas that necessarily have terrible unemployment problems. They will not go to the lusher pastures of my hon. Friends who represent southern constituencies. They will not go to Cheltenham or Sevenoaks. They will go to Luton, Bradford and
234
Southall, where unemployment rates are extremely high, where social services are very stretched and where there are local problems. When my constituents think of a wave of new primary immigrants, of new young men coming into the town, their minds, and mine, are filled with horror.
That is why some of us have seen fit to protest, both privately and publicly, in the House to my right hon. Friend that we believe than those fears will increase. If those young men are allowed to come in, in whatever numbers, understandably our constituents will ask us why. They will ask us, the only party that stated that there would be strict control on immigration.
Sitting on the Back Benches and listening to some of the speeches made by the Opposition, I am convinced that if there were a change of Government, the rules would be relaxed. If, heaven forbid, the party of the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) took office or held the balance of power, the floodgates would open. It was remarkable when he stated that all controls would cease under the Social Democratic party and that, naturally, vast numbers would come into this country.
The decision that I make tonight must bear heavily on my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State although I assure him that it will bear on him not half as much as it does on me. My constituents need from him an absolute commitment, first that strict means strict in immigration control; second that if the rules are passed a review will be made sooner rather than later and a constant watch will be kept; and third, and most important, if the rules are passed, bearing in mind their implication and the implication of the British Nationality Act, they need an assurance that there will not be an increase in primary immigration. If my hon. and learned Friend gives me that absolute assurance, I shall support him in the Lobby. If he does not, I regret that I shall not be able to do so.
9.2 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has spoken in the debate. He is also serving on a Standing Committee and at present he is carrying out his duties in that Committee.
The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) said that he knew of a case of illegal entry into this country. If he has that evidence he, like all of us, has a duly to ensure that that does not continue. All the parties in the House are of the opinion that illegal entry must be stamped out because it brings into disrepute the legal entrants who have a legal right to come here. It places a further burden on those who are already in the queue, waiting to enter the United Kingdom. Their chances of entering the country may be jeopardised by illegal entrants. If the hon. Gentleman has that evidence, he has a duty not to keep it to himself but to ensure that the case is highlighted.
I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when you heard the speeches from Conservative Benches it was like sitting in a confessional box rather than the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons. Of the 10 speeches made by Conservative Members, nine have been made by the so-called rebels of December 1982. I expected that if pressure had been put on the rebels by the Whips, they would have split into three groups at the most. However, the rebels are strange because they are still split into four groups. The first group comprises those who have now confessed their sins and have decided to support the

235
Government—the hon. Members for Shipley (Mr. Fox), Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I have never heard such a load of rubbish as that put forward to defend their change of mind. To pretend that they have a compromise when they have thrown away three concessions and accepted one, is the biggest waste of time I have seen produced by any rebellion in the House.
I wish that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge was here, because as a Member of the House who professes to speak for the country's officer and gentleman class, his speech was the epitome of putting expediency before principle. He believed that it was to the country's disadvantage to have further immigrants. He believed that that was a grave principle to defend, but on the grounds of expediency he believed that if he were to vote against the Government, the Government's chances of re-election might be jeopardised. That sheds a rather different light upon the character of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge from the one that he would have us see.
I am somewhat surprised at the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I believe that since his election to the House in 1974 he has tried to model himself upon his predecessor in that constituency, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He has aped many of the views and policies of the right hon. Gentleman, but he has failed in the criterion of consistency. The right hon. Member for Down, South has a reputation for consistency, but the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has destroyed his own reputation on that basis this evening.
I share no sympathy with the view of the second main group, but on consistency they are the men of principle. I am sorry to say that they are just three—the hon. Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover), Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and Basildon (Mr. Proctor).
The third group comprises the abstainers. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs Knight) is not here. Anyone listening to the debate would have cringed, as I did, at the heart-rending arguments put forward by the hon. Lady to defend her decision to abstain.
The fourth and final group is occupied by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) who has not yet made up his mind after three debates and with one hour to go before the vote. He asked his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for absolute guarantees. I shall remind him that the Home Secretary made it clear that the Government's policy was subject to constant review. That is not an absolute guarantee. It is relatively par excellence. If he expects a different reply from the Minister of State, he will be disappointed.
We see disarray still among the Government ranks but, because of the pressure that has been applied to the ambitious, those who have been dismissed, and those who are perhaps seeking trips abroad, we are now down to the real hard core of rebels represented by the hon. Members for Horsham and Crawley, Orpington and Basildon.
The Home Secretary is obviously still trying tactics that he found extremely useful on the day following his defeat on the immigration rules in December, when his line of defence was attack, attack, attack, because he had no other means of defence. He used that tactic today when he
236
attacked my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. Whitelaw: I did not attack the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I simply described what he had done, which is a rather surprising way to attack somebody.
Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman attacked my right hon. Friends, but the Home Secretary failed to mention that my right hon. Friends' Government did not lose any votes on the immigration rules. The Home Secretary's bad temper and ill humour is brought about by the defeat that he suffered in December 1982.
The Home Secretary alleges that the parliamentary Labour party does not favour strict immigration rules. Our policy is based upon strict immigration rules, but rules that are seen to be fair to all people who have a right of entry into the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary's speech was an attempt to put further pressure on the hon. Members for Orpington and Basildon, was a waste of time. I am sure that there are sufficient weak willed characters on the Government Benches, like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, to guarantee the Government and the Home Secretary a victory in the Division Lobby.
I recently attended a meeting organised by the Pakistan Association at which a speaker made the point that Britain is now a multiracial society. That is not a matter of conjecture but a statement of fact. In the past few weeks and months, the Home Secretary has seen the ugly truth that there is a view on the right of the parliamentary Tory party that does not accept that fact. The Home Secretary has been seeking to reconcile the irreconcilable.
The Tory concern is not with the extra few hundreds of foreign husbands and fiancés who may be permitted to enter the United Kingdom as a consequence of this concession to non-United Kingdom British female citizens. They are concerned about any black migration to this country, a point made by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner). Quite simply, they wish to stop it all and, if at all possible, in the words of the hon. Member for Basildon, to reverse the process that we have seen over the past 25 years.
Sir Edward Gardner: On what possible grounds does the hon. Gentleman make the allegation that I have said anything that could distinguish between black and white?
Mr. Marshall: The hon. and learned Gentleman said it and I am sure that when he reads the Official Report tomrrow he will see that those were the words that he uttered.
Quite simply, those on the Tory hard right wish to stop all black immigration and, if possible, to reverse the trend of the past 25 years.
The Tory hard right does not share our concern, or that of the Home Secretary, for the following issues. First, there is the pain and suffering of families waiting to be reunited in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there are the indignities and humiliations that husbands and wives suffer when applying for entry certificates. Thirdly, there is the despair that is felt by parents who are refused visitors' entry certificates to visit their children in the United Kingdom.

237
Many Conservative Members believe that the black community in the United Kingdom has no right to be here. The Home Secretary should have realised that in November 1982 and should have had the courage then to proceed on the basis of the White Paper that was published in October 1982. Instead, he offered concessions and he and the Government went down to a humiliating defeat. Not content with that, he compounded his humiliation by further negotiations with the so-called rebels who had inflicted the defeat in the first place in an attempt to obtain a further compromise.
We shall probably never know why some of the rebels have now repented. Until the hon. Members for Orpington, Wolverhampton, South-West and Basildon write their memoirs in 30 or 40 years' time we can only guess. Several points spring to mind, however. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke of the need for party unity in a run-up to a possible election and the possibility of preferment in Government or the absolute assurance of the lack of it if the rebellion continued. I cannot see the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) being coerced for that reason in view of his recent dismissal from the Administration. Perhaps that applies to one or two others on the Government Benches who, I am sure, still cherish hopes of Government preferment in either the immediate or far distant future if and when there is another Conservative Government.
One thing is certain. The rebels, irrespective of the way that they vote this evening, have not changed their views. In the months and years to come they will be back, whether in government or opposition, peddling their insidious views as the only compromise that the Tory hard right knows on this issue is not compromise but complete capitulation to their view.
Every time immigration is discussed in the House the venom of the Tory hard Right and the prevarication of the Home Secretary further undermine the black community's confidence and make a mockery of Tory pledges to promote family life and racial harmony. It is intolerable that the spotlight is continually on such a small percentage of our population. Ever since the Prime Minister realised that there were votes to be gathered from racialism the spotlight has never been off the immigrant community.
Sir Frederick Burden rose—
Mr. Marshall: Let us remember the commitments that the Tory party gave in order to garner votes at the 1979 election. It gave a commitment first, to a register of dependents, second, to a quota system and, third, to remove the concession implemented in 1974 by my former right hon. Friend, now the right hon. Member for Hillhead. What happened after the votes had been gathered and the election had been won? The Home Secretary was made to see sense by his officials at the Home Office. As a consequence, the register of dependents and the quota system were quietly abandoned, despite the protestations of hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Luton, West and Orpington.
Sir Frederick Burden rose—
Mr. John Carlisle rose—
Mr. Marshall: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden), but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Luton, West.
Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to the lion. Gentleman, because we have had 20 minutes of speeches from the Conservative Benches, and clearly we have him on the run. May I ask him one question, as he is parading the commitments made by the then Conservative Opposition: will his party go into the forthcoming general election with a manifesto commitment that the Labour party will repeal these immigration laws and go back to the pre-1980 position?
Mr. Marshall: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Luton, West has not yet made up his mind on this vote, because clearly he is not capable of hearing. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already answered the question that he put earlier in the negative. The hon. Member for Luton, West has attended these debates frequently over the past three months, and he will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook answer that question on at least two occasions. The answer is unequivocally yes. When I spoke in the debate on 15 December, I gave the unequivocal answer yes. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Marshall: The concession was partially removed in a way that even the Government had to admit was discriminatory. In my opinion, it is time that the spotlight was switched off the immigrant community for good, with the realisation that large-scale primary immigration into this country has ceased, in the words of both the Home Secretary and the new Minister of State at the Home Office.
The Government immigration rules and policy are based on suspicion, the suspicion that many of those coming here from the Indian subcontinent do so primarily for migration purposes. How else can one explain the fact that only one American visitor in 165 is given less than six months' leave to remain, whereas for Pakistanis the figure is one in six? How else can one explain the change in the burden of proof in paragraph 54 of the new rules? In future, couples will have to prove that their marriage or proposed marriage is not simply a device to evade immigration control. I hope that the Home Secretary, or perhaps the Minister of State, will explain how they will do that, since the marriage ceremony itself will not be taken as proof that they intend to live together. Will the couple's private correspondence be examined? Will the length of the corresponding period be taken into account? Will they also be subject to exhaustive oral examination?
As the Minister of State and the Home Secretary know, arranged marriages are, by their very nature, not of long standing. They could be subjected to intolerable stress if the examination were not carried out in a correct and proper manner. Why do we need the change? The Home Secretary knows that he already has adequate powers to deal with marriages of convenience. The presumption must inevitably be that the intention is to reduce further the number of husbands and fiancés coming into the United Kingdom.
It is also essential that the Home Secretary informs the House of the criteria to be used and to make public any instructions given to immigration officers dealing with these cases. I remind the House, a point made by a number of my hon. Friends, that this will apply to all women in the United Kingdom—black and white. Because of the difference in attitudes to sexual matters between

239
Europeans and Asians, many European women who marry non-EC nationals could in the future be asked some delicate questions about their sexual activities. That is a point of which the House should be aware. The Home Secretary says that that is rubbish. He should recall incidents in the past concerning questioning about sexual activities. There is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future.
Paragraph 41 appears to be contrary to the established principles of English law since it appears to me and to my hon. Friends that the couple have to overcome the presumption of guilt. It is sexually discriminatory since a similar condition does not apply to a non-British woman marrying a man settled in the United Kingdom. It is racially discriminatory since the condition that the couple must have met has its greatest effect on the people of the Indian subcontinent.
To come directly to the point put to me by the hon. Member for Luton, West, it is our intention after our victory at the next election to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981—
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Marshall: —and our Immigration Act will no longer violate the family life of the immigrant communities by a harshly restrictive definition of those who can qualify as dependents.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Marshall: We will among other things end the race and sex discrimination in the present rules regarding husbands and fiancés by restoring the entitlement to admission to join a woman settled here irrespective of her citizenship, birthplace or ancestry. Secondly, we shall liberalise the criteria for the admission of elderly parents and other relatives. It will be a policy based on confidence in ourselves as a multiracial society and not upon suspicion.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the rules in the Division at 10 o'clock.
9.27 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The debate has centred round the narrow question of the rights of husbands and fiancàs to settle here. It is odd in a sense that the question should have engaged so much of our time, because it is apparent from today's debate that in the context of immigration as a whole the figures are small.
We were asked some time ago for an estimate of the effect of the change on the number of applications. We said that the change in the rules would mean a maximum of 2,500 to 3,000 extra applications a year, and I remind the House of the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), that those would be applications not acceptances for settlement. The figure of acceptances for settlement will depend, first, on how many qualify and, secondly, on the rate at which applications are processed. Furthermore, the estimate of 2,500 to 3,000 extra applications was based on no more than the fall in the number of applications on the coming into force of the 1980 rules. I remind my hon. Friends that it cannot be emphasised too often that we shall not return to the pre-1980 position which gave all settled women the right to bring in husbands.
240
I said that it is odd that the question should have engaged so much of our time during the past few months, but we are not the first Administration to have spent so much time on it. It is a problem which successive Administrations have wrestled with and have debated at length. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier today reminded the House that Labour Governments have considered and reconsidered the problem. He exposed the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) as the biggest wobbler of all time. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here today. I understand that he has had a bad week. Just a few days ago, Julia Langdon of The Guardian reported him as telling a waiting world that 1982 would be election year.
The right hon. Gentleman has certainly wobbled a long way since 1971, when he said:
"It is in no way necessary to control the numbers entering this country at present."—[Official Report, 8 March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 146.]
Is that really the attitude of the SDP today? Is that really the attitude of the Liberal party? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman will say throughout the country? It would be rather surprising if he had come here today to admit that. But I remind the House that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) came close to saying that.
In contrast, the Government's approach has been logical and just. There simply cannot be a free-for-all. To benefit by having the right to have a husband from overseas join her in Britain, a woman must have close ties with this country. There simply must be tough safeguards. There is no reason why a woman who is settled here, but is not a citizen, should benefit. By definition, she has not finally thrown in her lot with Britain, and has not made her final commitment by becoming a British citizen. She does not have the right of abode. Indeed, if she leaves Britain for more than two years she has no right to return. If she enters Britain as a visitor and overstays, she can be deported.
On the other hand, having put on the statute book an Act creating a new British citizenship, which defines those who really belong here, how can we say that some of them belong here more than others? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde was right to emphasise that fact.
If all British citizen women are to have the right to bring husbands, there must be safeguards. The Opposition, when in government, recognised that in 1977. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said on 31 January 1978:
"I hope that there is agreement on both sides also that, if there are loopholes that are abused, they should be tightened".—[Official Report, 31 January 1978; Vol. 943, c. 244.]
We greatly strengthened the safeguards in 1980 and we are now building on them further with the change in the burden of proof.
The House might be interested to know how stringent are the tests. From 1 January to 8 February, 47 husbands and fiancés were granted entry clearance and 61 were refused in the Indian subcontinent. That represents a refusal rate of 56 per cent. Of those refused, more than one third failed to qualify because the couple had not met—a requirement that we introduced in 1980 and are keeping. Many others failed to satisfy the entry clearance officer that the primary reason for the marriage was not immigration. Again, we are keeping that safeguard. The refusal rate of 56 per cent. compares with a refusal rate for

241
husbands and fiancés of only about 10 per cent. under Labour's rules. I emphasise that the 56 per cent. relates to applications decided under provisions of the disapproved rules, the substance of which we are now asking the House to accept.
Mr. Bidwell: Does the Minister understand that the British Nationality Act 1981 has pushed many in the Asian community, especially women, to apply for British citizenship, having been in this country for a sufficient period? Some have married or are caught between marrying and the application being processed, and there is an inbuilt delay. Will the Minister, because of the greater weight of applications, look sympathetically at the position of such women who are anxious to show, through applying for British citizenship, that they wish to belong to this country and who qualify under the change of rules?
Mr. Waddington: I undertake to ensure that those applications are processed as soon as possible.
There are several misconceptions about the burden of proof. The change is not unfair. There cannot be anything wrong in principle with expecting a man who is seeking a major benefit to prove that he is entitled to it. In fact, time and again in immigration the burden is put on the man to prove that he is entitled to come to this country. This has been so under Conservative and Labour Governments. For example, a visitor must show that he is a genuine visitor, a wife must show that she is the wife and children must show that they are the children. A person who says that he is of independent means must prove to the entry clearance officer that he possesses those means.
The test applied is the balance of probabilities, the normal test in civil matters. It is not an impossible test to surmount, as anyone who practises in the courts knows full well. It should not be a difficult test for a genuine applicant to meet. We have the utmost confidence in the entry clearance officers who, I am sure, are operating the system fairly and will continue to do so. The Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, whose members went to the Indian subcontinent and saw the entry clearance officers, remarked on the professional way in which they did their job and their care in considering applications.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he is not comparing like with like when he compares the position of a husband with that of a wife, child or business man who need to prove their position? The wife, child or business man can produce pieces of paper to prove their relationships, whereas in the new paragraph 54 the assessment is entirely subjective and is incapable of objective proof.
Mr. Waddington: I do not accept that for one moment. I can think of plenty of pieces of paper and a great deal of documentary evidence that could help a husband to prove that he had that entitlement.
Mr. Keith Speed: There is an industry in the Indian subcontinent that is engaged in producing pieces of paper for those people. The matter comes back to the entry clearance officers and the burden of proof, even in those cases, because there is undoubtedly abuse. So-called travel agencies exist that are nothing of the kind, but they produce documentation for wives and children. This change in the burden of proof is of fundamental importance. That is why I hope that my hon. Friends and the House will support the Government in this matter.
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. The percentage of refusals under the new rules compared with the percentage of refusals earlier shows that he is doubly right. It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that a great deal of abuse was not caught before the new rules were brought in on 1 January.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said that people were being badgered by immigration officers. He even went so far as to say that third degree methods were being used. I can say only that that is not my impression. Immigration officers are widely respected people who carry out a difficult job with skill and probity. The same is true of entry clearance officers. The hon. Member for East Kilbride said that they treated people as though they were liars. That was not the impression of the Select Comittee, nor that of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson), who said that he had had ample opportunity during the years to see the work of entry clearance officers and was satisfied that they carried out a difficult job with great skill.
I have already referred to the excellent contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde. He said that there was anxiety about immigration in this country. It is surprising that he need say so, but he must because Labour Members seem to be entirely unaware that there is any such concern. He pointed out the ludicrous position that the Opposition will be voting against the rules tonight not because they are too soft but because they are too tough. Let the public take note that the Opposition want laxer rules and more scope for abuse. Let my hon. Friends who are thinking of not voting with the Government bear in mind that those with whom they will vote wish to have laxer rules and more scope for abuse.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) spent much of his speech ingratiating himself with his wife. I do not criticise him for that and I hope that his wife reads Hansard tomorrow. He referred to a recent case in the House of Lords, but he did not fully understand its significance. The House of Lords reaffirmed that there could be illegal entry by deception and said that the scope for judicial review should be widened. The hon. Gentleman went on to say—it was perhaps the most remarkable statement made in the debate—that women who do not wish to be British citizens cannot bring in their husbands. He thought that that was the most amazing state of affairs. If they do not wish to be British, why should they have the right to bring in their husbands?
Mr. Pitt: Will the Minister tell the House about the position of EC citizens who now, according to his rules, cannot bring in their non-EC husbands? Those ladies are entitled to enter Britain but they do not wish to he British citizens.
Mr. Waddington: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down that path. He said that he believed that it was wrong that people who are not British citizens should be prevented from bringing in their husbands.
Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps, as the Minister has returned to this point, he will answer the question that the Home Secretary did not answer. If it is wrong for women who are not British citizens to bring in their husbands, why is it right for men who are not British citizens to bring in their wives?
Mr. Waddington: The rules treat the sexes differently. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the sexes are different.
I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman why the rules treat the sexes differently. First, it seems to have escaped his attention that we cannot prevent wives coming. The bulk of them have a statutory right to come or they benefit from an undertaking that was given by successive Governments. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to put his hand out. He asked why we treat them differently, and that is one of the reasons.
Secondly, the fact that we have been generous about wives does not mean that we can afford to be equally generous about admitting husbands. Why should we be equally generous? Thirdly, men are far more likely to enter the labour market. At a time of high unemployment, we simply cannot afford to admit men on the same basis. It amazes me that Opposition Members who are constantly canting about unemployment for which they blame the Government, have the impudence to say that they believe in sex equality and want more people, who might take jobs from British citizens, to come to Britain.
Sir Edward Gardner: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the first example of sex discrimination was given by the Labour Government in their nationality legislation when they provided that fathers could transmit their nationality to their sons, but that mothers could not?
Mr. Waddington: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) fails to realise that sex equality under the rules would, in many respects, be unduly restrictive of women. We accept unmarried girls over the age of 18 to join families, but we do not accept sons. Widows can enter at any age, but that is not so with widowers. Au pairs must be girls. Throughout the rules, one finds that, in many respects, women benefit when men do not.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) for his interesting speech. He pointed out that the change in the burden of proof makes the rules far stronger. Quite right. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) talked of a flabby handling of immigration. I must tell him that the fall in the figures for settlement simply do not bear that out. He knows as well as I do that there are people who have a statutory right to come. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to take away that right. If one examines the figures, one finds that 42,900 people settled here in 1978 and that in the 12 months to 30 September 1982, 29,900 people settled here. It is therefore, a bit hard to talk about a flabby handling of immigration by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington fell into an error into which other hon. Members have fallen. He said that we said prior to the general election that foreign husbands would not have an absolute right of entry. We did not say that. We said that we would end the Labour concession that related to the right of women who were only settled here to bring in their husbands. We removed that concession in 1980, we did not replace it in 1982 and have no intention of replacing it in the future.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is my most prolific correspondent at the Home Office. I shall do my best to give him reasonable satisfaction. He
244
made a most interesting speech. He hoped that I would realise that I would have to go around the country explaining the rules in the course of my community relations duties. I shall not be afraid to do that. I am not sure that those people who are happlily settled here want laxer control. They are the first to recognise the dangers that could flow to community relations if controls were relaxed.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend has just made a very encouraging statement, that the Government have ended the concession that the Labour party made on settled women and will on no account in future reverse that concession. Would my hon. and learned Friend confirm that he will stand by that statement no matter what happens or what decision is made by the European Court?
Mr. Waddington: I cannot tie myself for all time, regardless of what decisions are made elsewhere and regardless of what other changes we may decide it is politic to make. All I am saying is that there is a very strong case for what we have done. I cannot see why this right should be extended to settled women, women who are not British citizens and who have not finally thrown in their lot with this country. I have expressed my view as powerfully as I can and I am sure I need go no further than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) also said that the Government have gone back on their manifesto commitment as far as husbands are concerned. I can only repeat that I do not believe we have.
The hon. Member for Thornaby said that the figures of people excluded on the grounds of marriage of convenience in 1979 were very small. Indeed they were. That was because of the weakness of the safeguards. That is why we have found it necessary to toughen them up. The hon. Member then went on to say that the rules we had produced were lengthy and complex. I invite him to look at the rules that were in force when he was a member of the Labour party prior to 1979. I do not think he will find that those rules were much shorter than the rules we have put before the House.
I was a little surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that we had not really given information about numbers. I assure her that I have done my level best to present as much information as possible. It is sometimes difficult to extract from a mass of statistics the real kernel of the case but I have done my best to give the salient figures. I mentioned some only a short time ago. I do not think that anyone can now be unaware of the dramatic fall in the settlement figures between 1979 and 1982.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) paid a tribute to the genuine attempt of my right hon. Friend to meet people's fears. He said he was glad that my right hon. Friend had reaffirmed his determination to have strict controls. I am sure that many in this House are equally glad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that politics was about getting half a loaf rather than no bread. Of course he is right. How odd it is that even now some of our party are prepared to go into the Lobby with the Labour party and the SDP, which do not want firm immigration control, whatever they said at one stage of the debate. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) made that

245
abundantly plain when he let the cat out of the bag in the last few minutes of his speech. I hope that plenty of people in the country will remember in the next election campaign that the Labour party is now pledged to do away with these rules and to go back to the pre-1980 position, to relax the rules for entry. I hope that plenty of people will remember during the course of the election campaign that the Labour party is now pledged to relax the rules as far as families are concerned. [Interruption.]
Mr. Jim Marshall rose—
Mr. Waddington: Just one minute.
I hope that plenty of people in the country will remember during the course of the next election campaign that the Labour party is now pledged to repeal the British Nationality Act. That means the return of the jus soli, it means more and more people being given the right to live here as the result of being born here, even if they are born of illegal immigrants or of other people who have no right to be here.
Mr. Marshall: That is exactly what our commitment means. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the Conservative party will try to play the racial card again next time round— [Interruption]—as the right hon. Lady did last time round?
Mr. Waddington: I thought that that was exactly what the hon. Gentleman had been doing throughout this debate.
I would like to make one or two things abundantly plain. Strict immigration control is a prerequisite of good community relations. If people are worried about the level of immigration they find it difficult to accept people of different backgrounds in their midst. They fear for their jobs and others prey on these fears. The same applies if there are evident abuses. If people feel there is abuse, community relations are made much more difficult. That is why it is necessary to have these safeguards.
The Labour party has never been slow to change course. In 1962, the present Leader of the Opposition said of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill:
"we shall wish not merely to re-examine it, but to wipe it off the Statute Book altogether."—[Official Report, 27 February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1235.]
Only six years later, in 1968, the Labour Home Secretary decided not to wipe the Act off the statute book but to strengthen it. I am told that the Labour party now has other ideas, but for how much longer? Who can tell? The public know that with that lot anything may happen.
The Conservative Administration have never pretended that our policy has been other than one of strict immigration control. That is the policy that we have pursued since 1979 when various important changes in the rules were made. In addition to stopping Labour's concession on husbands and fiancés, we stopped the practice whereby people who came here as visitors or students could switch to a category that allowed them to stay permanently. We stopped the entry of parents, grandparents and children over the age of 18, except in very urgent and compassionate cases. We severely restricted the issue of work permits. The vast majority of those now coming to this country are wives and children of those who are already here, who have a statutory right to come here. Others are now achieving settlement as a result of work permits issued under the Labour Government. Others are husbands who have achieved
246
settlement recently, not under our rules but under the pre-1980 Labour rules, and have benefited from the transitional provisions that all rules must include.
I hope that no one will underestimate the importance of the British Nationality Act. Reform of British nationality law was long overdue, but the Labour Government shrank from carrying out the task. They published a Green Paper, but that was all. Then there was silence. The Act is primarily concerned with nationality, but it Las most important implications for immigration. It has not taken away the right of abode in this country from those who had it before.
First, by creating the separate status of British citizens for those who have the right of abode, the Act ensures that others without that close connection with this country are no longer encouraged to believe that they, too, can come here. That involves at least 4·5 million people who are now citizens of the British dependent territories or British overseas citizens. We have, therefore, created a far better basis for immigration control in the future.
Secondly, children born here to parents who are here only temporarily or illegally and have no right of abode no longer automatically become British citizens. That change alone could result in between 3,000 and 6,500 fewer people per year acquiring at birth the right to live here, and it will prevent many more from acquiring citizenship by descent from such people even though they never come within 5,000 miles of Britain.
We said in our manifesto that we would take firm action against illegal entrants and overstayers, and we have done just that. The number of deportation orders enforced against overstayers was 30 per cent. higher in 1981 than in 1978—946 as against 714. The number of illegal entrants removed was 18 per cent. higher—641 in 1981 compared with 538 in 1978. We have introduced new measures for tracing people who overstay and those who are the subject of deportation orders, using the help of the immigration service.
The new procedures have been very successful and will be continued. The Government will maintain a 1:ough policy against evaders. We have kept our faith with the electorate and brought immigration down. Our policies will continue to be directed to that objective. I call on all right hon. and hon. Members to reject the motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 298.

Division No. 67]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

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

Allaun, Frank

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

Alton, David

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Anderson, Donald

Buchan, Norman

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Callaghan, Jim (Midd'tn & P)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Campbell, Ian

Ashton, Joe

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Atkinson, N.(H'gey.)

Canavan, Dennis

Bagler, Gordon A.T.

Cant, R. B.

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Carmichael, Neil

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Belth, A. J.

Cartwright, John

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

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

Bevan, David Gilroy

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

Bidwell, Sydney

Cohen, Stanley

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Coleman, Donald

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

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

Conlan, Bernard

Bradley, Tom

Cook, Robin F.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cowans, Harry

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

247

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

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Crowther, Stan

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Bh'dda)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Kerr, Russell

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

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Dalyell, Tarn

Lambie, David

Davidson, Arthur

Leadbitter, Ted

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Leighton, Ronald

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Deakins, Eric

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McCartney, Hugh

Dewar, Donald

McCusker, H.

Dixon, Donald

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Dobson, Frank

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Dormand, Jack

McKelvey, William

Dover, Denshore

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Dubs, Alfred

Maclennan, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

McNamara, Kevin

Dunnett, Jack

McTaggart, Robert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

McWilliam, John

Eadie, Alex

Magee, Bryan

Eastham, Ken

Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

English, Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Maxton, John

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Evans, John (Newton)

Meacher, Michael

Ewing, Harry

Mikardo, Ian

Farr, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Faulds, Andrew

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Field, Frank

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Fitch, Alan

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Fitt, Gerard

Molyneaux, James

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Ford, Ben

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Forrester, John

Newens, Stanley

Foster, Derek

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Foulkes, George

Ogden, Eric

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

O'Halloran, Michael

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

O'Neill, Martin

Freud, Clement

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Ginsburg, David

Palmer, Arthur

Gourlay, Harry

Park, George

Graham, Ted

Parker, John

Grant, John (Islington C)

Parry, Robert

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Pavitt, Laurie

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Pendry, Tom

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

Penhaligon, David

Hardy, Peter

Pitt, William Henry

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Prescott, John

Haynes, Frank

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Proctor, K. Harvey

Heffer, Eric S.

Race, Reg

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

Radice, Giles

Home Robertson, John

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Homewood, William

Richardson, Jo

Hooley, Frank

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Horam, John

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Howe Us, Geraint

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Hoyle, Douglas

Robertson, George

Huckfield, Les

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Rooker, J. W.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Roper, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Janner, Hon Greville

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Rowlands, Ted

John, Brynmor

Ryman, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Sandelson, Neville

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Sever, John

248

Sheerman, Barry

Torney, Tom

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

Short, Mrs Renée

Wainwright, H.(Colne V)

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wardell, Gareth

Silverman, Julius

Watkins, David

Skinner, Dennis

Weetch, Ken

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Wellbeloved, James

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Welsh, Michael

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

White, Frank R.

Soley, Clive

White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

Spearing, Nigel

Whitehead, Phillip

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

Whitlock, William

Spriggs, Leslie

Wigley, Dafydd

Stallard, A. W.

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Stanbrook, Ivor

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

Steel, Rt Hon David

Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Stoddart, David

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

Stott, Roger

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Strang, Gavin

Winnick, David

Straw, Jack

Woodall, Alec

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Woolmer, Kenneth

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Wright, Sheila

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Mr. Allen McKay and

Tilley, John

Mr. George Morton.

Tinn, James

NOES

Adley, Robert

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Aitken, Jonathan

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Alexander, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Churchill, W. S.

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Ancram, Michael

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Arnold, Tom

Clegg, Sir Walter

Aspinwall, Jack

Cockeram, Eric

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Colvin, Michael

Atkins, Roben(Preston N)

Cope, John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Corrie, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Costain, Sir Albert

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cranborne, Viscount

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Critchley, Julian

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Crouch, David

Best, Keith

Dickens, Geoffrey

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dorrell, Stephen

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Blackburn, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Blaker, Peter

Dunlop, John

Body, Richard

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Durant, Tony

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Bowden, Andrew

Eggar, Tim

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Elliott, Sir William

Braine, Sir Bernard

Emery, Sir Peter

Bright, Graham

Eyre, Reginald

Brinton, Tim

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Brooke, Hon Peter

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Brotherton, Michael

Fell, Sir Anthony

Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Browne, John (Winchester)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bryan, Sir Paul

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

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Buck, Antony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Budgen, Nick

Forman, Nigel

Bulmer, Esmond

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Burden, Sir Frederick

Fox, Marcus

Butcher, John

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Butler, Hon Adam

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fry, Peter

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

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

249

Gardner, Sir Edward

Lamont, Norman

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lang, Ian

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Latham, Michael

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Lawrence, Ivan

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Good lad, Alastair

Lee, John

Gorst, John

Le Merchant, Spencer

Gow, Ian

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Gower, Sir Raymond

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Grant, Sir Anthony

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & (W'loo)

Greenway, Harry

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

Loveridge, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Luce, Richard

Grist, Ian

Lyell, Nicholas

Grylls, Michael

Macfarlane, Neil

Gummer, John Selwyn

MacGregor, John

Hamilton, Hon A.

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Hampson, Dr Keith

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Hannam, John

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

Haselhurst, Alan

McQuarrie, Albert

Hastings, Stephen

Madel, David

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Major, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Marland, Paul

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Marlow, Antony

Heddle, John

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Henderson, Barry

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mawby, Ray

Hicks, Robert

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hill, James

Mayhew, Patrick

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Mellor, David

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hooson, Tom

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hordern, Peter

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

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

Miscampbell, Norman

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Moate, Roger

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Moore, John

Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

Morgan, Geraint

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Mudd, David

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Myles, David

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Neale, Gerrard

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Needham, Richard

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Nelson, Anthony

Kimball, Sir Marcus

Neubert, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Newton, Tony

Knox, David

Normanton, Tom

250

Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Onslow, Cranley

Sproat, Iain

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Squire, Robin

Osborn, John

Stainton, Keith

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Stanley, John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Steen, Anthony

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Stevens, Martin

Parris, Matthew

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Stokes, John

Pawsey, James

Stradling Thomas, J.

Percival, Sir Ian

Tapsell, Peter

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Pink, R. Bonner

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pollock, Alexander

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Porter, Barry

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thompson, Donald

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Thornton, Malcolm

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Rathbone, Tim

Trippier, David

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Trotter, Neville

Renton, Tim

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Rhodes James, Robert

Waddington, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wakeham, John

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Waldegrave, Hon William

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Walker, B. (Perth)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Rossi, Hugh

Wall, Sir Patrick

Rost, Peter

Waller, Gary

Royle, Sir Anthony

Walters, Dennis

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Ward, John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Watson, John

Scott, Nicholas

Wells, Bowen

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wheeler, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Raymond

Shepherd, Richard

Wickenden, Keith

Shersby, Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Silvester, Fred

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Sims, Roger

Wolfson, Mark

Skeet, T. H. H.

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Smith, Dudley

Younger, Rt Hon George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Speed, Keith

Tellers for the Noes:

Spence, John

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Education
10.15 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the note on the Order Paper that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of the instrument. The Opposition are anxious to proceed with the prayer, but the allocation of time for consideration of the prayer is a matter for the Government.
I raised a similar point a few days ago. The Government have once again denied the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments the opportunity to bring information which may be relevant. The Joint Committee is charged by the House to investigate circumstances. We have received a request from the Department of Education and Science to provide a memorandum on what appears to be a relatively minor point that has not been reported to the House. It is a scandal and a shame that the Government should impose on the House in this way when there is a Committee to look into the matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member is Chairman of the Select Committee that looks into these matters. I understand his raising the point, but it is not one upon which I can take any action.
Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has raised a valid point. The fact that the Government have put down business which has not been properly considered by all the machinery laid down by the House for the orderly control of business is important. We should think again before proceeding.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling on the matter.
10.17 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 29), dated 17th January 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.
The regulations implement some of the provisions of the Education Act 1981 and should be read in conjunction with the joint Department of Education and Science and DHSS circular on assessments and statements of special educational needs.
The Education Act 1981 implemented some, but not all, of the recommendations of the Warnock report. Considerable reservations were expressed when the Bill was going through that it did not go sufficiently far and did not commit this country sufficiently to the integration of handicapped children in ordinary schools with ordinary children. Nevertheless, the Act's intention is to integrate most children in ordinary schools, whereas at present nearly 90 per cent. of children classified officially as handicapped are in special schools. The Act provided that children with special educational needs would be classified as such if they had learning difficulties which called for special educational provision.
There have been various estimates of the number of children and the percentage of our schoolchildren who fall into this category. It is generally accepted that about 20
252
per cent. of children will at one time or another have special learning difficulties. Such children should be assessed either at the request of their parents or at the instigation of the education authority as provided for under the Act, and these regulations set out that process.
For pupils with most difficulties, which is estimated to be about 2 per cent. of the total school population, the local education authority will have to draw up a formal statement setting out what special provisions it intends to make for the children in question. This statement and the proposition put forward by the authority for coping with the problems of the child in question would be subject to local appeal and also to appeal to the Secretary of State. However, there is one difficulty—there is no provision for local appeal against a decision of the local authority not to draw up a statement at all—that is to decide that, although a child has special learning difficulties, they are not sufficiently special and difficult for the child to have extra special provision.
The whole of this process will require resources if these regulations are to be carried out. The process of assessment is to be considerably more complicated than it has been in the past. Staff from district health authorities and social services departments would be required to participate. Educational psychologists, administrators and teachers would all be involved in the assessments. Once the assessments have been made, far more resources will be required if the purpose of the Warnock report and the Act are to be brought to fruition. In other words, the special provision will require a great deal of additional resources.
The need for extra resources was emphasised in the Warnock report and during the passage of the Bill, and great attention has been drawn to it since by those organisations doing their best to see improved provision for disabled children. The Warnock report said:
"the integration in ordinary schools of children currently ascertained as handicapped, if achieved without loss of educational quality, is not a cheap alternative to provision in separate special schools, and there is no short cut".
The Advisory Centre for Education, responding to the Warnock report, said:
"one of the greatest anxieties proved to be that many of the ordinary schools were simply not yet prepared or equipped to cope with the handicapped child".
Recently, when consultations were going on on the documents that we are discussing, the Royal College of Nursing said, for instance, that the school health service would need additional resources to cope with this part of the process of assessment and contributing to a decent education in ordinary schools for children presently regarded as handicapped.
There is no evidence that any of these additional resources, recognised as necessary by everybody concerned, with the exception of the occupants of the Government Front Bench, are to be provided. There is no evidence of any being provided for the National Health Service side of this provision and none in social services departments of the local authorities or in the educational sphere. With regard to the education services, the Secretary of State wrote on 16 November to the director of the Spastics Society:
"I cannot hold out any hope of additional resources for the Education Act 1981. It was made absolutely clear during the Acts passage through Parliament that its purpose was to provide a new legal framework for special education within which gradual and progressive advance towards realisation would have to take place over time."

253
Those are his words, not mine.
The Secretary of State went on:
"No additional money could be allocated in the immediate future but Ministers agreed then, and it remains our view,-that some progress can be achieved by a review of the educational cost-effectiveness of present provision and some redeployment of the very large sums already being spent on special schools and on the 18 per cent. of children with special educational needs who are already in ordinary schools".
It is worth pointing out that the average cost per place, according to the latest year for which figures are available, in a special school is £2,453, including a boarding element. Roughly speaking, that is twice the cost of a post-16 child in an ordinary state-maintained school. As the Secretary of State appeared to think that large sums were already being spent in special schools, I should point out that Harrow, his former school, now charges over £4,000 for the privilege of a place.
We are talking about future provision. However, we are also worried about the present position. I want to quote what Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools said about the provision of these resources in what is, in effect its annual report of March 1982. It said that the present situation
"makes it difficult at best, impossible at worst, to provide remedial teaching or to respond to pupils with a range of special learning needs, or to provide specialist help for parts of the curriculum requiring particular subject knowledge".
It also said that
"there is ample evidence of reduction in the amount of remedial work",
and that
"these changes affected pupils of all abilities … but particularly the less able",
and that there was
"less provision for remedial work".
It said that in only half of the 59 special schools surveyed were the in-service arrangements for teachers satisfactory. The inspectorate also said about advisory services that there was "poor coverage" of special education in 17 out of the 96 authorities. It also said, on the subject of special schools, that of the 58 concerned, 21 reported stocks of books to be "less than satisfactory". It said that in six local authorities
"improvements have been made in the provision for children with special educational needs in ordinary schools, including the establishment of advisory posts and the opening of special units. Otherwise there is little change in the provision for special educational needs".
That is the present situation. It is very poor. It is a shabby deal for these young people, who have been getting a shabby deal for far too long. It is worth remembering that spending on education next year is to be cut by 5 per cent. compared with this year. [Interruption.] The total expenditure on education is to be cut by 5 per cent. next year.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman say by how much school rolls will fall next year?
Mr. Dobson: If the former teacher had read the HMI report he would have learnt that one of the products of falling rolls and the attempts by local authorities to adjust to those falling rolls—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) believes that all that local authorities must do is accept falling rolls, he is even more stupid than I thought he was. If he thinks that education authorities do not need to adjust to those changes and shift teachers across disciplines, he must have forgotten what it is like at school.
254
I have had the doubtful pleasure on several occasions of listening to the philosophisings of the Secretary of State. These days he emphasises his belief that the power of Governments to do good is extremely limited; that neither by exhortation, law, precept or anything else can they do much good. In the regulations and the Act he is trying to get the self-fulfilling prophecy under way because by refusing to provide additional resources it is clear that the Government can do no good by the implementation of the regulations when everyone else in this sphere is convinced that more resources are necessary.
The Secretary of State has been told by everyone concerned that those additional resources are particularly necessary to give our teachers the opportunity to learn to deal with the problems of children with special learning difficulties who up to now have been educated in special schools, staffed by people who had learnt the necessary special skills. Those skills are not yet available in our ordinary schools. Without more in-service training, without more opportunities for our teachers to gain the skills that are necessary to teach these children with special learning difficulties, children will be worse off than they were when they were in special schools.
What are the Government's priorities? Not one penny piece will be found by the Government to help these children who are the worst off in our society, the most disadvantaged, the ones at the back of the queue. Last week we discussed some regulations on the assisted places scheme. This year the Government have found more than £10 million for the assisted places scheme to give advantages to those who already have advantages, yet they can find no more money for those children with the greatest disadvantages. In other words, the regulations are a cheap, unpleasant, nasty deception being played upon the parents and children who should be covered by them.
The Government have willed the end; they refuse to will the means. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will tell us tonight that he is willing to will the means but I am sure that he will not because he is not in the ebullient humour that he was in last week. He needs to come to the Dispatch Box with some humility this evening to explain to the people whose children will not benefit from the regulations why he is bothering to introduce them in the first place.
10.33 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) asked why we were introducing the regulations. If we did not do so, the time spent in Committee and on Second and Third reading of the Education Act 1981 would be wasted and horror would go through the country. The hon. Gentleman may not like the regulations, he may wish that they went further and that more money were to be spent, believing, like his hon. Friends, that money comes from outer space or alchemy. He may desire that, but to oppose the regulations this evening would mean that the merits of the Act would be available to nobody.
I was horrified by the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall be as brief as I can, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall try to ignore interventions from various parts of the House, although I know that there is genuine concern on both sides of the House from those who have taken an intense interest in this matter.

255
The Warnock committee reported during the period of office of the Labour Government. It went out for consultation and when the consultation was completed it waited for the general election. Nothing was done before that general election, and we took over afterwards. I do not see why any humble pie should be eaten on the Government side of the House. We legislated in 1981. I had the privilege, along with certain Opposition Members, to be on the Standing Committee. They were very helpful members of that Committee. I do not think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South was a member of the Committee. I am glad that tonight he is slowly learning about it. Both sides of the House will tonight enjoy giving him further information.
The Committee was also very useful. In the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last week, we said that there was a great deal of concern about confidential information. I was impressed by what was said today by the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I referred in the Select Committee to the fact that we have considerably cut the amount of confidential information.
Last week in The Times Educational Supplement Peter Newell, whom most of us know and who is not normally a supporter of our party, said:
"This is a major breakthrough for all those who have argued for a parental right of access and represents a shift in Government policy."
At least in that way I should be able to expect appreciation from both sides of the House.
Mr. Christopher Price rose—
Dr. Boyson: I shall not give way. I gave way too often last week.
Mr. Price rose—
Dr. Boyson: I am not giving way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is taking the time of the House.
Mr. Price: Is the Minister confirming that any parent of a child at a special school can see the confidential records?
Dr. Boyson: I am telling the House what is in the regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read them. They state that professional advice upon which that assessment is made shall be open to parents.
Mr. Price rose—
Dr. Boyson: I am not giving way any more to the hon. Gentleman. He can read the regulations, and if he cannot understand them, he can write to us. When the Education Bill came before the House the Second Reading was not opposed, the Third Reading was not opposed and, as I have already said, if this proposal was by any freak turned down tonight, it would mean that the whole basis of the Act would not be put into effect.
It did not surprise me that resources were mentioned this evening. We made it clear from the beginning that we could not provide additional resources. We also said, in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Education Bill 1981:
256
"The extension of the arrangements for parental appeals laid down in the Education Act 1980 to some children with special educational needs … should not significantly increase the cost of those arrangements."
I also said—I will not quote from my own speeches, enjoyable though that would be—time and again that we could not provide those resources but that if resources later on became available more could be spent. We believe a good deal could be done without more resources. I know Opposition Members are almost totally taken up with resources. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South talked about how much was being spent on the ordinary children in this country. We are spending more per head in real terms now than when we came to office. The pupil-teacher ratio is the lowest that it has ever been. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by going into detail, but the hon. Member should not have spoken in the terms that he did.
The pupil-teacher ratio for children in maintained special schools has been reduced since the Government took office from 7·9 to 7·6 pupils per teacher. We are also spending more in real terms on those children. I shall not repeat comments from debates in which the facts were made clear. Hon. Members who served on the Committee and disagreed with the Government then will disagree with us now. But I assure them that there was no con trick on that issue.
We have made it clear that integration in normal schools should take place only where it is compatible with the efficient use of resources. The whole point of Warnock and the regulations is to change the emphasis so that where it is possible for children with special needs to be educated in normal schools, that should be the case. That is contrary to the previous emphasis that they should be in special schools. The difference between the two approaches is tremendous.
This year, expenditure on maintained special schools will be £377 million, and on non-maintained special schools it will be £90 million. We are not beginning by not spending any money at all. It costs far more to cater for children in special schools than for those in mormal schools. It is far more than the £2,000 each mentioned earlier. Some cost up to £30,000 or £40,000. The cost of keeping a child at Tilney Hall, which was once used by Brent, is about £40,000. We could do a great deal in ordinary schools with £40,000 a head. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South may consider that to be reasonable expenditure. Similarly, 18 per cent. of pupils in normal schools have some form of special educational need. They already cost something. We must ensure that their education fits their capabilities, whatever their disabilities.
The most important factor is the approach and attitude of teachers. The hon. Gentleman said that we were not providing money. If the House agrees, we shall give a £1 million grant between April this year and August next year for the in-training of existing teachers in special educational needs. Some hon. Members may say that more expenditure is required, and that we are giving nothing. Well, £1 million may be nothing to them, but it is a great deal to me in my way of life. It shows the Government's concern.
We have funded the National Foundation for Educational Research project on the education of children with special needs in ordinary schools, and also two reports—"Educating Pupils with Special Needs in the

257
Ordinary School" and "Integration in Action". The hon. Gentleman may not like the NFER, but its research fulfils a useful purpose. The inspectorate has kept the matter under review, and is in regular contact with local authorities.
Mr. Edwin Wainwright rose—
Dr. Boyson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
The Bill was largely non-controversial. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), whom we are not privileged to have with us tonight, said:
"this is not a controversial Bill in the classic parliamentary sense, and it will certainly not provoke great partisan disagreement" —[Official Report, 2 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 35.]
I learnt a great deal in Committee from Opposition Members as well as from my hon. Friends. We improved the Bill in Committee. We put out the regulations for consultation, and then made considerable alterations, particularly on the question of experts giving their opinion, on which an assessment is made, which should be open to parents. No Government could be more reasonable on this matter. Hon. Members may wish to go further, but the Government have gone as far as possible within the reasonable conditions prevailing in Britain.
10.44 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak. I begin by considering the circular that accompanied the regulations that we are considering. I hope that the Minister will convey the views of hon. Members to the person or persons who wrote the circular. The circular is not only a model of how a circular should be written but it takes the ideas in the Warnock report a stage further.
I quote to the House one short paragraph from the circular:
"The main focus should be on the child himself rather than on his disability. The extent to which a learning difficulty hinders a child's development depends not only on the nature and severity of that difficulty, but also on the personal resources and attributes of the child, and on the help and support he receives at home and at school. A child's special educational needs are thus related to his abilities as well as his disabilites".
Whereas Warnock took our thinking about disabled children a stage further, the circular takes it yet a further step forward and tries not to paint a black and white picture of those of us who on the one hand, are normal, and those who on the other hand, have disabilities. All of us have pluses and minuses and there is a great deal that we can gain from disabled children and adults.
The circular accompanying these regulations is very important indeed in taking our thinking towards a fully integrated society.
The Minister mentioned access to information in this part of the regulations as a result of an intervention. I believe that he has unwittingly misled the House. As I understand the position, under the regulations parents have a right to the statement, and the notice appended to the statement, which details the basis of evidence was used to build up that statement. Parents will not have access to the full information which makes up the statements themselves.
When we were in Committee, practically the whole of the Committee argued with the Minister that parents should have full access. In Committee, many of us
258
believed that we had convinced the Minister of this need. He said that he would go away and think again. When the Government brought this measure to another place, they almost suffered a defeat on this issue. The Government's concession was not to give full access but to argue that the statement should have accompanying it a full list of the information that made up the statement. But it did not give parents access to all the information held on their child.
I ask hon. Members to turn to paragraph 11 of the regulations. Paragraph 11 is rather strangely headed "Restriction on disclosure of statements". It is anything but restrictive. The paragraph commences:
"Subject to the provisions of the Act of 1981 and of these Regulations, a statement in respect of a child shall not be disclosed without the parent's consent".
Some hon. Members would have liked the full stop to have been put there. Those hon. Members who could not be carried on that point may be prepared to accept that there may be two grounds where parents' wishes should be overruled.
Paragraph (b) gives right of access concerning the rights of appeal, and paragraph (e) states:
"for the purposes of any investigation under Part III of the Local Government Act 1974(a)."
That means for maladministration on a local government level.
There are three other categories of access over which parents have no right to say that outsiders should not see the statements on their children. Paragraph (a) states:
"in the opinion of the education authority concerned, the statement should be disclosed in the educational interests of the child".
The files will not be open to the parents, but the statements will be available to other people.
Paragraph (c) gives access to another group and states:
"for the purposes of educational research".
Despite the ability of the person or persons who wrote the circular accompanying these regulations, the circular shows an extraordinary attitude of mind. Information about the poor seems to be freely available, but information about the rich is not. Books are written entitled "Family and Kinship in East London", but we have never had a book called "Family and Kinship in Eaton Square". If we went to Eaton Square to ask its inhabitants the questions that we ask the poor, first we would have to negotiate the Ansaphone system. Then we would speak to the butler and it would go no further. Here again tonight the old attitudes prevail. It is thought appropriate that information about the poor should be provided, not at the discretion of the parents, but of the local authority.
Then subparagraph (d) says that information should be given over for the purpose of criminal proceedings.
Those proposals are a retrograde step and will make many parents anxious about statements made about their children. If the regulations are carried tonight, I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking to consider those three offensive proposals in paragraph 11. Better still, he should ask the person who drafted the circular to reply to those hon. Members who are worried about them.
Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the only occasion when we have the opportunity to vote or not to vote on the disclosure of such records to parents, and that the Minister's answer should be contingent upon our decision to vote?
Mr. Field: I hope that it will. One last point. The circular covers new needs. Children aged under two, if their parents wish it, have a right to a statement. Statements will be made about children aged between two and five, yet no extra resources have been willed by the measure. That is a test of the Government's priorities. Last week, the Government could find £10 million for the assisted places scheme, but not one extra penny is put forward to implement this measure.
I end with a saying that my grandmother often used, because the Minister likes such homely comments. She believed that people should put their money where their mouth is. In this measure, the Government are not prepared to put their money where they say their mouth and heart are.
10.52 pm
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: It is rather sad that this debate is taking place at all. The Education Act 1981 was one of the first Bills to be considered by the special Standing Committee procedure, and those of us who were privileged to consider the Bill were satisfied with the procedure. We heard evidence from a variety of witnesses. We hope that the benefits that will flow from this measure will accrue to those in the category of special need.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the resources side of the matter was dealt with adequately in Committee. However, it is clear that to pray against the regulations for that reason is rehashing old ground. If one is dealing with a probing point about information, that is one matter, but to try to stop the implementation of the Act goes against the spirit of everything that we discussed in Committee. Our discussions showed clearly that many things are already being done. We identified much good practice. Many local authorities are already implementing many of the proposals in the Bill. We should all be willing to ensure that those good practices are spread and given the maximum publicity.
I remember the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) speaking most eloquently on the subject. There was almost unanimity in the Committee about the need for this measure. I remember saying then that when we considered the subject in 1978 in local government circles we said that much of what local authorities were doing needed some form of Government impetus. The Government decided to take that on board. They also decided that they could not put in any great quantity of resources. Many of us deplored that, but it should in no way inhibit this measure and the promulgation of the regulations. If we did that, many of the children who already receive much of what the Warnock report tried to achieve would be denied the benefits that the Standing Committee wanted.
Much of what we have heard today goes against the spirit of unanimity in the Standing Committee. I hope that hon. Members who address themselves to the subject today will recall that the Committee was unanimous in believing that the Act should be given a fair wind and that what was possible to achieve should be achieved. What we are going through today is a sterile argument that can do nothing for the cause in which we all believe.
10.56 pm
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The Education Act 1981 is one of the few good Acts enacted by the present Government. One reason for that, as was
260
mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), is that it was taken under the new special procedure. More legislation should be taken under that procedure. It provides an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. I chaired the Committee that considered the Mental Health Act which started under the special procedure. In my experience, the procedure provides much expertise which can change a Bill considerably.
We must pass the regulations. They arise directly from the Act. I hope that no hon. Member will vote against them. If they do, I shall be voting for them. The test of the Act and the regulations will, in the long run, depend on the resources that are made available to operate them. If the Act is to work as the Warnock committee recommended, more resources will be necessary. There will also be a need for more training of specialist teachers in schools. I hope that, as soon as the financial circumstances ease, making resources available to make the Act work will be a high priority.
Section 11(1) deals with restrictions on disclosures of statements. It provides:
"Subject to the provisions of the Act of 1981 and of these Regulations, a statement in respect of a child shall not be disclosed without the parent's consent except—
(a) to persons to whom, in the opinion of the education authority concerned, the statement should be disclosed in the educational interests of the child;"
That is wide. It virtually means that anybody can be given a statement against the wishes of the parent.
I know what the words
"in the opinion of the education authority"
mean legally, but in practice it will not be the opinion of the chief education officer. The matter will not be discussed by the education committee. An administrative decision will be taken at a lower level, possibly even by the headmaster or another master in a school. The same applies to the words
"in the educational interests of the child".
Anything can be argued to be in the educational interests of the child.
Therefore, although I support the regulations as a whole, I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider that provision as it is far to widely drawn and allows the statement to be given to virtually anybody if the education authority or indeed some lesser authority thinks fit.
11 pm
Mr. Keith Wickenden: I shall confine myself to one point, but I preface my remarks with this comment. I believe that parents of handicapped children will read the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) with astonishment and profound distaste. To take the subject of handicapped children as an opportunity to make a cheap party political speech is to display a superficiality almost beyond my comprehension. The hon. Gentleman's lack of under-standing of the matter was perhaps best evidenced on the two or three occasions when he referred to "ordinary children" in "ordinary schools", as though handicapped children were not ordinary children. It is that belief, which is so widespread, that causes so many of our problems and our inability properly to handle the problems of handicapped children and their parents.
The one point that I wish to make is to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to display caution, as I am sure he will,

261
in extending the education of children with special needs into the usual standard school system, if I may use that phrase.
Handicapped children are not of one type or one class. I make no apology for making that point for the second time in a few days. Handicapped children suffer from a wide range of handicaps and all require very special and very different treatment and very special and different educational handling. I wonder, therefore, whether it is possible to bring into the teaching system of a school catering for usually intellectually brighter children the level of skill and knowledge needed to handle that very wide range of problems.
Those of us who have a great deal of contact with special schools know not only of the high level of skill and dedication that the teachers and helpers there display but the rather special kind of person required. I do not wish to denigrate those who teach in schools for children who are not handicapped, but I believe that teachers of handicapped children require special dedication, care and concern far beyond the very high level of skill that all teachers need. I therefore wonder whether it is possible to achieve those skills and to add them to the ordinary teaching skills of teachers in the more customary schools.
Therefore, I simply urge my hon. Friend the Minister to be cautious about extending this too far before we have ascertained whether the needs of handicapped children can be properly catered for in normal schools.
11.3 pm
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall be brief. I hope that someone will stop me when I have spoken for three minutes as I should like everyone to have the opportunity to take part in the debate.
I wish that the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) had stayed last Friday, as we could have done with his vote and that of about 22 others for the Bill to prevent discrimination against the handicapped.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) should appreciate that throughout our discussion of this matter in what was a very happy Standing Committee on the 1981 Bill we took the view that this was Warnock without the resources. That was the caveat we had all the time. As the only member of the Committee who won a concession from the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary—an old friend whom I beat in Eccles; he did not come back—let me squeeze a few resources from him.
Under section 10, which deals with the right of the parents of a handicapped child to know early, and not late, whether there is a sensory problem, the consultant, the hospital, the area health authority and the education authority shall plan for that child early so that the child does not have a double handicap. This will require resources. I have been assured by Brian Rix that Mencap will help in any way it can. He wanted to know how parents could be informed that such a voluntary organisation was available to advise them from the outset. That is important. It would not require much resources, but we ought to have a firm assurance that something will be done.
There is marked difference in style of writing between the circular and the regulations. This may well be for legal reasons, but if I had a handicapped child I would hate to have to find out my rights from the regulations, which are utter gobbledegook. I cannot understand them. It may be
262
said that I am stupid, but I would bet my bottom dollar that no one in the House can understand them. Are my three minutes up?
Mr. Greenway: Yes.
Mr. Carter-Jones: I am on borrowed time, so I shall conclude. Would the hon. Gentleman write the regulations again in the same language as is used in the circular? That would be helpful to all parents and disabled people.
11.7 pm
Mr. John Hannam: I must point out to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) that he used one of the three minutes talking about the three minutes. I shall avoid doing that.
I find it hard to understand why Opposition Members should try to dig up reasons for opposing the regulations. If the arguments about initial resources had been applied to similar measures in the past, such as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, we would never have seen any of the progress made in the ensuing decade on allowances and provision for the handicapped and disabled. There are never enough resources at first. The mobility allowance and the attendance allowance are examples. We always have to build on the foundations laid by legislation.
Of course, teacher training for those who will be needed for the ordinary schools is vitally important. At the conference in November held to discuss the Education Act 1981 there were many representatives from local education authorities. Quite a number spoke about the flow of resources already becoming available in their local authorities as the transfer took place from the budgets for normal education into the special educational field. They all quoted examples of increases, so it is not true to allege, as Opposition Members did, that there are zero resources or that resources are diminishing. As my hon. Friend pointed out, £1 million extra has been provided by the Government. This is enough to get the ball rolling and start the process of the integration of handicapped children into normal schools.
I welcome the regulations but must draw attention to one or two points. In paragraph 5(3) the regulations state that when a child is deaf, partially hearing, or blind the educational advice must be from a teacher in those handicaps. This is very welcome, but why has the requirement been confined to those two handicaps?
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to consider the Warnock recommendation that there should be a range of recognised qualifications in special education obtained through one year full-time or equivalent courses with appropriate adjustments in salary and grading. I am not asking for that recommendation to be implemented immediately, but I ask for the qualifications to be extended. I am sure that a flow of qualified teachers for all of the various handicaps would follow if the range of qualifications could be extended.
There should be more opportunities for disabled teachers. Too many of them are barred from teaching on unreasonable medical grounds or because colleges are inaccessible. Paragraph 9 provides that where a child with a statement has not been assessed since the age of 12½ he or she must be reassessed between 13½ and 14½. Paragraph 56 of the circular explains that this is to enable arrangements to be made for preparation for the transition

263
to further education, vocational training or other arrangements after leaving school. This is very welcome, but I ask that there should be introduced another reassessment before 16 years. In my experience, it is at the post-16 age that handicapped students need the maximum help to prepare them for adult life and employment.
Finally, I direct my remarks to the monitoring and planning of integration. When resources are tight, and when successful integration depends so much on the efficient use of existing resources and good co-operation between statutory services, planning and monitoring are essential. Amendments were tabled as the Bill passed through both Houes to establish a national advisory committee as recommended by Warnock, or at least to oblige local education authorities to produce plans. All the amendments failed.
A survey by the Spastics Society shows that most local education authorities have not yet made coherent plans for the implementation of the Act. The conference of voluntary organisations and statutory services that was held on 15 November 1982 unanimously recommended that the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children should initiate discussions on whether and what grouping should undertake the role of monitoring the implementa-tion of the Act, advising local education authorities and disseminating good practice. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give us a report at some stage on the progress of the discussions.
I have raised these queries in the same spirit that prevailed when the Bill was considered in Committee. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will take them on board. We should not have to vote on whether the regulations should be passed, and I hope that the Opposition will not divide the House.
11.14 pm
Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) made an interesting speech which I enjoyed immensely. He has praised the regulations, but he drew attention to quite a few weaknesses in them. When he did that, he gave permission for the Opposition to criticise them. It is clear that there are weaknesses and that we are entitled to a debate. I understand that we are not, as the official Opposition, intent on voting against the regulations, and that means that we welcome them to an extent.
We must consider in the first place the rights of parents of these unfortunate children to have them educated in the way that best takes account of their disadvantages. We should always take into account what the parents desire for their children. We must not forget that parents worry deeply about the future of their disabled children if they do not receive some education. I often meet the parents. They say "Mr. Wainwright, what will happen to our child? He is our only child. When we go, where will he live? What will he do in this highly competitive world?" We should always bear those points in mind when we are talking about such regulations.
We must also consider the children's rights. I am not criticising too much the lack of resources. I heard the Minister criticising indirectly the faults of the Labour Government. We have never done enough for those children. We do not do enough for education generally. I came through life educating myself, but I see the
264
weaknesses of education and the unfairness especially to poor families. They are always the ones who have to suffer. A disadvantaged child is greatly handicapped by the education system as well as his handicap, because he is incapable of absorbing ordinary education. Therefore, those children have certain rights.
We should like the regulations to be improved. Let us consider the society that we live in. Compared with many other countries, we are still a rich country. We should share out the resources fairly and accept responsibility to our citizens, especially our unfortunate citizens. We are lucky if we are physically and mentally fit.
We cannot do what Warnock wanted us to do, but we must go as near to it as possible and use our influence to ensure that, whatever party is in power, more money is spent on unfortunate children so that they reach a standard of education that is the best that society can provide and that takes into account the disadvantages of the children. I hope that hon. Members will make a greater effort than in the past to make it possible to find the means and obtain the resources to ensure that those children can be educated. Let us not forget the special teachers who are required. As much as possible should be provided to ensure that the children can participate in the society in which the lucky ones have to fight in this highly competitive world. Therefore, it is the duty of every Government to ensure that those children get the best possible education.
11.17 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Silence was enjoined on me throughout the passage of the Education Act because I was then PPS to the then Secretary of State, who was the promoter of the Bill. Perhaps it can be said that that Act was one of the most notable achievements during the tenure of office of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). It is a pleasure for me to be able to add a word or two, having had to listen in appreciative silence to the discussions not only on the Floor of the House but in Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) invited us to put the tag of "shabby deal" upon the regulations and the spirit of the Act. That call fell well below the general tenor of the debate in Committee.
I welcome the regulations, as I welcomed the Act. The Act is in itself an educative force and is to be welcomed on that basis. It provides a framework that is valuable even if no extra resources are added. We could all wish for extra resources in many different spheres of education. It would be nice if we could have the resources to reduce all primary school classes to no more than 20. We know that the education that the children would then receive would be superior to that when the class size is 30 or more. That is relative. I do not believe that extra resources are a sine qua non of ability to make progress in understanding special educational needs. I believe that the Act provides a better way to assess those needs, and that is to be welcomed. Far from its being a shabby deal, I believe that it is a fairer deal for parents than has existed before.
From my contact with the parents of handicapped children I know that in many cases parents are greatly shocked when they realise that there has to be some different treatment for their children. If the Act leads to a more flexible variety of ways of handling different

265
education needs, it can only be helpful in developing more sensitive responses to parents and children at what can be a difficult time for them.
Far from being a shabby deal, the Act and the regulations, I believe, represent an imaginative deal as they encourage the process of integration. There are already examples of integration and I believe that the way that schools, teachers, parents and other pupils have responded generally is a force for good. If thereby more people learn about the special educational needs, than perhaps they know now when children are sheltered from the main stream of education, it might create more pressures within our system for greater allocation of resources to deal with special educational needs in the wider sense in which we are now trying to understand them.
I believe that the Act is a force for good, even though it may not be accompanied by the resources that all of us, in the goodness of our hearts, would like to attach to so many developments in education. At least we are taking a good step forward tonight and one that should have the blessing of the whole House.
11.21 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I welcome this short debate. For the sake of brevity I should like to say that I endorse, with the concern of the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), the voting intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and the care of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
I welcome the debate because it gives those of us on the Committee a chance to appraise an Act before it comes into operation on 1 April. In her report Mrs. Warnock expressed one fear, which was that integration without the provision of finance had certain inherent dangers. I am sure that her fears were entirely realistic.
I welcome, of course, the Minister's announcement of the £1 million for in-service training, but I should like to remind the House that £1 million means £1,500 for each constituency. It means that each Member of Parliament is likely to have one day per week for one teacher for in-service training. While, of course, it is a beginning I do not believe that it is a sufficiently good beginning.
I raised on the Adjournment some months ago a subject that was real to the Act—that in my constituency a Red Cross school for severely handicapped children was closing. The Minister took my remarks to mean that I wanted all the other schools to close and mine to flourish. I raised the matter simply to show that while there was integration there were unintegratable children who were left.
It seems to me essential that the money that is saved by closing schools, especially that which is claimed back from the private sector as the Government are claiming back £110,000 from the Red Cross, might be thought about again. I do not believe that the Government will use that money better than would the Red Cross.
The Palace school at Ely had 50 children. It will have 30 at the end of this year and 20 at the end of next year. I accept that it is wholly uneconomic to run. I wish that the savings that the Government will make by claiming back that sum of money could be spent on allowing the parents of handicapped children greater access to them when the children are at the other end of the country. I
266
shall not take up the time of the House further except to say that, with the exception of the opening speech, this has been an important and good debate.
11.25 pm
Dr. Boyson: I concur with the view of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) about the debate. He expressed a similar view in Committee, where, despite our differences, we were concerned to make the Bill as good as possible.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) spoke about the appeal of a parent if he was not allowed an assessment. If parents ask for an assessment, the local education authority must comply unless it is satisfied that an assessment will be inappropriate. If it refuses, the parent can apply to the Secretary of State under section 68 of the Act.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman can write to me on any points that he wishes, and there is not much time to discuss the points made by other hon. Members.
With regard to confidentiality, the parents have a right to copies of all the advice prepared by professionals for the LEA during assessments. The hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about the information available to the parent and the assessment body being made available to other individuals. The draft regulations were changed after consultation. We had not consulted the hon. Member for Birkenhead then.
Mr. Field: Nor the parents.
Dr. Boyson: It is difficult to get the parent bodies to pass on that information. There is no doubt that we have listened, and we shall do what we can about the hon. Gentleman's point, although the regulations will not be laid each year. From time to time, alterations will be made in the regulations and note will be taken of all the points made this evening.
I pay tribute to other hon. Members who have spoken tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) made the important point about requiring advice from a qualified teacher of the deaf or blind because there are special considerations in recognising the needs of deaf or blind children. The teachers already need special qualifications so that we can lay down specifically that if it is a child of that description the teacher should be so trained because they are the ones who can meet the special needs.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) that certain children are not able to be integrated into the general, run-of-the-mill schools. I have two schools in my constituency that deal with mentally and physically badly handicapped children, and pay tribute, as the House no doubt will, to the dedication of the teachers working in them.
The basis of the Act is that where they can be integrated to the advantage of the children without any disadvantage to the other children, and they can be brought up in the atmosphere that other children are being brought up in and can then fit more easily into the world outside, that should be done.
However, we shall never have all such children inside ordinary maintained schools; there will always be a number in special schools.
Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) made a point about the deaf and the blind. The tendency of spastic children is not to use the wasted limb, and a physiotherapist is needed to bring the limbs into balance. The point made by the hon. Member for Exeter was valid. We must widen these skills.
Dr. Boyson: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
It was good to hear the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), who has served on three Committees with me on Education Acts and to hear him speak on education. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) has had great experience in education, and he made some valid points.
If in every part of life we wait until we have all the resources that we want before we do something, there will be a long wait. There are always alternative demands. This evening no one will run down these demands. Mary Warnock has been quoted, and I want to quote something that she wrote in December 1980:
"Everyone complains that there will be no more money. Local authorities complain that there will be no monitoring quango for them to have seats on, teachers complain because their work will be harder but no better paid. I find the general pessimism sad, and the outcome probably wasteful. The proposition that nothing is possible without the allocation of extra resources will render itself true. People will come to believe that nothing can be done on the grounds that not everything can be done".
The Government want to get things done. They realise that money is limited, but they do not stop improvements for that reason, and the regulations make improvements.
Question put and negatived.

ENVIRONMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. John Sever be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Alec Woodall be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

INDUSTRY AND TRADE
Ordered,
That Mr. Derek Foster be discharged from the Industry and Trade Committee and Mr. Michael Martin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Malvern Water
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
11.30 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: It is perhaps not surprising that the two recent European Community directives on water hygiene should have touched a particularly raw nerve in Malvern, a town that I have the honour to represent in this House. After all, Malvern water has formed a part of the national heritage and culture since Queen Elizabeth I made a point of drinking it in public in the 16th century, and Queen Victoria refused to travel without it, as well as her Jersey cow, in the 19th century. I understand that to this day Malvern water is being supplied to the Royal household, and there is therefore a sense in which what is good enough for British monarchs is not good enough for the EEC.
I admit that in recent weeks there has been some confusion in the press and elsewhere about precisely why the Malvern Hills district council, in particular, has made a fuss about these two directives. The concern of this local authority—and especially the members of the public health committee on the local authority—is not so much about the directive which relates to mineral waters. The fact is that Schweppes, which is by far the largest purveyor of bottled Malvern water, has no intention of applying for this product to be treated as mineral water under the terms of the EC directive. Unlike the French and other continental examples, no claim has ever been made that Malvern water possesses any quasi-medical or magical powers. Indeed, it has always been sold as nothing but pure water. It was an early crack, which I heard only recently, of a certain Dr. Wall, who is supposed to have founded the Malvern water cure, that Malvern water is famed for containing absolutely nothing at all. The prime characteristic of Malvern water, therefore, has been that it is pure spring water.
It is perhaps that inheritance that makes the people of Malvern especially sensitive to bureaucratic burdens being placed on them which cast doubt on the proven characteristics of Malvern water. Those burdens are to be imposed because of the anxiety that, as far as I can understand it, exists in other European countries about the hygiene standards of their own water supplies. The problem is that they are to apply also to areas such as Malvern, where water has enjoyed an unparalleled reputation for purity for centuries, and where there has never been a single example of water being a hazard to anyone who has drunk it, whether a monarch or lesser mortal.
Therefore, it is not the EC directive relating to mineral water which is causing anxiety. Under EC directive 80/778, new rules will come into operation which affect all water intended for human consumption; and that is the reason for my having brought the matter before the House tonight.
It must be said at once that the new directive will not have much significance either in the process of providing bottled Malvern water or any other bottled water, or in the operations of the Severn-Trent water authority or any other water authority. The Malvern Hills district council does not expect to have to increase its current rate of sampling bottled water from the present level of one per month, nor does it expect the directive greatly to affect its relationship

269
with the Severn-Trent water authority. The problem arises, first, because the public health committee will have new responsibility for the quality control of water once it has left the main distribution system and forms part of an industrial process or is distributed within large buildings. Every small baker and food processor will from now onwards be brought under the bureaucratic eye of, in my case, the Malvern Hills district council.
However, there are wider implications than that. Perhaps more significantly, the council will have greatly to extend its monitoring of and control over the considerable number of private wells and boreholes in the district. Nobody, certainly not I, disputes the need for local authorities and those conerned with public hygiene and health to involve themselves in the process of testing water. The problem is that under the new directive—one does not want to become too technical—in for instance, chemical tests, whereas at the moment it is deemed adequate that a maximum of 16 chemical tests should take place, the number of tests under the new directive for waters from private wells and boreholes will now be increased to 64. That is four times the number of tests that exist at the moment. A similar increase applies to the bacteriological tests and, indeed, various others tests that the water or public health authorities have to engage in.
It is the extent of testing and bureaucracy with which I am concerned. Indeed, in my neck of the woods that is no mean problem. One estimate that I have received is that in the Malvern Hills district alone there are 1,000 dwellings and therefore, I suppose, between 2,000 and 3,000 people who take their water from private wells. In addition, several hundred dwellings are supplied by private boreholes. Therefore, it is of some considerable interest, certainly to anybody representing rural areas. I suspect that the further west one goes into Devon and Cornwall, the more likely it is that one would come across much the same kind of problem.
Under the EC directive, my district council will have considerably to extend its surveillance of the private sources of water. The problem will be aggravated by the fact that, since the water workers' strike the re-utilisation of previously ignored or forgotten wells has now increased. The Malvern Hills district council currently estimates that it will cost it about £20,000 a year to deal with just the known sources of water, let alone the new sources of supply which are beginning, as I say, to come on tap as a result of the strike and people wanting to provide their own water. The actual costs to the council are frankly impossible to calculate, but they will obviously be higher than the present estimates.
Although it is not surprising, for the reasons I have mentioned, that Malvern should have been the first council to bring this matter to public attention, the new directives will clearly affect all parts of the country but most particularly the rural areas where there are extensive private supplies of water through wells and boreholes. I suspect that all those local authorities will have the same point of view as the Malvern Hills district council, that this is another example of a higher level of government—in this case the EC, with British Government acceptance—imposing increased administrative burdens on local government.
The feeling in the Malvern Hills is that the Government must either supply the necessary funds or find them from the EC to enable district councils to undertake these new chores. Alternatively, by a process of derogation, which
270
is a word with which I have only recently become familiar, the district councils should be allowed additional time beyond the present specified time by which they have to bring these directives into effect, which is about 16 months. That would enable them to rearrange their affairs, for example, to map out the new boreholes and the new wells which are coming on stream and thus to undertake these new tasks, if that is what they have to do, at the minimum cost to the ratepayer.
Although it is a heavy onus to put on the Minister at this hour of the night—I recognise that he did not invent this directive—I should be glad to hear the Government's attitude to this matter. When I first looked into the issue, it struck me as something of little moment, but the more I considered it the more I realised that it was a matter of some significance.
It will be interesting to hear the Government's view on two matters. If the directive that applies to water for human consumption is to come into effect, will there be relief for the hard-pressed ratepayer, and can the Government offer any stay of execution in this matter?
11.42 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I am delighted to be able to participate in a debate on water where there appears to be no shortage thereof. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, South (Mr. Spicer) on standing up eloquently for the rights of Malvern water and all its consumers of whom, I suspect, there are a considerable number in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps not excluding your good self. Equally, I shall not be trespassing on the problems associated with the mineral water to which my hon. Friend referred as, otherwise, I should have to assume the guise of my hon. and lovely Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend will no doubt be understanding if I eschew that prospect, desirable though that might be.
The debate gives me the opportunity to talk about the problems of the EC directive 80/778 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, both to private supplies and to food manufacture. We have taken steps to supply some information through the circular DOE 20/82, which the Department issued. It will be dealt with in detail in further circulars from my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security. The object, as I am sure my hon. Friend is well aware, is simply to ensure the wholesomeness of drinking water. The Department's policy on its implementation is to use the existing powers of water authorities, water companies and district councils to achieve this with the minimum of extra work and expense. I shall emphasise that later in my remarks.
I recognise that there are areas with very large numbers of private sources. Clearly, my hon. Friend's con-stituency, containing as it does the lovely district of Malvern, is one such area. It would be quite unrealistic to expect all those sources to conform to the directive's standards by 18 July 1985. Its requirements for private supplies are similar to those for public supplies, but the frequency with which they are sampled is left to the discretion of member states. My Department will concentrate on that aspect in its advice to district councils.
My first point, therefore, is that we control how we wish to implement the directive. While its provisions must be complied with by member states by 18 July 1985, it

271
does not mean that all private supplies must be sampled, analysed and approved by that date. It would be a mammoth task for Britain, with about 250,000 sources to be sampled. It would be even worse for some of our European colleagues, where the task would be 10 times greater. I intend to ensure that there is an effective system of monitoring private supplies. By effective, I mean in the results achieved and in the use of resources necessary—but not extortionate—to achieve those results.
Where necessary, the Government will explore the opportunity to test joint private supplies in one operation, thereby removing the need for expensive and time-consuming work for local authorities, and also dispensing with the inconvenience to the individual consumer of the need for frequent visits from scientists and officials. How right is my hon. Friend to be alarmed at the prospect of a steady, bureaucratic team, pipettes in hand, squirting small samples of water on to a piece of litmus paper.
Possibilities for sampling water from aquifers supplying a number of boreholes will also be fully explored before the Government settle on the means of implementation. The hallmark of our approach will be common sense and realism, as we ensure that the directive's requirements are met. I hope that my hon. Friend, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is in accord with that.
I should not like my hon. Friend to think that increased sampling activity means that our water supply is unsatisfactory. There is a positive case for saying that our supply is, by and large, extremely satisfactory. We have a high standard of potable water which is the envy of many other countries, including those within the EC. In the vast majority of cases, the quality of our drinking water is higher than the directive's minimum standard. I include the great majority of private boreholes and artesian supplies which, as users know, provide an adequate and uninterrupted supply of potable water, which is extremely valuable at all times, but especially now.
Under the directive, no one will run the risk of losing their water supply. Provided that there is a detailed action programme, the directive allows at least a 10-year period during which supplies that fall short of the standard can be brought up to the required quality. That, I trust, fully answers one of my hon. Friend's anxieties. Although 18 July 1985 is the operative date for the directive, there will be a significant period in which the appropriate adjustments can be made to those supplies—which could well be few in an area of such pure water as Malvern—to bring them to the required quality. There will be plenty of time for treatment to be arranged or adapted to meet the requirements of the directive. No one need fear that their supply will be removed.
I see no reason why a sampling system should not be in operation by July 1985. In many, or even most, cases district councils, in discharging their obligations under the Public Health Act 1936, are already sampling private water sources at a frequency equal to, or possibly greater than, the Department's recommended sampling rate of between one in 25 and one in 100 sources per annum.
That, if I recall my hon. Friend's comments about the thousand or more private sources, should put another time parameter into the problem. For those councils, therefore, the Department's recommendations will mean no increase in costs. For those councils that have not so far put as much
272
effort into the observance of the 1936 Act, and I cannot believe that Malvern Hills is one such council, there will need to be increased sampling activity. It is possible to argue that this was needed in any case, irrespective of any recommendation from my Department. The 1936 Act should be an effective piece of legislaion to protect water supplies from impurities.
The costs involved will not necessarily rise greatly, because the major problem with private water sources—bacterial contamination—is checked without cost to the district council by the public health laboratory service, and in most cases the number of chemical and physiochemical parameters—which I would expect to translate into terms of pH, to give it its more proper name—that need to be checked will be very small. I caution my hon. Friend not to be panicked by the 64 parameters listed in annexe 1 to the directive. For such tests, that range of substances is probably quite unnecessary.
For such councils there will be an increase in activity by environmental health officers in taking samples, but, even with the increase, a council with 1,000 private sources that does no sampling now should not find itself greatly inconvenienced by taking perhaps 200 samples in a year, While the cost of analysing those samples for a limited number of parameters, and I use that word again—it means the matters for which testing is required—would probably fall between £5,000 and £10,000 in the course of a year. I suggest therefore, to my hon. Friend that the cost to district councils of complying with the departmental recommendations must, in aggregate, be very small. The present United Kingdom requirements, laid on councils by the Department of Health and Social Security are basically guidelines, and are not mandatory in any respect.
Directive 80/778 is being implemented through existing food hygiene regulations and there is no intention on the part of the Department to do anything other than minimise the load on environmental health officers. It is the intention of the Department of Health and Social Security to issue revised guidance on food hygiene regulations, but such guidance has not yet reached the consultation stage. When it does I am quite sure that both the Department and those with whom it consults will have the resource implications very much in mind.
I hope that what I have said to my hon. Friend will have allayed any fears that hon. Members may have had, and that he may have expressed tonight, that implementation of the drinking water directive might cause considerable expenditure on the part of district councils or that the implementation would put at serious risk private supplies from boreholes and other sources.
Moreover, I assure the House that the guidelines on the detailed application of the requirements of the directives will not be issued without full consultation with interested parties. I include in that consultation with the Malvern Hills district council.
Mr. Michael Spicer: That was a most helpful response by the Minister. It was especially good to hear his point about implementing the directive with common sense and realism. It is perfectly right and helpful that he said that.
If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, it will be politically helpful to the Malvern Hills district council to know that there will be a 10-year period during which this directive may be fully implemented. His points about the

273
frequency and extensiveness of sampling were also helpful. I am glad to have had the opportunity of raising this matter and to have elicited a very helpful speech from my hon. Friend, which will clear up many anxieties that exist, certainly in my area of the country, and probably in others.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Industry (Financial Assistance)
  Industry (Financial Assistance)
  Departmental Cash Limits
  Departmental Cash Limits
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Food Standards
  Food Standards
  Rough Grazing
  Rough Grazing
  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Farm Animal Welfare Council
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
  Bilateral Aid
  Bilateral Aid
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Alderney
  Alderney
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Parliament Act 1911
  Parliament Act 1911
  Financial Management Initiative (Reports)
  Financial Management Initiative (Reports)
  Nigeria (Ghanaian Citizens)
  Nigeria (Ghanaian Citizens)
  Bangladesh (Drug Companies)
  Bangladesh (Drug Companies)
  Nationalisation of Assets (Valuation Principles)
  Nationalisation of Assets (Valuation Principles)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Young Prisoners
  Young Prisoners
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Stubble Burning
  Stubble Burning
  Prisoners (Remand Appearances)
  Prisoners (Remand Appearances)
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Intoximeter
  Intoximeter
  Postal Votes
  Postal Votes
  Broadcasting Complaints Commission
  Broadcasting Complaints Commission
  Blind Persons (Licence Concessions)
  Blind Persons (Licence Concessions)
  Motorways (Speed Limit Violations)
  Motorways (Speed Limit Violations)
  Greyhounds (Doping)
  Greyhounds (Doping)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Cambridgeshire)
  Teachers (Cambridgeshire)
  Scientific Courses
  Scientific Courses
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchequer and Audit Department (Overseas Offices)
  Exchequer and Audit Department (Overseas Offices)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  European Community (Budget Rebate)
  European Community (Budget Rebate)
  Economic Statistics
  Economic Statistics
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Revenue Collection Service
  Revenue Collection Service
  Companies (Share Purchase)
  Companies (Share Purchase)
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Efficiency
  Departmental Efficiency
  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  E1 Salvador
  E1 Salvador
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Sir Richard Posnett
  Sir Richard Posnett
TRANSPORT
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Consultants (Fees)
  Consultants (Fees)
  Roads (Contracts)
  Roads (Contracts)
  Buses and Coaches (Accidents)
  Buses and Coaches (Accidents)
ENVIRONMENT
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Certificated Bailiffs
  Certificated Bailiffs
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Schools (Non-teaching Staff Superannuation Scheme)
  Schools (Non-teaching Staff Superannuation Scheme)
  Listed Building, South Shields
  Listed Building, South Shields
  Public Land
  Public Land
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Housing (Repairs)
  Housing (Repairs)
  Liverpool Cathedral Precinct
  Liverpool Cathedral Precinct
EMPLOYMENT
  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Young Persons (Islington)
  Young Persons (Islington)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
TRADE
  Coastal Radio Stations
  Coastal Radio Stations
  Publishing Companies (Liquidations)
  Publishing Companies (Liquidations)
  Exports and Imports
  Exports and Imports
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Dry Batteries (Imports)
  Dry Batteries (Imports)
WALES
  Education (Cost)
  Education (Cost)
  Welsh Development Agency (Factories)
  Welsh Development Agency (Factories)
  Forestry Commission (Sales)
  Forestry Commission (Sales)
  Multinational Companies (Factory Closures)
  Multinational Companies (Factory Closures)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Homeless Households
  Homeless Households
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Public Corporations
  Public Corporations
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Dairy Products (Promotion)
  Dairy Products (Promotion)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Persons (Benefit)
  Disabled Persons (Benefit)
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Nursing Auxiliaries
  Nursing Auxiliaries
  Drug Companies (Profits)
  Drug Companies (Profits)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Health Authorities (Revenue Allocation)
  Health Authorities (Revenue Allocation)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Health Costs (Management)
  Health Costs (Management)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Hospitals (Support Services)
  Hospitals (Support Services)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Glenfield District Hospital, Leicester
  Glenfield District Hospital, Leicester
  Health Regions (Resource Allocation)
  Health Regions (Resource Allocation)
  Generic Prescribing
  Generic Prescribing
  Family Benefits (Statistics)
  Family Benefits (Statistics)
  National Health Service (Property)
  National Health Service (Property)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Pensions Clawback (Married Couples)
  Pensions Clawback (Married Couples)
  Pensions Uprating
  Pensions Uprating
  Free Milk
  Free Milk
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Obstetric and Neonatal Care
  Obstetric and Neonatal Care
  Supplementary Benefits Scheme
  Supplementary Benefits Scheme
  Primary and Secondary Care (Integration)
  Primary and Secondary Care (Integration)
  National Health Service Employees (Pay)
  National Health Service Employees (Pay)
  Operation Major
  Operation Major
  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Pre-school Children (Day Care)
  Pre-school Children (Day Care)
  Child Support (Unemployed Persons)
  Child Support (Unemployed Persons)
  Asbestos Claimants
  Asbestos Claimants
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Tadworth Court Hospital for Sick Children
  Tadworth Court Hospital for Sick Children
  Dental and Optical Charges
  Dental and Optical Charges
  Accident and Emergency Services
  Accident and Emergency Services
  Death Certificates
  Death Certificates
  Generic Drugs (Tests)
  Generic Drugs (Tests)
  Reedyford Hospital, Nelson
  Reedyford Hospital, Nelson
  Intermediate Treatment
  Intermediate Treatment
  Adoption Cases (Judgment)
  Adoption Cases (Judgment)
  Medical and Surgical Specialties
  Medical and Surgical Specialties
  Medicine Sales
  Medicine Sales
  Unemployed Persons (Voluntary Work)
  Unemployed Persons (Voluntary Work)
  Rotherham
  Rotherham
  Benefit Regulations (Information)
  Benefit Regulations (Information)
  Elderly Persons (Clinical Trials)
  Elderly Persons (Clinical Trials)
  NHS (Drugs Bill)
  NHS (Drugs Bill)
  Tartrazine
  Tartrazine
  Drugs (Safety)
  Drugs (Safety)
  Drugs Surveillance (Working Party)
  Drugs Surveillance (Working Party)
  Opren
  Opren
  General Practitioners (Clinical Trials)
  General Practitioners (Clinical Trials)
  Household Duties Test
  Household Duties Test
  Social Service Departments (Resources)
  Social Service Departments (Resources)
  Hospital Patients (Payment of Benefits)
  Hospital Patients (Payment of Benefits)
  Dietary Supplements
  Dietary Supplements
  Rent and Rates (Rebates and Allowances)
  Rent and Rates (Rebates and Allowances)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Mr. Charles Lynch
  Mr. Charles Lynch
  Supplementary Allowances and Pensions
  Supplementary Allowances and Pensions
  Inner City Policies
  Inner City Policies

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

Welfare Officers: Grants
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 which charities are currently receiving grants to fund welfare officers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in 1981–82 14 Government departments paid a total of £140 million in grants to voluntary organisations. Among these the Department of Health and Social Security paid out a total of £13,775,245. These payments are generally made as a contribution towards the central administrative costs of national bodies rather than the sort of purpose referred to in the Question.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. May I ask him whether he thinks it proper that PUA should have only one welfare officer for the whole of Britain? May I also ask him whether he has an answer to the two supplementary questions of which I gave him notice?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I always come to your Lordship's House as well prepared as I can be to answer the supplementary questions put before me. The difficulty with the technique adopted by my noble friend is that other noble Lords may not be quite familiar with what my noble friend has in mind. I think he is concerned about the position of the Possum Users' Association, which is a body which provides assistance to disabled people through the medium of certain types of device. It is the case that my department does support that association, but not specifically for the purposes of a welfare officer, as my noble friend may imagine.
As for the other supplementary question which I think my noble friend might have asked me had he been more explicit, namely, about the plans of the Government to expand these grants, I should perhaps say that the figures I gave just now in the original Answer referred to 1981–82; but in the current year the figures, as far as my department is concerned in any event, will show a significant increase.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. I put my question very shortly because a short time ago I apparently spent rather too long on a previous Question. I will give the noble Lord's answer due consideration—
Several noble Lords: Question!
A noble Lord: Is he aware that you will give it due consideration?
Lord Milverton: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that I will give his Answer due consideration?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that very severely disabled homebound people are really so occupied with daily living that they very much do need advice from high grade welfare workers, to help them to know what assistance and what benefits are available to them? Is he aware also how very much we appreciate the fact that the Government have at least homed in on this, particularly since many social services departments do not find it possible to send very high grade social workers to deal with disabled people?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that some of the local authority social workers are not up to the standard that my noble friend thinks appropriate.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I chip in there to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Barclay Report has shown that the elderly, geriatric and disabled people are now apt to get the less highly qualified, since the shortage of social workers has been biting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was rather addressing my reply to the welfare officers employed by the Possum Users' Association, which I know was in the mind of my noble friend Lord Milverton when he asked the Question, and the sort of social workers who might attend people who would otherwise have the benefit of the officers from that association. Certainly the Government fully appreciate the importance and the need for these officers to be of the highest possible grade. That is why we make available assistance to the sort of association my noble friend has in mind. But in general we tend to channel our funds, which are of course limited, towards the central administration of these organisations, because that is the activity which they have the most difficulty in funding from the public subscription.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he has a list of the organisations which benefit from this, and, if so, could he publish it in Hansard?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the list of organisations supported by my department is, if I remember rightly, about 200 names long. A Written Answer was given in another place listing the organisations that we assist, and I will see whether I can draw my noble friend's attention precisely to that Written Answer.
Lord Byers: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that a great deal of good work is done in this field, particularly with the disabled and the

97
handicapped, by occupational therapists and others in that type of profession?
Lord Trefgarne: I certainly agree, my Lords, but that does not quite arise from this Question.

Argentinian Rearmament: British Assistance
2.43 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 policy they have adopted towards assistance being provided from Britain for the rearmament of Argentina.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there is a total embargo on the direct sale of defence equipment to Argentina.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in his speech on 17th January on the Falklands White Paper my noble friend Lord Bishopston asked a similar question, to which he received no answer? Is he further aware that the Question I am asking does not refer to direct sales to the Argentine? Can the noble Lord give the House a specific answer to three questions? First, is it the case that Rolls-Royce Olympus turbines are being supplied to power warships built in West Germany for the Argentine Navy, and that the Government lifted their ban on these turbines last September? Secondly, is it the case that Hawker Siddeley engine-room controls and David Brown gear components are being supplied to the same ships? Thirdly, is it true that each frigate will carry eight MM40 sea-based Exocets, components of which are supplied by British Aerospace?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, broadly speaking, the answer to the three questions is "Yes", but the background to it is that during the Falklands conflict the contracts for equipment were embargoed. However, before that—in other words, before April 1982—much of the equipment for the ships was already delivered and the fact is that Her Majesty's Government now accept that very longstanding contracts with the Federal Republic of Germany, which is building the ships and is an important trading partner, really have to be kept.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the Government's clearly declared policy towards the Argentine ŕegime and these developments? With the agreement to the sale of Rolls-Royce engines for destroyers supplied to the Argentine and, indeed, the finance supplied to the Argentine, which was the subject of exchanges here yesterday, the position really is in danger of developing into something of a farce.
Can the noble Lord tell the House precisely what representations have been made to the West German
98
Government about these destroyers, and what other representations, if any, have been made to other countries about the sale of armaments to the Argentine? Is the noble Lord aware that the fact that we have released these engines for the destroyers makes it increasingly difficult for us to make representations to our allies when they sell armaments to the Argentine?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that, uncharacteristically, the noble Lord is perhaps being a little less than fair in the first part of his question. The fact is that during the whole of the 1970s Governments of all political complexions in this country were anxious to do business as usual with the Argentine, particularly in view of the tensions existing between this country and the Argentine. I think that Governments of all political complexions felt that if business was not carried on as usual it would put an unnatural and unwelcome barrier between the two countries. Governments of all political complexions were misled by the Argentine in this respect. None the less, that was the view held across the political spectrum during the 1970s, and that is why, in my answer to the first supplementary question, I said that these were longstanding contracts.
The noble Lord was kind enough to say that the matter of finance was dealt with at some length by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne yesterday. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, about representations, yes, we have expressed our deep concern to the Federal Republic of Germany about this and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has mentioned Exocets, to the Government of France as well.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the bewilderment is not confined to one side of this Chamber? Things are not as normal. The Argentines still claim that they are at war with this country—at least, they have not been prepared to admit that the war is over. At a time when certain of our allies are recommending sanctions against friends it seems to me rather bewildering that they are prepared to give aid in this economic form to people who claim thay are still at war with this country.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, again uncharacteristically, as I am sure the whole House will agree, my noble friend is perhaps being a little less than fair. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne made clear yesterday, the finance which is being arranged for the Argentine at the moment is an international matter in which, it is true, Britain is playing a part, The fact is, as my noble friend made clear, that if that finance was not made available there would be a defaulting on debts and there would be free finance for the Argentine Government to spend on arms, whereas part of the IMF package is that there are strict safeguards with the IMF safeguard loans.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that these items are not weapons, that they are only part of a weapon at the most, and that if we did not supply them it is perfectly clear that someone else would? Might we not just as well get the commercial benefit of doing so?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is true. But what I ought to add for the information of the House—and I am sure that the House would wish me to say this—is that the fact of the matter is that the memorandum of understanding covering the purchase of Exocet for the Royal Navy, which was arranged over 10 years ago, provides for a proportion of components to be manufactured by British firms, and that is the position that we are in.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, does the Minister not consider that, after all the euphoria that the Conservative Party created and received over the winning of the Falklands battle, it is now a bit hypocritical to listen to the Minister today giving guidance and help to the Argentines who in the future may make another battle for us?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are not giving guidance and we are not giving help, and if the noble Lord feels like that, I hope that in the debate of my noble friend Lord Carrington tomorrow he will stand up and make a robust speech saying that he approves of all the arrangements which the Government have made to see that the people of the Falkland Islands remain independent for the future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree in retrospect that the lifting of the financial sanctions against Argentina, bearing in mind that according to his noble friend some 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of Argentine assets were held in London, was a very great mistake in view of the fact that the country still regards itself technically at war? Is the noble Lord aware that some £2,275 million are owed by the Argentine to United Kingdom banks? Will he not agree that the Government have now placed themselves in a position where they can be blackmailed, as indeed every debtor in similar circumstances can always blackmail his creditor? Does this not really boil down to the fact that the Government, in economic terms, have a policy of appeasement towards the Argentine?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am surprised to hear the noble Lord say what he has said, because again and again the Government hear expressed in your Lordships' House the view that what is necessary is to try to reach a long-term accommodation with the Argentine. What the British Government have done, together with their Community partners, is to take a first step of relinquishing the financial barriers which divided the Argentine from Europe, although, as the House will know, Her Majesty's Government are absolutely firm that the defence arrangements will remain in the Falkland Islands until proper arrangements can be made for the Falkland Islanders to decide their own future.
As to the last words which the noble Lord expressed about being held to ransom, let me refer to one of the answers of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne yesterday in which he said that he could assure the House that the terms of the IMF package are very strict. My noble friend said that he very much doubted whether the Argentinians will have much in the way of spare cash for the sort of military adventures which we may fear.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, to revert to the original Question, whatever errors may have been made in the past through one being misled by Argentina, is it not horrific that our forces stand in some danger, the threat of war still being there so far as Argentina is concerned, with the threat of being killed or injured by weapons that we are helping to supply? Does this not come outside the realm of what the Minister called "contracts" in regard to supplies under arrangements made before the war with the Argentine?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, contracts, of course, are not between this country and the Argentine; they are between the Federal Republic of Germany and France and the Argentine. I would simply say to the noble Lord that I repeat, therefore, my original Answer: there is an embargo, absolutely, on the direct sale of defence equipment from this country to the Argentine, but we believed that damage would be done if we breached long-standing contracts with a friendly Government, and by that I mean West Germany and also the Government of France, and important trading partners in the matter of contracts.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord be prepared to consider this? In so far as we are technically in a state of war with the Argentine—and I think that the British Government genuinely want to arrive at some rapprochement—why should the Argentine Government bother when they are getting financial aid wrapped up in the IMF negotiations from Great Britain? There is no assurance at all, no firm assurance whatever, that that money provided by this country will not go in an indirect way to supplying arms. Therefore, is the argument not at least worthy of consideration that, rather than give encourgement to the Argentine to come to a reasonable agreement on the future of the Falkland Islands, we are giving them downright encouragement to have another go?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, feels deeply on the question of the IMF package, but I pin my faith on the good sense and the prudence of the IMF. I believe that the type of safeguards which the IMF are imposing upon Argentina were very well explained by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne yesterday.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have spent a very long time on this Question. Might I suggest that we take the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who has been trying to get in for some time, and then perhaps it would be right to move on to the next Question.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, does not the Minister think it rather odd that the Government refuse to enter into any discussions with the Argentine Government on the grounds that we are still in a state of war and that the time is not ripe, while at the same time they give them financial freedom by lifting the restrictions upon their borrowing powers?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I do not. There are many countries in the United Nations, together with Britain, who take the view that Argentina needs to shift its position before any long-term planning can go

101
on so far as the Falkland Islands are concerned. On the other hand, there are many countries in the world who are associated, and quite rightly so, with the IMF package.

Anti-Radiation Missile Proposals
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that their delay in reaching a decision on proposals submitted in December 1982 by British Aerospace for an anti-radiation missile is placing an unjustified burden on a wide sector of British industry.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there has been no delay. Evaluation of the proposals is proceeding according to the timetable agreed with the bidders.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. During the Falklands campaign many companies associated with the ALARM missile development acted with very high speed. Would it not be a little quid pro quo if perhaps the Minister of Defence acted with the same speed? Secondly, do Her Majesty's Government and the Ministry of Defence realise how much the delay of this decision affects employment in the North-West, particularly among apprentices, hearing in mind that there are 167 sub-contractors and many hundreds of sub-suppliers closely involved in this development?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the question of a longterm piece of military equipment is somewhat different from the agreeably highly commendable speed with which companies reacted to the Falklands crisis. In any case, it is absolutely true to say that the speed with which this particular consideration is being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence—bearing in mind that the request for proposals was issued in August, that the proposals were received in December and that the evaluation, hopefully, will be complete by the end of March—in fact already means a fairly compressed timetable. So far as employment in the North-West is concerned, to which my noble friend refers, both the manufacture of ALARM and HARM would entail work being carried out by the contractors in the North-West.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, to emphasise the urgency of the noble Earl's Question, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that there are about 100 small firms that have been stifled by the lack of decision in this matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the proposals are being considered and the result of those considerations will be made known when the decision is reached at the end of March. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot say.

"World in Action": Programme on CND and NATO
3 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Granada were acting in accordance with their duties under Section 4 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in promoting the case for the CND and attempting to discredit NATO in their programme "World in Action" on 31st January; and, if not, what action the Government propose to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Independent Broadcasting Authority is responsible for ensuring that the programmes it broadcasts comply with the specific obligations laid on it by Section 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (which replaced the corresponding section of the Independent Broadcasting Act 1973). It was, therefore, for the authority alone to satisfy itself as to the acceptability, in relation to Section 4 and otherwise, of the "World in Action" programme broadcast on 31st January. It would be contrary to the practice endorsed by successive Governments for Ministers to comment on or to seek to intervene in programme decisions, and we do not propose to depart from that policy.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather unsatisfactory Answer. May I ask him what he would do in my position, as were many others who thought that the programme was biased?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I was patient I would listen to the programme and marshal my arguments for comment on it the following day. If I was not patient, I would turn if off.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, while recognising the concern of the noble Earl, will the Minister remind his noble friend that the NATO alliance, which all the main parties in this country support, is concerned not only with peace but also with the preservation of free speech, and that on that basis he has very little to fear?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as we all know, my noble friend is well capable of taking advantage of the powers of free speech in this country, and has just done so.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is it not a fact that under Section 4(1) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 the authorities are required to ensure that the programmes broadcast are impartial and well balanced? Is my noble friend satisfied that the authorities are carrying out these provisions? Are they not, in fact, prosecutor, judge and jury in their own cause?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the provision to which my noble friend refers is contained in Section 4(1)(f). In part the section reads:
"In applying paragraph (f)…a series of programmes may be considered as a whole".

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, be repeating a Statement that has been made in another place on new urban initiatives.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available, as is usual on a Tuesday, at 7.30 p.m. The House might be adjourned at approximately 7.30 for a short period, but this will be very much subject to the progress of business this afternoon.

Pig Industry Levy Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before proceeding further on a measure of particular significance in Wales. I am sure that your Lordships' House would wish me to pay tribute to Mr. Michael Roberts, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who was so sadly taken ill in another place last Thursday and died later. I grew to know him very well when I was at the Department of Education and Science and was only too well aware of how much good work he did, not only for Wales as a whole, but for education in particular. He was a notable Minister and he will be sorely missed. He had taken the Conwy Tunnel Bill through all its stages in another place.
Those of your Lordships who take an interest in the affairs of the Principality will know that, since the beginning of the 1970s, it has been the objective of successive Governments to improve the trunk road—the A55—which runs along the North Wales coast and to bring it to dual carriageway standard all the way from the English border to Bangor. The crossing of the Conwy estuary is a key element on this project. In 1974 proposals were put forward for improving the A55 from just east of Colwyn Bay to just west of Llanfairfechan, a distance of about 17 miles. The proposals included a crossing of the Conwy estuary by means of a bridge at Conwy immediately to the south of Conwy Castle walls. This suggestion attracted widespread opposition at the eight-month long public inquiry held in 1975–6. Over 50 objectors urged that the river crossing should be by means of a
104
tunnel of the immersed tube type rather than by a bridge. The independent inspector who took the inquiry recommended that the proposal for a bridge crossing should not be adopted and commented that the tunnel proposal:
"would meet with the minimum of opposition".
The then Secretary of State consequently deferred a decision on the way the improved road should be carried across the estuary while a feasibility study of the tunnel alternative was carried out. The study was completed early in 1980. After careful consideration, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced his decision, in July 1980, that the crossing should be by tunnel. He felt that a bridge in the position which had been proposed would have an unacceptable environmental impact on the aspect of the castle and town walls; for these are widely held to have a unique place in the architectural heritage of this country and of Europe. For this reason he felt that the extra cost of the tunnel was justified. This decision has received widespread support.
Following my right honourable friend's decision, work went ahead on the preparation of a draft scheme and draft orders within the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 and these were published in May 1981. There were relatively few objections and the Secretary of State decided that a further public inquiry was unnecessary. Consequently, the scheme and orders were formally made in April of last year.
This leads me to my first point about the Bill. There is already in existence a statutory authority to build a tunnel, embodied in the statutory instrument made under the Highways Act. However, the reason it is now necessary for the Government to promote this Bill is that general highways legislation does not satisfactorily cover the particular method of construction envisaged in the estuary.
The tunnel will be of the immersed tube type, and not a bored tunnel of the conventional kind. This means that the sections of the tunnel at either end of the estuary will be constructed in situ within the protection of coffer dams created by dredging. A trench will be dredged across the estuary between the in situ sections; further tunnel sections—probably about six in number—will be floated into position over the lie of the trench and sunk into position and connected up. Subsequently, the tunnel trench will be back-filled.
The advice which has been given to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is that primary legislation is necessary for a tunnel to be built by this method. Furthermore, legislation is required to provide for the occasional closure of the estuary to shipping, which will be needed on the half-dozen or so occasions when the tunnel units are being floated into position, and also for the diversion of the navigable channel which will be undertaken to allow vessels to proceed in and out of the harbour. It will also be necessary to take powers to control mooring in the estuary and to keep vessels away from the working areas.
The Bill also empowers land acquisition. The tunnel sections may be of reinforced concrete or of steel lined with concrete. If reinforced concrete is used, the units will probably be constructed in an area of land to be provided through the Bill near the western end of the

105
tunnel. If the units are based on steel construction, they will be probably towed into the estuary and then lined with concrete in this same area of land at the western end of the tunnel. The necessary control over navigation and harbour activities will be empowered by Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill.
The aim will continue to be to minimise disruption; but some is inevitable. The Bill therefore makes provision for remedial works and compensation. Clause 10 authorises expenditure on remedial works in respect of any adverse effects on fish or shell fish stocks and also on the provision of moorings in the harbour. The department has already arranged to monitor the effect of the work on the mussel fishery and on migratory fish, including salmon.
Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill allow reimbursement of losses suffered in consequence of the tunnel works by those carrying on certain specified activities in the estuary—such as the mussel fishermen, trawler men, salmon nets men and commercial boat operators. Clause 13 of the Bill permits compensation to be paid to the harbour authority and Clause 14 for moving apparatus and moorings in the harbour.
The House will have noticed from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the front of the Bill that the current estimated cost of the tunnel and associated works in the estuary is £75 million. This sum will be met from within the programme of the Secretary of State for trunk road improvement in Wales. Construction is expected to start in 1984–85, and the work will take about four years to complete.
My Lords, the Bill's general shape and form owe a great deal to the extensive consultations which have taken place with the local authorities and interested local bodies in the Conwy area. For example, the representatives of the mussel fishermen and other small commercial boat owners asked for some provision for landing catches and embarking and disembarking passengers to the seaward side of the tunnel line, where the work may cause inconvenience. The result is Clause 5 of the Bill, which authorises the construction of a jetty in the vicinity of the Beacons car park on the western side of the estuary.
In addition, the department has given an undertaking that, apart from the few occasions where it will be necessary to close the estuary to navigation while the tunnel sections are being manoeuvred into position and sunk, a 50-metre channel giving access from the harbour to the open sea will be maintained at all times. There has been, and will continue to be, the closest consultation with the statutory authorities concerned with various aspects of the scheme, including Gwynedd County Council, Aberconwy Borough Council and the Welsh Water Authority.
Noble Lords will be aware that this is a hybrid Bill, and hence one to which by custom the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills are applied. There is a right of petition against the Bill's provisions in each House. There has not been a petition in either House. I think this is a measure of the extent to which the points of concern which have been expressed locally have been met and the assurances and undertakings which have been given by the Welsh Office about the way in which the work will be carried out.
In another place there was considerable support
106
from all parties for the broad purposes of this Bill, and a genuinely all-party welcome for a trunk road improvement scheme which would remove the traffic congestion from the ancient town of Conwy and improve strategic communications in North Wales. I should like to think that the general goodwill which has been shown towards the Bill will be continued and that it will be given a Second Reading in this House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Young.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I first associate my noble friends and myself with all that the noble Baroness has said about Michael Roberts, whose untimely death last week saddened us all. He was a man of great ability and charm, and he served his constituency, Wales, and Parliament with distinction. He will be greatly missed by us all and we send our sympathy to his wife and family.
As the noble Baroness said, this is a Bill in which Michael Roberts was deeply interested. We on this side warmly welcome it. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing it and for explaining the reasons why legislation is necessary in this case. The improvement of the A55 road, which joins the A5 trunk road outside Bangor, has been undertaken by successive Governments since the last war. I well remember that the new bridge over the River Conwy to replace Telford's old masterpiece as well as the Abergele bypass, the St. Asaph bypass, and the Mold bypass were all of close concern to me as a Welsh Member and when I had responsibility for the Welsh Office.
The line of the new road through Colwyn Bay and over, or under, the River Conwy—the so-called Colcon route—was always the most difficult to decide, and this Bill authorises the final result of long and complex deliberations. Its importance is not in doubt. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, it is a Euro-route, and the traffic using the A55 is exceptionally heavy, especially in summer and at holiday time, when cars touring North Wales and proceeding to the port of Holyhead are at their peak. This is traffic which is increasing annually, and the present congestion in summer has to be experienced to be believed.
I believe that the National Trust, the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales, of which my noble friend Lady White is president, and the Aberconwy Borough Council were right to press for a tunnel rather than a third bridge as proposed in 1974. The noble Baroness has referred to the old walled town of Conwy—probably the finest walled town in Europe. This ancient town, the estuary, the magnificent castle, which is now the servant of the Welsh people rather than their master, and the countryside generally are of truly outstanding beauty, and the objectors rightly argued that another bridge would damage them irretrievably. I am therefore glad that my right honourable friend Mr. John Morris asked the consultants to consider the tunnel alternative, and that Mr. Nicholas Edwards finally decided for the tunnel. I only wish that all our other problems could be resolved as harmoniously as this one!
The Bill is rather longer and more complicated than I originally anticipated would be the case, but after

107
reading it I fully appreciate the reasons for that. I note that the Secretary of State is taking some very substantial powers under the Bill—rather more than I initially thought might be necessary, but I appreciate the reasons for that as well. It makes it all the more necessary for the Secretary of State to have close and continuing consultations with the Aberconwy Borough Council and the other local authorities. The need to be sensitive to local susceptibilities among the residents and the fishermen who earn a living there makes that absolutely essential.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she will now, or at a later stage, indicate whether all the outstanding anxieties which were expressed by the Aberconwy Borough Council during the period when the matter was under consultation have now been removed. She properly referred to remedial work and compensation. I am glad that these matters have been agreed, but I understand that there were some additional matters which were of concern to the Aberconwy Borough Council.
Furthermore, I hope that it will be possible—and I am sure that this is a point which will be appreciated on all sides of the House—to find British companies to build the tunnel. It is, I understand, to be a major work of civil engineering. I understand that it will be unique in this country. There are similar bridges built with immersed tubes in use in the United States and in Holland, but this will be the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. It is appropriate that it should be approximate to Telford's first great pilot suspension bridge. I hope, therefore, that British firms will be able to tender successfully for it. I understand that firms within the European Community will also be eligible where the cost of the project is above a sum somewhere round about half a million pounds.
On Clause 2 of the Bill, I understand that most of the land which will be needed is owned by the Crown. This will simplify the acquisition procedures to a very large extent, especially as I believe that most of the rest of the land required is owned by the borough council. The land required for the approach roads on both sides of the tunnel is a different matter. Perhaps the noble Baroness can let us know again at some further stage at what point the land ceases to be covered by this Bill. I ask this because Clause 3 provides power to acquire additional land. I assume this to be a precautionary provision and not something relating to land required for purposes beyond the immediate approach to the bridge itself.
It has from the outset been a matter of deep concern in North Wales that local people should be employed on this project. Unemployment is very high in the area and there is also a great deal of expertise in this kind of heavy work. Work on the pump storage scheme at Dinorwig is slowing down and first-class men are looking for employment. I recall working with the late Lord Goronwy-Roberts to write this kind of provision into the 1973 Hydro-Electric Power Act, and I should like to congratulate the Government on Clause 17 of the Bill, which resulted from discussions in Committee stage in another place. I am delighted that this principle of employing local labour has been embodied in the Bill.
It may be of interest to the House to know that the Central Electricity Generating Board—and I am now
108
referring to the pump storage scheme at Dinorwig—and the contractors on site were given a target of 70 per cent. local labour in 1973. In fact, the final result was a workforce of 89 per cent. local hourly-paid workers. This made a significant contribution to work opportunity in an area where it is very difficult to find new sources of employment. For all those reasons—and the fact that it will get me home to Anglesey a little quicker—I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I too wish to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy following the sad and lamented death of Michael Roberts. He came into the House of Commons in 1970, when I was there, and everybody liked him. He was by nature a combative character; he never pulled a punch, so far as I know, in politics, and he was greatly respected and admired on all sides. It so happened that I had a long chat with him at lunchtime last Wednesday, the day before he died. He will be greatly missed not only by his party but in the House of Commons and in Wales. The family had already had a grievous tragedy a few years ago when his daughter died. I am sure the whole House will join with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in expressing sympathy for his wife so bereaved.
The Leader of the House expressed the hope that the Bill would receive the sort of support here, from all sides, that it received in the House of Commons, and I believe it will. The Conwy Estuary is beautiful, with one of the finest castles and walled towns in the country, and it has acquired over the years, since the days of Thomas Telford, two extremely handsome bridges and one very good bridge. I make that distinction among the three; certainly the first two were excessively handsome and greatly enhanced the area. I think we should be trying our luck a bit far to hope, if the Government had selected a bridge, that it would have rivalled its great predecessors. For that reason, as well as other practical reasons, it has been as well to go for a tunnel.
I am a little intrigued by the fact that in the preamble to the Bill there is talk of the tunnel being across the Conwy Estuary. I should have thought a tunnel would have gone under the estuary. Perhaps the form of construction enables the word "across" to be used, a word which would normally be used in relation to a bridge. Be that as it may, the proposal is generally welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to Clause 17, which I also welcome. It is a type of clause I have never before seen in a Bill. I have never experienced a provision which enables, as it were, preferential consideration to be given to local inhabitants of the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd. I hope it will not be regarded as an anti-Irish provision or as coming within the racial provisions. Seriously, in an area which has been badly hit by unemployment and where works of this kind have taken place before, that type of provision is certainly welcomed.
On one matter I should like the Minister's guidance, and that is in respect of the compulsory purchase powers. The powers are understandable in relation to the land that will be required for the purposes of the tunnel, including the entrance and exit, but, as I understand it, they also relate to the acquisition of land

109
to enable the tunnel to be prefabricated or fabricated on site. Will there be a provision to ensure that if that land is acquired by compulsory purchase, after its use has been terminated it will be returned to those from whom it was obtained by compulsory purchase? It seems that if the land is not thereafter necessary for the purposes of the tunnel, it should be returned.
All in all, I believe that this is a measure which will have the support of the whole House and will be greatly welcomed in North Wales.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, may recall, in February 1955 I had the privilege, as Minister of Transport, of performing the opening ceremony of the current bridge, which, as he so well put it, replaced Telford's masterpiece. I well recall the care and trouble taken in designing that bridge, to fit in with the uniquely beautiful setting in which it had to be inserted. Subject to the needs of the time—Lord Cledwyn will recall how appalling was the congestion on that vital North Wales road—I believe that bridge has served its turn and has not been wholly discreditable to the wonderful setting in which it is.
Therefore, I cannot help wanting to wish this Bill particular success, the more so because I remember that, at the time, the thinking in the Ministry of Transport—the thinking, as that very progressive department does, well ahead—was that the real answer for any future expansion would have to be a tunnel. The thinking was that in designing the current bridge we had provided as much capacity as we could without getting the whole thing out of proportion. It is, therefore, very interesting to me, 28 years later, to see this logical and sensible step being taken. I too, for that personal reason, wish the Bill and the tunnel which it authorises all success and hope it will serve the people of that lovely part of the United Kingdom extremely well.
I too, as one who also served for a few years in the House of Commons with Michael Roberts, wish to join in the tributes. We all—and the House of Commons in particular—have lost a brave, gallant and highly intelligent public servant.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise simply to comment, as one who frequently goes to North Wales to stay with various in-laws and relatives, that congratulations are due to a Government department which has not always been renowned for its sensitivity in planning roads; some of the roads and bridges that have been planned have been quite unpleasant. What is now being proposed is sensitive and civilised. It is therefore right and proper that those of us who sometimes complain about insensitivity in such matters should congratulate the department on producing something which, as I say, is sensitive and civilised.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I wish to associate my party with the all-party support that has been given to this very forward-looking and sensitive Bill.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm welcome the Bill has received in all parts of the House. Indeed, it is unusual to note such unanimity of opinion, and I am pleased that there should have been this response. Although I am not so familiar with the
110
A55 as, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Hooson, I have travelled on it on many occasions, as I had relatives living in Anglesey, and I can well appreciate the great advantage this tunnel will be, not only to the people who live in that part of Wales but to visitors and for the whole prosperity of the region.
A number of points have been raised and I will try to answer them. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked particularly about the Aberconwy Borough Council and whether all their anxieties had been met. I am glad to say they have all been removed, and of course it is for that reason that they have not petitioned against the Bill in your Lordships' House. He also asked whether British companies would get the tender for the construction of the tunnel. I wish to confirm that we hope very much that British companies will do well in the tender, but a contract of this size must be advertised in the EEC. Nevertheless, we as a Government hope—as I am sure we all hope—that a British company will get the tender.
The noble Lord then asked what Clause 3 actually meant. It is, in fact, a fail-safe provision, in case the engineering design requires some small additions of land for the tunnel works. It was put in, as I say, as a fail-safe provision, and, of course, in the hope that once the work starts, it can be continued.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked about the compulsory purchase powers, particularly in relation to the compulsory purchase of land at the end of the tunnel, where parts of the tunnel or other matters may be built. I should like to confirm that the land required for the fabrication will be offered back to the owners when it is not required for further use.
I hope that I have answered all the points that have arisen. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short Second Reading debate. I have not referred to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am glad that he himself feels such satisfaction in this Bill, as well as my noble friend Lord Onslow. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for his comments as well. I hope that it has a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. I am sure that what everybody wants is for the building of this tunnel to start and for its completion as quickly as possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it on command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the National Heritage Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 29 [Establishment of Commission]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings") and insert ("Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Report stage we voted on a name that I had down in an amendment, the Heritage Commission for England. That was lost by only four votes. I think the voting was 79 to 74. The general feeling without any doubt in the House was that the title in the Bill at the moment is far too cumbersome—the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England—and another name should be found. Views were also expressed that one should get away from the word "heritage", which appeared to be used everywhere and had almost become, not exactly a dirty word, but a very abused word.
Thus, the amendment I am now moving seeks to insert the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which would neatly be HBMC. It covers exactly what the Bill is about, what the commission is set up to deal with, and its also does away with the word "heritage". I hope that this will have the support of the House. It has been extremely difficult to find something else, but I think this is an improvement on the original title. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting the amendment. I think the House knows that a great deal of thought has been given to a more convenient name. I hope that perhaps what has been suggested now is the best compromise. The one thing I like about it is the fact that the famous Historic Buildings Council, which we all know, has the initials HBC, and the new commission will have similar initials—HBMC. However, having said that, I hope the House will now agree that this is a much more convenient title. I hope the Government will see their way to accepting this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Baroness in moving the amendment said that she hoped she would have the support of all the Members in your Lordships' House. I should perhaps indicate that it at least has the lukewarm support of those on these Benches. It certainly does not have any opposition. I agree with the noble Baroness that this new title perhaps is better in many ways. It deals with some of the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, referred, but I am not wholly in sympathy with the noble Baroness's desire to drop the word "heritage" altogether. As she rightly said, we have been talking about "heritage" for such a long time. It is a pity to say goodbye to the word when we are coming to the title. This is the wrong time to suggest another title but, had it been possible, I would have suggested Historic Heritage Commission, the initials HHC, not being in any way ambiguous in relation to other existing bodies. Perhaps that would have been another possible solution. But it is too late to have other solutions now and at this stage we should accept the noble Baroness's suggestion as being an improvement on the words in the Bill at the moment, though perhaps we should have liked to see them improved still further.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that the House would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that there is still scope for improvement, but possibly not today and not now. This suggested
112
form of words is slightly shorter than the present title and avoids the word "heritage"which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, the House has already decided is inappropriate in these circumstances. While Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England seems to me to be slightly preferable to the present title, the improvement is, I suggest, not particularly marked, chiefly consisting in the omission of the word "ancient".
It will be obvious to your Lordships that in accepting this it will be necessary to make other changes in various places in the Bill where the name of the commission occurs. While I am perfectly happy to accept the will of the House, it might be considered slightly better to allow the Government to produce a complete package when this Bill goes to another place. But, as I say, I am not objecting in the least to the new title.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend saying, in effect, that he think that this amendment contains a good idea which should be supported, but that the Government do not want this House to make the amendment until all the consequential amendments are ready? If that is all that it comes to, I dare say we might agree with him. But if he is shilly-shallying or stalling, which would be out of character, I would, speaking for myself, be disappointed. If I may say so in passing, I think that the word "historic" covers about three-quarters of what we mean by the word "heritage" and that the dropping of the word "ancient" means that we shall lose nothing because antiquity in itself is not always a virtue. It is the fact that it has an historic connotation that has made it interesting in the past, but if we have the word "historic" that is good enough.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, to my noble friend's second point I agree. To his first point, however, I am certainly not shilly-shallying around.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who in a very succinct way said exactly what I wanted to hear. I was not sure whether the Minister was accepting it or not. But I now take it that the amendment is acceptable but that it is a question of weaving it right through the Bill, which means that it will then come up in the Commons, presumably then as a Government amendment. May I say something in answer to the two points about heritage raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It is not a question of my disliking the word or feeling that it should not be used, but there was a feeling that there could be some confusion with the National Heritage Memorial Fund; indeed, the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said he was not happy about it. It has also been used by a great many other bodies, and this proposal seems to tailor it down. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made the point that one could do better. I am sure one could, but up to this point nobody has and that is the trouble. I am grateful to the Government for accepting this change, and I hope to see it woven into the Bill when it goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Urban Initiatives
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like 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 wish to make a Statement about three important measures to improve the older industrial areas of our country.
"First, I have reviewed the list of local authorities who need special recognition because of the scale of their urban problems. With effect from 1st April this year, I intend to add Blackburn, Brent, Coventry, Knowsley, Rochdale, Sandwell, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth to the list of programme authorities. I intend also to designate Burnley, Langbaurgh and Walsall under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. In the case of all these authorities I shall make resource allocations to support approved programmes of work appropriate to their new status.
"In making this selection I have, among other matters, taken into account an analysis of urban deprivation based on new data from the 1981 census. I am placing an information note on urban deprivation in the Library of the House, and I am publishing the relevant data from the 1981 census in the Official Report.
"I now turn to the two important schemes that the Government have launched in which public funds are used to attract substantially greater amounts of private investment to the older and more derelict areas of our towns and cities. The first of these—the special Category A derelict land grant scheme—has been designed to secure immediate development by private firms of land reclaimed by local authorities.
"I am today approving £30 million of derelict land grant for 46 projects, which will lead to £200 million of additional private sector investment. This represents a total investment of £230 million—an impressive ratio of one to six of public to private sector funds. I am placing details of the projects in the Library.
"The 1983–4 programme will also contain a substantial quota of Category B schemes, totalling over £40 million, aimed at more general environmental and economic improvement. The amount allocated to new Category B schemes will be some £17 million, about £10 million more than this year. Prominent among these is £2 million for the start of reclamation of the former Workington Steel Works and £3 million for an expansion of Operation Groundwork, the imaginative scheme in the North-West to tackle the particular problems of the derelict twilight zones around our towns. In addition, I am making a special allocation of £10 million for reclamation on Merseyside. Overall, I have increased the total planned expenditure on the derelict land programme from £45 million this year to £75 million in 1983–4.
"I now turn to a further major initiative to help revitalise our inner city areas. The urban
114
development grant scheme was launched last April. This scheme is also designed to use public funds to attract much larger resources from the private sector so as to provide fresh stimulus to the economic regeneration of our urban areas. I am pleased to tell the House that this scheme has attracted a very substantial response. I am able to announce today my approval in principle to a first batch of 41 projects. All these projects involve partnership with the private sector. I am placing details in the Library.
"These schemes are amongst the most straight-forward and complete of those submitted in the first bidding round, and are able to start soon. Some projects have not been approved, and in these cases the individual authorities are being notified. Those still before us include some of the larger and more complex schemes, which inevitably take longer, and on which detailed work is still proceeding. I will announce further approvals as soon as possible.
"The first 41 projects I have approved today cover a wide range of imaginative schemes, including the restoration and conversion of derelict buildings for offices and industrial purposes; the redevelopment of decaying buildings or derelict sites; the conversion of run-down estates for inner city housing for sale; recreational and sports projects; and other schemes for restoring commercial and industrial activity. Nearly 4,000 construction and permanent jobs will be retained or created by these projects.
"These projects involve about £10 million of public money leading to additional private sector investment of £40 million, making a total of £50 million of investment altogether. This represents a ratio of public to private sector money of one to four, and I expect the bulk of the expenditure on these schemes to take place in 1983–4.
"In the light of the excellent response to the urban development grant scheme, I can tell the House that it will certainly continue for a further year. I shall be advising local authorities of the bidding procedures in due course.
"Mr Speaker, the measures I have announced will ensure a greater concentration of effort and resources in some of our most needy areas. In particular the special derelict land grant and urban development grant schemes are an exciting new approach in using public funds to achieve the maximum impact in those areas. The approved projects cost the public purse £40 million. But the benefit to the community is much greater because the substantial additional resources attracted from the private sector will lead to total investment of nearly £300 million.
"I believe that this announcement makes a significant step forward to tackling some of the urgent problems of dereliction and economic decline in our towns and cities. It will provide substantial job opportunities, and I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following is the information referred to above:

115

DISTRICT

POPULATION 1981

POPULATION CHARGE 1971–1981

MORTALITY RATE

UNEMPLOYMENT

SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS

PENSIONERS LIVING ALONE

OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS

HOUSEHOLDS LACKING EXCLUSIVE USE OF BASIC AMENITIES

RESIDENTS IN NEW COMMONWEALTH & PAKISTAN HOUSEHOLDS

Number

per cent.

Number

per cent.

Number

per cent.

Number

per cent.

Number

per cent.

Number

per cent.

Number

per cent.

PARTNERSHIPS

Birmingham

1,006,527

-91,432

-8.3

1.06

72,083

15.2

23,986

6.7

52,066

14.6

21,265

6.0

18,436

5.2

149,301

15.2

Gateshead

211,333

-13,792

-6

1.20

14,128

14.0

3,926

5.0

12,079

15.3

3,818

4.8

1,870

2.4

967

0.5

Hackney

180,434

-39,846

-18.1

0.92

13,403

15.3

7,241

10.6

10,459

15.3

6,179

9.0

8,151

11.9

49,417

28.0

Islington

160,890

-40,985

-20.3

0.93

10,803

12.9

5,384

8.4

10,170

15.8

4,030

6.3

7,102

11.0

26,044

16.9

Lambeth

246,426

-61,088

-19.9

0.91

16,402

12.7

9,673

10.1

14,159

14.8

7,037

7.4

9,614

10.1

56,071

23.5

Liverpool

509,981

-100,135

-16.4

1.12

47,030

19.8

12,948

7.2

28,407

15.7

10,051

5.6

13,151

7.3

8,383

1.7

Manchester

448,674

-95,193

-17.5

1.13

34,393

16.8

14,011

8.5

27,491

16.8

9,299

5.7

12,196

7.4

33,944

7.9

Newcastle

277,829

-30,448

-9.9

1.09

18,346

14.1

6,095

5.8

17,671

16.8

4,790

4.6

2,319

2.2

6,514

2.4

Salford

243,865

-36,023

-12.9

1.22

16,024

14.0

5,865

6.5

15,071

16.8

3,641

4.1

3,916

4.4

3,119

1.3

PROGRAMMES

Blackburn

141,928

840

0.6

1.19

8,727

13.5

3,163

6.3

8,289

16.4

2,820

5.6

4,732

9.4

16,039

11.5

Bolton

260,654

1,108

0.4

1.14

14,291

11.6

5,223

5.5

14,811

15.5

4,117

4.3

5,936

6.2

16,677

6.4

Bradford

457,423

-4,359

-0.9

1.05

25,449

12.0

10,395

6.3

25,990

15.9

9,001

5.5

7,392

4.5

50,442

11.2

Brent

253,275

-27,385

-9.8

0.86

13,191

10.1

6,958

7.8

11,159

12.5

7,745

8.7

7,233

8.1

83,023

33.5

Coventry

313,815

-22,930

-6.8

0.98

22,798

15.2

6,929

6.2

14,624

13.2

6,184

5.6

3,877

3.5

29,494

9.6

Hammersmith

148,447

-38,749

-20.7

0.94

8,786

11.1

4,686

7.7

9,843

16.1

4,535

7.4

9,262

15.2

21,441

15.3

Hull

269,539

-16,428

-5.7

1.09

19,222

15.8

6,530

6.7

15,295

15.6

4,201

4.3

9,123

9.3

2,083

0.8

Knowsley

172,957

-21,138

-10.9

1.12

18,660

22.6

4,701

8.5

6,052

11.0

4,398

8.0

1,145

2.1

1,048

0.6

Leeds

704,885

-34,046

-4.6

1.01

34,249

10.3

15,291

5.8

41,288

15.7

8,759

3.3

6,172

2.4

27,807

4.0

Leicester

280,324

-3,884

-1.4

1.04

18,180

13.6

6,968

7.1

15,041

15.3

6,187

6.3

8,836

9.0

58,966

21.7

Middlesbrough

150,430

-6,882

-4.4

1.10

13,646

19.9

3,851

7.6

6,240

12.2

2,740

5.4

1,907

3.7

4,808

3.3

Nottingham

272,141

-28,488

-9.5

1.05

16,653

13.1

7,822

7.8

15,921

15.8

4,700

4.7

5,242

5.2

21,251

8.0

Oldham

220,017

-3,952

-1.8

1.09

11,918

11.1

5,334

6.6

12,857

15.9

3,381

4.2

4,147

5.1

11,091

5.1

Rochdale

207,430

4,296

2.1

1.11

12,821

12.9

5,175

7.0

11,133

15.0

3,699

5.0

3,307

4.4

10,647

5.2

Sandwell

307,992

-22,170

-6.7

1.09

22,499

15.3

5,474

4.9

16,029

14.5

6,143

5.6

6,872

6.2

34,942

11.4

Sheffield

537,557

-35,117

-6.1

1.05

27,645

11.0

9,347

4.6

34,773

17.1

6,652

3.3

9,785

4.8

16,839

3.2

Sunderland

294,894

1,656

0.6

1.16

22,545

16.7

5,903

5.6

14,459

13.7

4,774

4.5

3,282

3.1

1,652

0.6

Tower Hamlets

142,841

-22,936

-13.8

1.04

10,912

15.5

4,230

8.0

8,599

16.2

5,305

10.0

3,239

6.1

27,657

20.3

North Tyneside

198,209

-9,710

-4.7

1.11

11,544

12.3

4,068

5.4

11,638

15.6

2,452

3.3

1,484

2.0

1,246

0.6

South Tyneside

160,410

-16,672

-9.4

1.14

12,545

16.8

3,328

5.6

9,549

16.1

2,729

4.6

1,868

3.1

988

0.6

Wandsworth

254,898

-47,358

-15.7

0.96

13,069

10.0

7,911

8.1

15,339

15.6

6,424

6.5

11,053

11.3

46,490

18.8

Wirral

339,494

-16,320

-4.6

1.12

20,426

13.3

6,970

5.7

18,618

15.2

3,198

2.6

4,290

3.5

2,574

0.8

Wolverhampton

254,561

-14,552

-5.4

1.04

19,133

16.1

5,136

5.8

11,960

13.5

5,177

5.8

6,606

7.4

38,858

15.5

DESIGNATED DISTRICTS

Barnsley

225,084

-494

-0.2

1.04

10,581

10.5

3,899

4.8

11,235

13.9

2,969

3.7

2,517

3.1

847

0.4

Burnley

94,078

-2,516

-2.6

1.37

5,348

12.0

2,206

6.4

5,833

16.8

1,387

4.0

3,323

9.6

3,365

3.6

Doncaster

289,532

8,575

3.1

1.07

15,797

12.0

5,562

5.4

12,765

12.4

3,108

3.0

4,152

4.1

3,523

1.2

Haling

279,846

-21,265

-7.1

0.92

12,451

8.6

5,914

5.9

12,388

12.4

7,642

7.6

7,444

7.4

69,755

25.4

Greenwich

211,840

-5,823

-2.7

1.04

9,907

9.6

5,288

6.8

11,462

14.7

3,215

4.1

4,262

5.5

16,519

8.0

Haringey

203,553

-36,522

-15.2

0.93

11,196

10.7

6,028

7.8

10,586

13.7

4,604

6.0

9,262

12.0

59,632

29.8

Hartlepool

94,870

-4,581

-4.6

1.14

7,944

17.9

2,234

6.7

4,410

13.3

1,375

4.2

2,237

6.8

467

0.5

Langbaurgh

150,215

2,473

1.7

1.25

10,699

15.8

3,204

6.1

6,571

12.6

1,924

3.7

1,498

2.9

1,097

0.7

Lewisham

231,324

-37,150

-13.8

0.94

11,942

10.2

6,932

7.8

13,417

15.2

4,421

5.0

5,739

6.5

34,463

15.1

Newham

209,494

-27,898

-11.8

0.97

12,668

12.7

5,101

6.9

10,713

14.4

6,318

8.5

11,143

15.0

55,334

26.6

Rotherham

251,775

8,645

3.6

1.07

13,390

11.6

4,490

5.1

11,114

12.5

2,986

3.4

2,793

3.1

3,397

1.4

St. Helens

189,759

758

0.4

1.21

10,931

12.4

3,185

4.8

8,827

13.4

2,280

3.5

4,341

6.6

914

0.5

Sefton

299,724

-7,825

-2.5

1.07

17,321

12.4

5,473

5.2

15,783

15.0

2,799

2.7

4,592

4.4

1,904

0.6

Southwark

211,858

-50,277

-19.2

0.99

13,454

12.5

7,369

8.9

13,941

16.8

5,269

6.4

5,297

6.4

33,990

16.5

Walsall

267,042

-6,290

-2.3

1.03

17,465

13.6

4,568

5.0

11,198

12.1

4,322

4.7

3,153

3.4

18,950

7.2

Wigan

309,083

6,178

2.0

1.18

16,244

11.2

5,202

4.7

15,732

14.2

3,399

3.1

4,634

4.2

1,439

0.5

NOTE 1—DEFINITION OF KEY INDICATORS
The data shown in the table are assembled from the 1981 census and the Vital Statistics published by the Office of Population Census and Survey (OPCS). The definition of the data are specified below.

(a) Population: Population present on census night. Source: 1981 Census.

(b) Population Change: The percentage change in the population present on census night between 1971 and 1981. Source: 1971 and 1981 Census.

(c) Standardised Mortality Rate 1980: The ratio of the locally adjusted death rate to the national rate. Source: "Vital Statistics" OPCS.

(d) Unemployment: The percentage of economically active residents who are unemployed. Source: 1981 Census.

(e) Single parent households: The percentage of private households which contain at least one single-parent family with dependent child(ren) aged 0–15. Source: 1981 Census.

(f) Pensioners living alone: The percentage of private households containing only one pensioner (males over 65, females over 60) living alone. Source: 1981 Census.

(g) Overcrowding: The percentage of private households in permanent buildings living at more than one person per room. Source: 198 I Census.

(h) Households lacking exclusive use of basic amenities: The percentage of private households in permanent buildings which lack the exclusive use of a bath and inside WC. Source: 1981 Census.

(i) Residents in New Commonwealth and Pakistan households: The percentage of residents in households where the head of the household was born in the New Commonwealth or Pakistan. Source: 1981 Census.

NOTE 2
The census data give a broad indication of the scale, intensity and concentration of deprivation, but in selecting additional authorities for designation or programme status account has also been taken of the availability of resources and the prospects for effective joint working with the Government and the private sector to alleviate the conditions giving rise to social need. Account has also been taken of the availability of alternative means of dealing with deprivation.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving us the benefit of the Statement that has been made in the other place, and we on this side of the Chamber give a general welcome to it. We are grateful for what has been made available, but it is unfortunate that the areas to which the resources have to go our—most needy areas—in the main are large manufacturing areas, which have suffered great deprivation because of mounting unemployment there. I am thinking in particular of Coventry, a city which is in the category of an area of need, but which 10 years ago was booming and did not know how to spend its money. It has now fallen into the category of an area of great need. I think, too, of Sandwell and Walsall, both in the West Midlands—areas of high manufacturing. They were very fortunate areas, but they are now being placed in the category of areas of great need. No doubt the 1981 census—that has been used—will give us the reasons why we are having to extend the special need areas.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can give us some idea of the projects involved. I appreciate that the Statement said that the projects are listed and that details are to be placed in the Library, but what will be the long-term job opportunities that will arise in connection with these developments? Will they be job opportunities in manufacturing, service industries or commercial undertakings?
Obviously we welcome what was stated about the 4,000 construction jobs which will be retained, but I
118
must remind the noble Lord the Minister that many thousands of construction jobs have been destroyed by the cut-backs as a result of the Government's policies regarding housing and, in particular, long-term municipal and council building. It is welcome news that some of the jobs are to be retained, but we must remember the great loss of jobs that has taken place.
Can the noble Lord give us some idea of whether he is satisfied that the special derelict land grants are being taken up not only by private bodies but by public authorities, too? I should also like to know whether the allocation of the sites is being carried out on what we call an equal basis. Perhaps I do not have to spell out to the noble Lord that what I am really asking is, are the public authorities getting their fair share of what I would call the "good" derelict land sites? I know that that is a contradiction in terms, but no doubt the noble Lord appreciates what I am trying to say.
There is another point with which we on this side of the House are particularly concerned. Can the noble Lord explain—no doubt they are simple procedures—what is meant by the term "bidding procedures"? The Statement said:
"I shall be advising local authorities of the bidding procedures".
Perhaps my Birmingham accent was not understood by the Yorkshireman! However, I expect he will be able to give us the opportunity of his wisdom on that.
We welcome the proposals and we hope that the work which is going on with the private sector and with the public sector both working together will be advantageous for those people who are living in these areas. But there is the important provision that many of the inner areas have derelict housing in them. One of the points to which the noble Lord directed our attention was the conversion for sale of run-down estates of inner city housing. If he gets rid of that bad housing in the inner cities, is he satisfied that when the development is for sale, the local authorities will have sufficient housing to rehouse those people who are living in the bad housing conditions at the present moment? Most of the authorities that we have here as partnership programme and stress authorities are in those very areas where they also have housing lists.
We thank the Minister for his reply. We hope that perhaps it is a start—another start may I say—of regeneration in the inner cities. We seem to have to face this problem of deprivation in the inner cities about every 10 years. If this is another step forward, we welcome it.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I would like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for repeating this important Statement. We on these Benches welcome these three important measures which, as the Statement says, are designed to improve the older industrial areas of our country. Very welcome though they are, I hope that it will not be thought churlish if I suggest that these three measures do not; in themselves, do anything to combat the major problems with which the older industrial areas of our country are faced; namely, crime and unemployment. Perhaps we could suggest

119
that if resources of this kind were poured into the regeneration of the infrastructure in some of those older industrial areas of our country, that would, in itself, do something about both unemployment and perhaps, also, crime.
That having been said, however, we welcome warmly the other steps which are being taken, and perhaps I ought personally to declare an interest as the chairman of the Operation Groundwork Trust to which reference is made in the Statement. In that capacity, I can testify to what the noble Lord has said: that these new methods of doing things are proving very successful in unlocking private funds from other sources and in generating local enthusiasm for an improvement in the environment of a locality. In that connection, may I say this to the noble Lord. I know that the Secretary of State has approved 41 projects. The noble Lord will confirm, I am sure, that there are many other local authorities who, singly or in partnership with other local authorities, have also been bidding for recognition and for resources of this kind to undertake comparable schemes.
I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that when these schemes are first announced, immense local enthusiasm is generated. It would be very regrettable if the momentum which has been achieved was allowed to diminish and disappear. Therefore, I would note that the Secretary of State has announced his intention to announce further approvals as soon as possible. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that I hope that "as soon as possible" is very soon. If there is delay, the local enthusiasm will disappear and, in the end, the scheme will not be anything like as successful as it would have been had it been started more rapidly.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their helpful comments. Perhaps I can respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, as follows. She asked what were the particular projects. There are 41 of them. I do not propose to read them all out. They cover a very wide range of types of projects. They cover housing and, as I said in the original Statement, much construction; they are to do with sports and recreational facilities; they are to do with industrial development of one kind or another. In some cases, they are commercial; but they are all helpful in that—and this is the key point—they involve the private sector in putting up a big share.
Your Lordships may remember that in answering a Question only the other day in your Lordships' House I said that, with the allocation for next year, the Government will have put £1,200 million of urban programme money into the inner cities in four years—which, by any standards, is a massive sum. Yet, one might fairly question what it has achieved and what it will achieve. The answer is that the emphasis is upon capital investment, but also that what we are now seeking to do is to see that we get the private sector involved; because there will never be enough public funds to put in. If one can generate private subsidies on the scale that we are seeing here, then the multiplier is enormous in its impact on the totality of what goes in.
120
The noble Baroness referred to thousands of jobs destroyed by Government cut-backs. We are talking here about our inner cities. The need to replace dereliction and the buildings and all that goes with it has not come about in the last three or four years. This was something which the previous Administration set out to tackle. Indeed, it was they who announced the original urban programmes in 1978–79 in recognition of the problem that had come about over many years. The fact is there has been movement away from the inner cities for all the demographic and other reasons that we know. The problem is not a new one. What is new in this Statement is a more novel approach to tackling the problem by involving the private sector, together with the public sector, on a scale that would mean resources that hitherto have not been available.
The noble Baroness asked whether I was satisfied about the even-handedness of it. I think that that is really what she meant. I may say that I understand her, despite the accent. She may have more trouble sometimes in understanding me; but then that is another point. The fact is that I think I am satisfied about that. I am not aware of any good schemes put forward that are being held back. It is up to the authorities to come forward. But, more importantly, here, for the first time, we are seeing, under Category "A" schemes, the private sector also involved in the derelict land grant situations—which is a new element.
When the noble Baroness asked what is meant by the "bidding procedures", I may say that these are simply the procedures which authorities and those interested have to follow in making their applications. It is the mechanics of it, if you like. I think that everyone concerned knows what they are.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, it is not an auction of local authorities?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords. I think that the noble Baroness is probably right in her implication. Perhaps the term itself is slightly misleading. I think that is so. It is bidding in the sense of making application. I hope that that is helpful.
Finally, the noble Baroness asked whether housing for sale will help the local authorities. Of course it will do so, because it means that the people who go in them are very often—and the record shows this—people coming off the waiting lists or people moving, if you like, out of council homes. This makes other dwellings available. Anything which adds to the totality of the aggregate numbers of dwellings available must be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that it does not help on unemployment. With respect, I think it does. First of all, it helps to the extent that I mentioned in regard to these projects; so that it is a help. So far as crime is concerned, anything that improves the whole scene within the inner cities must have its impact, not directly, of course; but if you improve the environment it gives people more pride and vandalism tends to become less. In that sense, it does help on crime, albeit somewhat obliquely.
The noble Lord said that more funds should go into infrastructure. No one would quarrel with that; but if we can get funds going in in this way then it relieves the availability of funds and more can then go into the

121
other things that he would like to see. On his last point, he said that there were 41 projects and asked whether we will keep the momentum going. The answer is, yes, of course we will. I did not mention it before but there have now been a total of 315 applications. Some of them will take quite a long time to appraise, especially the larger and more complex ones. I know that there are a number of authorities anxiously awaiting our decision. But public money is involved and one has to be very careful about these applications. Appraisal therefore takes a little longer, but we are cognisant of the need to get on with this work and keep it going. I assure the noble Lord that we shall do just that.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has said for one reason particularly: I was once the Member of Parliament for Workington. I am glad that in his announcement he said that there are new Category B schemes which will amount to some £17 million, which is about £10 million more than this year. It would be churlish of me if I sought to criticise the Minister. I have always advocated more urgency in relation to our development areas. Here is one example which will be welcomed considerably in the North-West. I thank the Minister for what he has done.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who has such a great knowledge of the North-West. He is right to stress that area, because in terms of derelict land it is almost certainly the area that most of all needs help with that particular kind of grant.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and to welcome it as an indication of what a useful step the Government have taken in encouraging economic activity by this particular method of pump priming which the Minister concentrated on—and very rightly. May I ask two questions? First of all, in order to give us some idea of what proportion of the schemes has been approved and what proportion has been disapproved, can he tell us the total value of the schemes which have not been approved according to the Statement? My second question is: can he tell us what proportion out of the total amount voted for this purpose has now been allocated?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am sorry, would the noble Lord repeat the last part of the question?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the second question that I was asking the noble Lord was whether he could tell us what proportion of the total amount voted under this heading for these purposes has now been appropriated under this Statement.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, on the first point, my understanding is that there have been some 41 schemes rejected. It happens to coincide with the number approved. I hope that that illustrates the fact that we are very carefully appraising these schemes. I suspect that in the second and later batch that percentage will probably fall. I hope that it will. It is a beginning, and clearly in the first flush of enthusiasm it would not have been unreasonable to expect lots of
122
applications that were not appropriate. I think that the situation will improve as we go along.
It may be considered a high percentage of rejections. I accept that it is a high percentage. But again there is nothing to stop anyone coming back with an altered application. There is no bar on it. They will all know there has been rejection. I am sure that there will be negotiation and discussion in some cases to enable them perhaps to come back with a more appropriate scheme. As to the point about the proportion, I understand that, out of the £60 million of public funds that we said we would put on one side for this, some £10 million has been allocated so far.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, as a former Birmingham Member, may I say that it is particularly pleasant for me to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, welcoming these proposals today in her soft Midland tones to which she so charmingly referred. But I think that the House ought to take note of the fact that Governments of both parties over many years did great damage to the natural growth of industry in the Midlands area by forcing the natural growth away from that area, where it would have taken place naturally and healthily, into other regions where very often it failed completely. I am glad that this shows that Governments are now taking a new view and including the Midlands towns. I think that I am right in supposing that my noble friend has said that his ambition is to encourage again the natural spirit of tremendous enterprise which has been such a great feature of the history of the Midlands industrial area.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing that point out. He is absolutely right: of all parts of the country, the Midlands were in very many ways leaders. It does not come easy for a Yorkshireman to say that, but I think it has to be recognised that that is so. We are trying to encourage this; but the noble Baroness was also right when she said that in some ways it is a pity that designation of need has to be made. It would be nice not to have to so designate. But even Leeds is so designated.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, can the noble Minister help me to understand something which has always puzzled me about this kind of provision? When the Government propose the injection of public money into the economy to revive it, we are asked to welcome it as wise and sensible—and indeed we do. But when similar proposals are made by any of the Opposition parties, they are regarded as inflationary and impracticable. Why is this?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not aware that the Opposition parties have ever produced a scheme to involve the private sector together with the public sector in this way.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
Clause 30 [The Commission's functions]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 17, line 8, after ("preservation") insert ("and conservation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment on Report but it was a cursory discussion. It is interesting that originally Clause 30 had in it the word "conservation" and not "preservation". Now it has "preservation" and not "conservation". So there obviously is a difference of opinion and a feeling of doubt about whether one word covers the other. Depending on the size of the dictionary one reads, and how far one goes into it, there are very close points at which these two words interlock. I submit that there is enough difference in their meanings to make it necessary to have both words in the Bill.
Regarding the history of the words, according to the OED. "conserve" was more common in middle English and early modem English than "preserve". Then the latter virtually superseded "conserve" in the 18th century. But "conserve" then became more dominant in the 19th century. My reason for wanting to see both words in the Bill is that the feeling is that "preserve" carries a sense of greater immediacy against imminent destruct than "conserve". The word "conserve" to me and to a great many people who are concerned in the world of conservation and preservation commands a wider perspective of maintenance, and also it can involve change.
One of the aspects which is so important about the conservation of buildings is that the buildings should be given a different use when the use for which they were originally built has gone and they are empty. I do not think then it would be correct to refer to them as being preserved, for they would he conserved. Therefore, I feel that by putting both words in the Bill one cannot go wrong because, if there is any doubt, both words cover that. They also cover the two elements in this new commission, ancient monuments—which is more concerned I believe with preservation—and the Historic Buildings Council, which is more concerned with conservation. I hope that the Government will smile kindly on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting this amendment, although it might appear to noble Lords that this is rather a "nit-picking" point, I certainly can confirm, after many years in the world of amenity societies, that the two words are now attracting very different meanings, Certainly some people in amenity societies cannot bear to use the word "preservation". "Conservation" was their cry. This implies a view which is much more constructive, whereas "preservation" implies the status quo and never touching it. So although at the moment these words may appear in the dictionary sense to be exactly the same. I believe that future generations, reading those words in the Bill, will see that the commission is given a far wider remit, which we all wish them to have. I hope the Government will be able to accept both words although, as I have said, many people at the present time think they have exactly the same meaning.
4.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, we have been delayed by a number of things during the passage of this Bill through the House but I thought today that to be delayed by the Pig Industry Levy Bill, the Conwy Tunnel Bill and urban renovation, might perhaps lead to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk's, large title of "The Historic Monuments Commission for England". I am delighted now to be back on our own Bill after Third Reading.
We had a good discussion on the meaning of these two words on Report, following which I undertook to consider what might be done. I am happy to tell the noble Baroness that we agree with her view that "conservation" and "preservation" embody concepts which are different and that both concepts should be reflected in the Bill. This follows the remarks of my noble friend Lord Montagu. Unfortunately, this is not a straightforward issue, since to ensure that both concepts are considered appropriately in respect of the commission's specific functions means that we must consider carefully each place in the Bill, and the legislation it amends, in which either word is used. This is a fairly major task and it may well prove in some respects to be even outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a task which we intend to undertake.
There is also a difficulty in that the amendment uses the word "and". This, I believe, defeats the object of the exercise since it requires the commission to undertake both "preservation" and "conservation". Given the concept that conservation is wider than but includes the sense of preservation, this formula would appear to prevent the commission from undertaking preservation only. The wider aspects of conservation, which can include the important issue of how best historic properties can be managed—a point on which my noble friend Lord Sandford spoke eloquently at Report—are essential, but it would be wrong to prevent simple preservation from being undertaken where that is the most appropriate course.
The Government will be looking at this issue in depth to see what can be done. There are practical problems—for example, what are the implications of such a change on the use of the words in the museums part of the Bill? Also, will changes need to cover not only the commission but the wider legislation affecting Scotland and Wales? To achieve the latter would be outside the present scope of the Bill.
We are at one with the noble Baroness in her intention. We shall hope to be able to table amendments in another place to cover this, and in the meantime I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment. She will obviously realise that we are of the same mind.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, as the noble Earl has mentioned my name, may I say how grateful I am that he has undertaken to take aboard the concepts which I mentioned at an earlier stage of the Bill under the general heading of management. I am delighted to hear what he has said in response to this amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his very happy reply. I am delighted that

125
the Government are accepting this argument. I see the semantic and drafting problems, but I do not think they are insurmountable, particularly in the earlier part of the Bill where perhaps one does not need to use both words. I am not sure about the worry concerning the use of the word "and" there, but no doubt the lawyers can nibble away at that. As regards "preservation" and "conservation", as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, pointed out, their meanings are becoming rather different and wider; but on the assurance that this matter will be brought up in another place and a way found to overcome any difficulties, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 17, line 9, leave out ("and")
line 9, at end insert—
("(aa) to promote the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas situated in England, and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 16 together, since they all deal with the same subject, namely the insertion into Clause 30 of specific references to conservation areas. Your Lordships gave considerable support at an earlier stage for the inclusion of conservation areas in Clause 30, and I undertook to look at the possibilities. These amendments are the result, and I hope they will meet the wishes of your Lordships. I quite appreciate that the noble Baroness, in withdrawing her previous amendment, had this particular one in mind. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister is perfectly correct. I did not move my amendment because, following the discussion on Report on the amendment I then moved to bring in conservation, the Government have come forward with their amendment. I am delighted to see it and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 17, line 10, at beginning insert ("subject to their preservation,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this may appear, although I hope it does not, as rather a "nit-picking" amendment. Let me say right away that its object is to secure not only the preservation and conservation of buildings and monuments, but also the promotion of public enjoyment and knowledge of historic buildings and monuments. At Report stage we voted on an amendment that I moved, primarily on the conservation and preservation aspects and, secondly, on enjoyment, promotion and so on. That amendment was rejected by the Government, but as the noble Earl said on Report at col. 563 on 31st January 1983:
"The Government have always made it clear that the commission's first priority is to preserve and protect ancient monuments
126
and historic buildings for future generations. There is no argument about that."
It was really to make that clear beyond doubt, so that the commission would be well aware of their duties over this matter, that "subject to their preservation" has been suggested.
What the amendment seeks to do is to establish a balance where the duties conflict. Certainly I know, from my experience as a Minister in the department, that, with the best will and care in the world, there comes the point where—taking Stonehenge as an example—the volume of visitors forced us to take measures which were neither attractive nor agreeable, in order to save these stones from complete destruction or erosion. That is an extreme example. But all the time there are cases where one has to strike a balance between conservation or preservation and enjoyment.
I use the word "preservation" for two reasons. First, in the context of discussing the two words there is the danger of imminent decay; and, secondly, when I tabled the amendment I was not sure whether the Government would accept the words "and conservation", which, happily, they have now done. So I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
When the Minister replies I wonder whether he could help me over one point about which I have not put down an amendment. The end of paragraph (b) reads "and their preservation". I do not think that that is quite clear. Does it mean to promote the preservation of monuments and buildings, or that the public are to obtain knowledge of preservation? I am wondering whether that could be looked at again, and whether the word "of" should be inserted before the word "their" in line 12, so that the paragraph would end with the words "and of their preservation". This is just a small point, but it might be worth looking at, because different people with whom I have discussed it have interpreted it in different ways, and we must see that statutes are interpreted consistently by everybody. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government take the view that the overall duty is best stated in the form shown in the Bill, without direct primacy being given to either leg of the duty. The duty of preservation deliberately comes first in Clause 30, and the Government's policy that preservation will be the first priority of the commission has been clearly and often stated. The second part of the duty—to promote enjoyment and advance knowledge—includes promoting and advancing the knowledge of preservation. In answer to the noble Baroness I understand that this latter point has not been found by some to be very clear and we are looking to see if some improvement can be made; but the sense of the provision is as I have just stated it.
While preservation is essential, in terms of the continued existence of history and its availability to posterity, the Government would also argue that present benefits must not necessarily be subordinated. The present generation has an equally strong claim to knowledge, as have future generations; except that present generations do not have the right to pursue their claim to the extent of depriving future

127
generations of knowledge and experience. There is, therefore, a balance to be struck.
Examples could help and they come from various countries, since this is, indeed, an international problem. I have in mind the cave paintings at Lascaux in France, which suffered considerably from over-exposure to the public, and the caves have now been closed to protect the paintings. The Parthenon suffers similarly, as do the Horses at St. Mark's in Venice. The Government would argue that it is entirely proper to keep sites such as these open to public view, as long as that is consonant with their preservation, but it would also be proper to restrict their availability where their existence is endangered.
The non-availability of the items themselves to public view does not absolve the authorities of a requirement to educate and inform the present generation about them; indeed, non-availability makes it the more important that information should be available through books, films, lectures, audio visuals or whatever other possibilities technology affords. Much can be done to educate, to the benefit of both present generations and the heritage, without incurring damage to the historic object itself.
The noble Baroness mentioned Stonehenge and the same sort of issue could arise in respect of any over-visited site, including, the Tower of London. The greater the extent to which access to any site is restricted in order to protect it, the more it is incumbent on the authorities to make information available by other means to satisfy public interest and to educate. The Government's policy also envisages that more can be done to interpret and explain history by means of its physical evidence. That policy itself, which coexists with a policy of preservation, is better represented by two equal duties in statute than by a subordinate one.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me for having spoken as some length, but I believe that this is an important issue and one on which many noble Lords may feel concern. I believe that such concern in this case could be misplaced and I hope that, having clarified our views to the noble Baroness, she will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, of course we are grateful to my noble friend for his reply. If I may say so, he said all the right things. But does this not leave us in a slightly awkward situation, because I wonder whether he is also saying that he is totally satisfied with the wording in the Bill. By implication, I think he is saying that he is not necessarily totally satisfied with the wording in the Bill, but nor has he said that he intends to see to it that the Government will introduce satisfactory wording when the Bill goes to another place. We are placed in an unfortunate situation, in that we should not have arrived at this point in this House; we should have been able to deal with it earlier. But we all know why we have arrived where we have.
There are two issues. First, at a previous stage my noble friend pointed out that the way in which the Bill is arranged points up the priorities reasonably satisfactorily, but the second issue is simply the question of the clarity of paragraph (b). I think my
128
noble friend admits that the words that he has used to describe the intentions of the Bill possibly need to be spelled out a little more clearly. The difficulty that we are in is that he has not said, quite categorically, that the Government intend to produce an amendment in another place. If he can do that, then I think that we shall be in a fairly satisfactory position.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat the words which I used at the time. I understand that this latter point has not been found by some to be very clear and we are looking to see if some improvement can be made; but the sense of the provision is as I have just stated it. We are looking to see if we can make some improvement to it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. Taking the last point first, I am glad that, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, he had the opportunity to underline again what he said originally. I am sure that it is not beyond the skill of the lawyers to find a way of making the wording clear. That is essential, and I assume that it will be tackled in another place.
I certainly do not intend to press the amendment. It may be that the whole paragraph will have to be reworded slightly, and that may emphasise the point which I am making about preservation being the first commitment of the commission. I accept what the Minister has said. I quoted what he said on Report and I accept that the Government see the position in this way. I hope that the new commission will do likewise. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.29 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 17, line 14, after ("(4)") insert ("and section (Commission to exercise certain ministerial functions)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to this amendment and Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 together, as they all form part of the same parcel. Amendment No. 7 is a paving amendment, which ensures that all the specific functions in Clause 30 are related to the commission's duty in subsection (1) of that clause. It paves the way for Amendment No. 17, which provides a new clause giving power to the commission to undertake functions of management exercisable by the Secretary of State at ancient monuments or historic buildings or land adjoining them, or in their vicinity, where they are so directed by the Secretary of State.
The management on the Secretary of State's behalf of ancient monuments in the Secretary of State's care has always been seen as a fundamental part of the new commission's role. This was made clear in both the original consultation document and The Way Forward. The Bill at present contains a power to achieve this only in respect of monuments in the Secretary of State's guardianship. There are other categories of monument (those in his ownership, and those under his control and management) which must also be catered for. This amendment provides a power wide enough to cover all these categories and all the Secretary of State's management functions, whether statutory or otherwise. As a result, there is no need for

129
specific provision in respect of guardianship monuments, which is deleted by Amendment No. 44 (hence, I am glad to say, shortening Schedule 4).
The provision is also drafted widely enough to allow the commission to undertake the Secretary of State's management functions in respect of historic buildings. At present, the Secretary of State for the Environment owns the Lyceum, Liverpool, and Gainsborough Old Hall. Until its recent sale, he also owned Heveningham Hall. In such cases it would clearly be convenient for the commission, as the experts, to be able to manage the property for him.
As indicated in subsection (4), it would be wrong for an appointed body such as the commission to have functions of a regulation-making or legislative character. These are therefore expressly excluded.
The importance of the provision and these consequential amendments is appropriately acknowledged in its inclusion as a new main clause in the Bill. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, having indicated now so clearly that they appreciate the need for the concept of management in addition to the concepts of preservation, conservation and promotion of enjoyment, I hope the Government will go one stage further during the passage of the Bill in another place and make quite certain that the concepts of management being applied by this clause, particularly to the ancient monuments which are the direct responsibility of Ministers, can be exercised by influence over the historic buildings which are in private hands.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I raise one question with the noble Earl about Amendment No. 17, the new clause? In casting about to try to find a reason why we have got into the position where we put up with the kind of drafting that we have in the first three schedules, it struck me that it may have originated in the legal doctrine that if you delegate a duty the delegate must not sub-delegate it without authority. Although it may be the origin, that does not excuse the kind of legislation we have in the first three schedules. These are autonomous bodies which we have set up. We are not only telling them what they are and what they have to do but, in prolix and unnecessary detail, we have also gone on to tell them exactly how they should do it and that they may operate, for example, through committees—which is perfectly obvious in the case of an autonomous body. But the new clause, Amendment No. 17, does not create an autonomous body in that sense. The commission is to exercise certain ministerial functions, so it seems to me to be genuinely a delegate. Before the Bill goes to another place perhaps the noble Earl can consider whether or not it would be desirable to provide expressly there a power to sub-delegate. As I say, that point does not excuse the first three schedules, but it may be relevant here.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to raise a further point on Amendment No. 17. In subsection (3) we find a further definition of "ancient monument". A new definition of ancient monument has already been
130
brought before us in Amendment No. 16, to which reference was made by my noble friend Lord Avon when moving Amendment No. 4 and those which go with it. I find it surprising that within the same Bill and so close to each other in the same Bill—in fact, in successive clauses—we should have to have two separate definitions of "ancient monument".
Perhaps I may say in passing—possibly this is a point which I should have taken at an earlier stage of the Bill—that I find it slightly surprising and incongruous that an ancient monument means any building which is of merely architectural interest. It may be wise for us to widen the powers of the commission as much as possible, and I believe that most of us would wish that, but in doing so we should endeavour to ensure that we have got the legislative language right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, so often rightly tells us we should do. It may well be that this is the intention, but let us be sure about it. So far as the wording here is concerned, both the wording in the definition in Amendment No. 16 and the wording in the new clause which we are now considering in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 17, an ancient monument could be of architectural interest even though it was built only last year.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for his remarks, and of course I shall bear in mind what he has said and draw it to the attention of the Minister before the Bill is taken to another place.
In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, perhaps I may say that it has always been fundamental to the concept of the commission that it should carry out on the Secretary of State's behalf the management of the ancient monuments presumably in his care. There are three categories of these; namely, those in his guardianship, those in his ownership and those otherwise under his control or management. The very general formulation of the powers now proposed makes it unnecessary to distinguish specifically between these different categories. Since the Secretary of State's management functions at monuments, other than guardianship ones, are not fully set out in legislation but are carried out under his general ministerial powers, it is necessary to cover these functions whether by virtue of an enactment or otherwise. Because there are certain historic buildings under the Secretary of State's management, it is appropriate to provide for these a power for the transfer of management.
The provisions also constitute a more general enabling power in respect of the transfer of the Secretary of State's management functions at historic buildings, should that be thought appropriate in the future. Legal advice is that a regulation-making power would not be appropriate to an appointed body such as the commission. In the new clause, because the Secretary of State is delegating functions he decides on the actual definition. Clause 30 must be decided on its own particular functions.
I have also noted what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. If I can come back and provide any more information either to the noble and learned Lord or to my noble friend Lord Renton, I shall of course do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("education") and insert ("educational facilities and services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 on behalf of my noble friend and myself. In working on the new Clause 30, which was introduced at the Committee stage, we have at most points been concerned to use terms which would give to the new commission the maximum scope in deciding how to set about its work, assess its aims and purposes and carry out its functions. The terms "to promote the public's enjoyment of" and "advance their knowledge of" are terms which meet those criteria. They are certainly wide enough. Then, when we get down to the way in which they should exercise their functions, in subsection (2), the term "provide instruction and information to the public" is also wide enough to cover the production of guide books, maps, photographs, plans, staging audio-visual productions and so on. We want terms which give the commission the widest possible scope.
However, as I have explained on two previous occasions, we do not get the best results in respect of the word "education" without giving due recognition to the fact that the provision of education is the responsibility of the schools, the teachers, the headmasters, the local education authorities and their advisers. When we are talking about environmental education we are talking about the use of our ancient monuments and historic buildings for educational purposes. That function cannot be pursued to best advantage unless the initiative for what is done, and the construction of it, is in the hands of the education authorities. I do not think anybody has sought to dispute that. I say it with some confidence because I have been president of the Council for Environmental Education, and particularly concerned with heritage education for some 10 years or so.
I am quite certain that it is the establishment of the balance between what is done by the managers and the owners of these properties, which is the provision of educational facilities and services, and the use of those facilities and services by the educators—the teachers, schools, headmasters and advisers—that provides the best results. For that reason I would want to see the functions of this commission defined as I have sought to define them in my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government do not believe that the phrase "educational facilities and services" covers anything more than "education", and indeed we believe it may cover even less. However, I can see no reason why we should not use that formulation if the House so wishes, and in that spirit I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford: moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 17, line 18, leave out (" and information ") and insert (",information and interpretation ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9, which stands in the name of my
132
noble friend and myself. I will not speak to it at any great length because I have spoken to it twice at considerable length already. The terms used in ordinary conversation in respect of the presentation of ancient monuments and historic buildings to the public are not quite those we have had to adopt for the purposes of legislation. The most all-embracing term that can be used is the one adopted by the Government, very properly, in their consultation documents, and speaks of the "presentation" of the ancient monuments and historic buildings to the public. That is a good word, and it is unfortunate that we have not been able to use it.
That word, I submit to your Lordships, then divides, in current practice, into two, one of which is environmental education, which I have just been describing—the use of these buildings for educational purposes, for history or for art, or whatever it might be—and the other is the art of presenting the buildings in an imaginative way to the public (whether they are families, French students or whatever they might be), in a way which brings them alive. Your Lordships have only to cast your minds to the crypt underneath York Minster, or the presentation of the archaeological finds at Huntingdon many years ago. There are a number of examples all over the country of setting a building in its context and indicating its significance in history or in botany, or whatever it may be, rather than just presenting it as a collector's piece. This is what interpretation is all about.
In this context I do not think there is any danger of the word "interpretation" being misunderstood as meaning the turning of something in English into French, or anything like that. Those of us who have been engaged in the business of presenting historic buildings and ancient monuments to the public know perfectly well what "interpretation" means, and would want to see this word added for the sake of precision and clarity. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, we did, of course, discuss this question on Report. Afterwards the Government looked very carefully at what my noble friend Lord Sandford had said, to see if all the things he wanted to encourage and see happening were in fact covered by Clause 30. We concluded that the formulation we had, "educational facilities and services, instruction and information", covered just about everything. Perhaps there seems to be a feeling that because the drafting is dull, what it covers will be dull as well; but I have no doubt the commission will adopt the more imaginative and skilful approach to presentation which is in essence what we are talking about.
I do not think the word "interpretation" will add anything. In legal terms I believe it is vague and has a variety of meanings according to context. In this context it might perhaps best be held to mean the presentation of information in a lively way which makes the subject-matter come alive for the audience. This activity is already covered and I do not believe we can impose a lively approach by means of drafting. This is not a very major point, but having said what I have to say I leave it to my noble friend to see whether or not he wishes to press the amendment.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am sorry I have not convinced him, but let us see how the House feels.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12:
Page 17,1ine 20, after ("England") insert (", and in relation to conservation areas situated in England").
line 22, leave out ("and historic buildings") and insert (", historic buildings and conservation areas")
line 26, leave out ("and historic buildings") and insert (", historic buildings and conservation areas").
The noble Earl said; My Lords, I spoke to these three amendments in dealing with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 17, line 27, at end insert—
("(d) may, for the purpose of exercising their functions, make and maintain records in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 on behalf of my noble friend and myself. This, too, is a topic which we have discussed at the last two stages, and I do not need to go over the arguments again. For my part, I was convinced that to put this function of recording, making and maintaining records into the first subsection of Clause 30 would be a mistake. It ought to be limited in the sense which it would be limited if it was formulated as I have formulated it and put in subsection (2), where the function of making and maintaining records is limited to the purpose of exercising the functions of this commission. That would in no sense be in competition, duplication or confusion with anyone else who is keeping and maintaining records. I am satisfied that it is necessary for them to have this function to exercise in a limited number of cases, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be similarly convinced. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment would give the commission the function of making and maintaining records. There is little doubt that such record-making will form an ancillary part of its executive functions, so purely on its merits the amendment has something to commend it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 18, line 20, at end insert—
("(5A) The Commission may form, hold interests in, and exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in, a body corporate having as its main objects—

(a) the sale to the public of guide books and literature, relating to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England, and of souvenirs, and

(b) the provision of catering or other facilities for the public at or in ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England,

but this subsection is without prejudice to any power of the Commission to undertake anything mentioned in paragraph (a)
134
or (b) by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section.").
line 34, leave out ("and (2)") and insert (", (2) and (5A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to, and move, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 together. On Report I promised to bring forward on Third Reading an amendment to enable the commission to set up a trading subsidiary. This amendment fulfils that promise. It provides that the commission will be able to establish and hold interests in a body corporate whose main objects are to undertake trading activities in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings in England. The activities included are the sale of guide books and other literature, souvenirs, and the provision of catering and other facilities. This seems to the Government to provide sufficiently wide cover for all the trading activities the commission might reasonably wish to undertake without going outside what is appropriate. Amendment No. 15 applies to this section the definition of "ancient monument" and "historic building" set out in subsection (8) of Clause 30. I understand that the question of films has been raised and I am told that these would also be incorporated.
This power will give the commission flexibility when it decides how to organise its functions. It will also, because the commission will of course be treated as a charity for tax purposes, enable the profits of trading to be convenanted to the commission, thus ensuring their exemption from tax. I believe that this is a sensible and appropriate power and it is one that I hope will receive wide support. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I warmly welcome this amendment. As someone who has been involved in showing houses to the public for 30 years, I can assure your Lordships that a souvenir and a good cup of tea are very much a part of a day out, and it is the day out that the new commission will be selling to the British public.
I am delighted to hear that the profits are to be retained and used by the commission for its future work. So I very much welcome this trading company, as I believe it will be a very important arm of the commission in doing its work properly.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I also welcome this amendment, particularly the trading aspects of it and the fact that the commission can keep the receipts.
There is a slight worry, and that is the problem that arises when one starts to spell out all these things—guidebooks, literature, and so on. The Minister said that he understands that this includes films. Does it, in fact, include maps and does "souvenirs" cover everything else? I should have thought that it would be better to have an umbrella phrase such as "any objects or services connected with tourism", or something like that, so that there would be no doubt as to whether something was contrary to the Act and whether the commission could trade in it.
There is a second point. For instance, if the commission is able to produce or have published extremely good, as one hopes, guidebooks, postcards, and so on, will it be enabled to sell them through bookshops in the vicinity or through other shops and trading outlets

135
which could be important to it? I take it that the provision of catering and other facilities does include direct catering or being able to farm that out as well.
I have not had time to think of an amendment to this effect, but this is the first sight we have had of the provision, and, while I am sure we all very much welcome the basic side of it and what it is doing, I wonder whether the amendment needs further consideration to make sure that there is no doubt and to see whether it could be widened, without necessarily being specific, so that questions are not raised.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said. I have been following her remarks, and I understand that everything she said is covered. However, of course we shall look at it again to see whether there is anything more comprehensive we can do. We believe this is a far-reaching clause that covers everything mentioned this afternoon.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, this is indeed a welcome amendment and it seems to me at first sight that it will enable the new commission to move beyond the position which pertains at the moment at many of the ancient monument sites where the only books and literature available are those either relating to the site itself or other properties in the direct care of the department.
If this amendment means, as I hope it does, that the commission will be able to purvey other books relating to historic monuments—for example, the National Trust, churches or cathedrals—this will be very welcome, because the idea of mutually supporting local publicity between categories of churches—some in private ownership, some in local authority ownership and some in the ownership of the commission—is very much to be desired. Can the noble Lord, with the leave of the House, which I am sure will be forthcoming, make it clear that that is so and that my understanding is correct?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I again say that I think everything my noble friend has said will be covered and if by any chance that is not so I shall, of course, let him know.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 18, line 34, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 38 and insert ("—
"ancient monument" means any structure, work, site, garden or area which in the Commission's opinion is of historic, architectural or archaeological interest;
"conservation area" means an area designated as a conservation area under section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;
"historic building" means any building which in the Commission's opinion is of historic or architectural interest.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
Commission to exercise certain ministerial functions
(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to—

(a) functions of management exercisable by the Secretary of State for the Environment (whether by virtue of an
136
enactment or otherwise) in relation to any ancient monument or historic building situated in England;

(b) functions of management exercisable by the Secretary of State for the Environment (whether by virtue of an enactment or otherwise), for purposes connected with such a monument or building, in relation to any land which is situated in England and which adjoins or is in the vicinity of the monument or building.

(2) If the Secretary of State for the Environment directs the Commission to exercise functions to which this section applies and which are specified in the direction, in relation to any monument, building or land so specified, the Commission shall exercise them on his behalf in such manner as he may from time to time direct.
(3) In subsection (1) "ancient monument" means any structure, work, site, garden or area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Environment is of historic, architectural or archaeological interest and "historic buliding" means any building which in his opinion is of historic or architectural interest.
(4) This section does not apply to—

(a) a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character;

(b) a function exercisable in relation to any royal palace or land adjoining it or in its vicinity.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 30 insert the following new clause:
The Commission: listed building and scheduled monument consents.
(" .—(1) Subject to the following subsections of this section the Commission may carry out any work which would otherwise be premissible only under a listed building or scheduled monument consent without obtaining such a consent.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) shall apply where the Commission proposes to carry out works—

(a) involving a listed building graded "Grade I" of "II"; or

(b) which consist of the restoration (as distinct from repair or conservation of), alteration or demolition of a scheduled monument or the construction of any new building in the setting of such a monument.

(3) Where subsection (2) applies the Commission shall give notice of the proposed works and provide details thereof to the local planning authority and such national or local bodies and persons as the Secretary of State may direct and such direction may be by classes or otherwise and may be amended.
(4) Where within 21 days of any such notification a representation is made to the Secretary of State urging that the proposed works should not be proceeded with except after the obtaining of listed building or scheduled monument consent, he shall direct the Commission not to proceed with the proposed words until he has given consideration to that representation and thereafter he may direct that application is made direct to him for listed building or scheduled monument consent (notwithstanding all other provisions) rather than that the works are proceeded with without such consent.
(5) Notwithstanding any provision in subsections (1) to (4) the Secretary of State may direct that those subsections are not to apply to any particular work to any building or monument in the ownership, guardianship, management or care of the Commission and that no other provision in any enactment shall be taken as enabling the Commission to proceed with it without first obtaining a listed building or scheduled monument consent direct from him for that work.
(6) Where the Secretary of State has directed under this section that an application for listed building or scheduled monument consent is made to him for his own determination he shall afford to the Commission, and to any other person to whom it appears to the Secretary of State expedient to afford it, an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment derives from two that were tabled on Report. I think they were numbered 136 and 140, but only Amendment No. 140 was moved. It was debated very briefly because, as usual, it was called late at night. Neither of the amendments was tabled in Committee.

137
The essence of this amendment is contained in the legal tag quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and it is very important. With the department looking after the monuments the Secretary of State is always there to take responsibility for what his departmental officials do. Therefore, if there is an outbreak of over-zealousness where, say, the gold is being gilded too often and too much round the palaces and other places, or if things have been underdone or neglected where something ought to be conserved, then the chances are that the Secretary of State will certainly get a number of letters and other pressure, and even Parliament can be involved. This has always acted as a check. I would add hastily that it is not always perfect and it means that many matters do slip through the net. However, there is that responsibility.
With the commission being brought in to do the work the situation will be quite different. As the Minister has repeated throughout our deliberations on the Bill, the commission are not elected: they are only appointed, and therefore they are not directly accountable in the same way as a Secretary of State is accountable. It will be difficult to probe their activities by way of parliamentary Questions. I should think that the only weapon left will be the inevitable letter to The Times.
Again, as the Minister said when Amendment No. 140 was debated on Report, the commission should be trusted and allowed to get on with the job that they are given. Somehow, the conflict between the need to monitor the commission's activities lest they become over-zealous in their restoration work and yet not fetter this highly expert and responsible body, has to be solved, and that is what the amendment sets out to do. Subsection (1) establishes that in general the commission would not need scheduled monument and listed building consents, on which the position is far from clear at the moment. However, in certain narrow classes of work the commission's activities should be monitored, and they are defined in subsection (2).
The commission would keep the local authorities, and just a few of the learned and amenity societies concerned, informed of their intentions in these narrow classes, and the Secretary of State would then be able to direct which of them should be told so that the matter is kept in perspective. If such responsible people take exception to the commission's proposals, then obviously the Secretary of State has the power to say, "Stop", while he looks at the proposals. At that stage the commission may have second thoughts or better information, and discussion may resolve the difficulty. But if the Secretary of State is still left worried, then he can call a public inquiry and deal with the dispute properly. The Secretary of State should in this case have the opportunity to say that the dispute should go to public inquiry and cut through all arguments on interpretation. All that is provided for under the amendment.
Returning to the existing legal position, do the commission need scheduled monument and listed building consents? Do they need planning consents? The situation is still far from clear. If listed building consents are needed, it seems to me a bit of a nonsense that they have to be obtained from the local authority
138
and that the commission will advise the Secretary of State on their own applications when they are referred upwards to him under the present procedures. It seemed at first sight that because the commission is not a Crown body it would need scheduled monument consents. But now it turns out that such consents are not needed on monuments in guardianship. In any event, because the Secretary of State pays, it might be said that everything the commission do they do for him and, therefore, no consents or even planning consents are needed. This explains to a certain extent the amount of confusion in which this whole area is left. There are some amendments that I shall be moving later which deal with the same point—that is, what is the responsibility, and what should be the responsibility, of the commission and the residual responsibility of the Secretary of State?
The important point is for the Government to accept that there should be a monitoring system. That accepted, it will have to be worked out in another place if the one set out in this amendment is not correct, but at least they now have notice of the matter and, as I have said, it is something that needs to be worked out. Otherwise, what will happen—as I have said previously on other amendments, in Committee and on Report—is that this large staff will go over to the commission. The Secretary of State has said that there will be a cut in civil servants of something like 3,000 because I understand that at least a thousand will be going over to the commission. It will mean keeping a duplicate staff in the department. Everybody will be doubling on the same job.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said many times in a different context on different parts of the Bill, if one sets up a body like this, one either gives it freedom to act or there is no point in us all going to the great trouble and expense that will be involved in setting up a separate body. At some point we will have to grapple with this very difficult nettle. Because of the difficulties that we have encountered throughout the Bill, maybe it cannot be done at this stage, but we would like to feel that it is something that the Government appreciate. If the Minister were to jump up immediately and say that my amendment was totally acceptable, I would not have to say anything more about it. But if it is not acceptable in its present form, then we certainly hope that it will be looked at sand perhaps brought forward in another place. I beg to move.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Baroness with a few words as regards subsection (2), which refers to subsections (3) and (4). As chairman of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and of the Joint Committee of the Amenity Societies—the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society and the Ancient Monuments Society—I could not feel more strongly about the importance of the commission giving notice of proposed works and details thereof to the local planning authority and to the national and local amenity societies. That is the whole link between the amenity world and in my view it is essential.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not think it unkind of me if I describe this as a more restrained version of amendments

139
which the noble Baroness withdrew on Report. In fact, in her introduction I think that she more or less said the same thing. I appreciate the obvious care with which the remarks on the issue have been studied. The amendment seeks both to provide the commission with a general exemption from the need to obtain scheduled monument consent or listed building consent, while at the same time placing statutory consultation restrictions on the commission. I shall try and set the mind of the noble Baroness at rest.
On the first point, it might be of interest to the House if I explain that broadly, under the Bill as it stands, the commission will not be required to seek scheduled monument consent or listed building consent except for monuments or buildings in their own ownership. This, as the House will appreciate, would not be a large category within the commission's responsibilities. In the case of scheduled monuments it is likely that a class consent would be given to cover this small category. In the case of listed building consent, the Government's view is that the commission are unlikely to own many listed buildings outside any revolving fund they establish, and that in the circumstances of a revolving fund it is appropriate that listed building consent be sought in the normal way.
The second point of the amendment, even though more muted than before, is that the commission—that is to say, the experts—should not be trusted to look after the properties in their care without the Secretary of State's permission. That seems a strange thing for us to agree to. It would, I think, be strange if the commission were shackled in this way in respect of scheduled monument consent when local authorities, in respect of monuments in their guardianship, are not. More fundamentally, the requirement placed on the Secretary of State to judge the proposals of his advisers must inevitably require that he has his own set of experts to advise on the advice of the expert advisers. Such enforced duplication of functions is something that so far I think all of us have sought to avoid.
I believe this amendment would be counter-productive and that it reflects on the new commission in a way that could not be of any help to the way in which the House is trying to set it up. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, and if I have not reassured her in any way then of course I shall come back to her later. But I hope that what I have said will reassure her enough not to press the amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not have any intention of pressing the amendment. The Minister was right: I was trying to find a more acceptable version than the one that was moved on Report. I am not totally convinced that this one is absolutely right. But I think the Minister appreciates that we are trying to get the balance between the commission having as much freedom as they can and at the same time having the long stop—upon which the Minister and the Government are insisting all the time—of accountability to the Secretary of State. It is difficult, but I think we have pointed out throughout the Bill that this is one of the very large problems with which we have to grapple.
As the matter has now had a further airing—and the
140
Minister did say that if I was not satisfied he would see me later about it; I do not know whether we are to have an extra stage on the Bill—it does not seem to me that there is very much more we in this House can do on it. What is important is the principle behind this matter. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Duke, who is so closely involved in groups, societies and areas where this is of great importance. At this stage I should simply like to think that the Government will look at the whole principle to see how this balancing trick and conflict can be resolved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("National Monuments Record.
.—(1) The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the future of the National Monuments Record.
(2) The Secretary of State shall present a report to each House of Parliament on the said consultations and Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for changes in the said Royal Commission's responsibilities.
(3) An Order under this section may contain such incidental consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.
(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5) The consultations referred to in subsection (1) above shall take place within twelve months from the date when section 29 comes into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I make no apology to the House for raising this matter again, although I should like to say that these amendments certainly do not in any way imply criticism of the past work of the Royal Commission, which many of us very much admire. I move this amendment for two reasons: first, to continue to express the concern that many people feel with regard to the future as to how co-operation between the Royal Commission and the new commission will work; secondly, and more importantly, to give the Government an opportunity to make a statement on this subject, because I think there has been a certain lack of resolution and decision by the Government on this. In fact, we were promised a statement at a later stage, and I am sure that we shall be getting one in a few moments.
This amendment does not seek to abolish the Royal Commission, but it goes very much to the heart of the matter—the future of the National Monuments Record; for it is the easy access to it which has to be assured for the new commission, whatever might happen to the Royal Commission itself. Since the Report stage the debate has been usefully and publicly advised by a letter in The Times by Mr. Cecil Farthing. Indeed, it was he who was responsible for the National Monuments Record until only seven years ago, and, therefore, his warnings are certainly to be heeded. Mr. Farthing makes it clear that the ownership of the material in the National Monuments Record in fact lies with the Treasury Solicitor rather than with the Royal Commission itself. Therefore, it turns out that

141
the commission is only entrusted with its administration at the moment.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I stopped there and gave the Government Front Bench an opportunity to express Government policy, and then, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can say a few words later. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment moved by my noble friend seeks to require the Secretary of State, the commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments to consult together about the future of the National Monuments Record. If I may, like my noble friend I shall say a few words about the substance of the amendment in a moment, but I am conscious that at the Report stage I undertook to make a statement about the future of the Royal Commission as a whole, on which the Government had at that stage not taken a view. With your Lordships' leave, this amendment gives me the opportunity to make that statement.
I have said before that the Government have found the question of the future of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments a difficult one, and one where there are arguments on both sides. The discussions in this House at the various stages of the Bill, and in particular the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, have been helpful and constructive. It would be fair to say that the balance of opinion in the House has not been in favour of any immediate action to wind up the Royal Commission. There has, however, been concern about the future, and about the relationship between the Royal Commission and the new commission when the latter is set up.
The Government have thought carefully about these matters, bearing in mind the major scholarly contribution made by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments over the 75 years since its establishment. The Government have decided firmly not to incorporate the Royal Commission in the new commission. In the light of that decision, they have also decided that it would be wrong to include in the Bill any enabling power for future incorporation of the Royal Commission; that matter should be considered at the due time if it were felt in the future to be appropriate.
As to provisions about relationships, I am confident that there will be a dialogue between the Royal Commission and the new commission about relationships and working methods as soon as people are appointed who can speak for the commission, in much the same way as there are frequent exchanges of ideas and information between the department and the Royal Commission at the moment. The Government have noted the Royal Commission's very constructive approach to this as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, and in the light of this they do not believe that any statutory provision is necessary or justified. The Government hope, however, that whatever working arrangements are established will be suitably made known to other bodies who need to know them.
The Government consider that there is nothing here to restrict access to the National Monuments Record. It will be there to be used by the staff of the commission just as it is used by the staff of the
142
department—and, indeed, the general public—at the moment. Further, I understand that modern information technology should progressively make access to the National Monuments Record more and more straightforward, with greater facility, speed of reproduction and, if need be, transmission of material. I am sure this will figure largely in the discussion between the two bodies.
As regards the amendment, I believe that what I have said overtakes the need for such a provision. In any case, I firmly believe it would be wrong to discuss the National Monuments Record separately given the continued existence of the Royal Commission. I am sure the House will recognise the excellent work done by the Royal Commission, and will welcome its continuation; and I hope it will be content to leave these matters for further discussion when the time comes.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, I intervene in this debate in order to welcome the decision which has just been announced by the noble Earl, Lord Avon. First, I welcome it as a decision in itself which ends a long time of uncertainty and anxiety for the staff of the Royal Commission. Secondly, I welcome it because it is the right one; at least, that is what the commissioners think. As I have told your Lordships, they have been unanimous in their opinion throughout.
The former Secretary of State for the Environment assured us that the future of the Royal Commission would be decided in the best interests of the heritage. We are happy to know that that is now being done. Perhaps I may add that both commissioners and staff appreciate the extent to which their work is valued as expressed time and again in your Lordships' debate. This is a great encouragement and it will be a stimulus to their future efforts.
My commissioners have always maintained a strict neutrality on the Secretary of State's general proposals. It seemed to them that, as commissioners appointed by the Crown for one special purpose, it was not for them to comment in that capacity on how the Secretary of State chooses to carry out his statutory functions with regard to ancient monuments and historic buildings. Their main concern, as part of the execution of their warrant, is and will continue to be to co-operate appropriately with whatever executive structure he establishes to carry out his responsibilities.
Of course, individually and collectively, commissioners, like many other people, have had reservations about the proposalss, especially when they were supported only by the original consultative document on reorganisation some time late in 1981. Some of our reservations were passed on to the Secretary of State, but in both our formal letters to him—one supported by considerable detail on practical matters which we envisage arising once the new body is in being—our emphasis was on co-operation with any new arrangements. That remains our position. Clearly we shall all be happier with these arrangements following their informed attention and significant revision in this House. I am therefore

143
content to support the Bill in the form in which it is finally emerging from our considerations in this Chamber.
On this matter of co-operation, may I emphasise my commissioners' positive wish to be helpful in the new circumstances. Suggestions we have already made include the high level one that the Royal Commission might be useful to the Secretary of State, on occasion, in an advisory role on particularly complex matters where perhaps his new body might be too involved as executive and advocate to maintain the detachment which that sort of occasion requires. In the same way Royal commissioners might well from time to time take one of those longer-term looks for the Secretary of State at some special aspect of the heritage which his daily management body might be too close to tackle.
At the other, more practical, end of the co-operative scale we proposed to the Secretary of State a year ago that the Royal Commission would be willing to accept the responsibility for the records and publication of those unpublished State-aided rescue excavations which were conducted before, say, 1972. This suggestion was prompted by a wish to help. We thought we could relieve the new body of what would otherwise be a somewhat burdensome part of its inheritance.
One of the Royal Commission's strengths in such thoughts about the future is of course the National Monuments Record, to which the noble Lord has just referred. We spoke of this earlier in the debate but I wish now to turn to the specific fears that have already been voiced on the subject. Essentially the concern is about access to the information and records kept in the National Monuments Record. The commissioners' policy and, so far as is practicable, their practice is to make the consents of the National Monuments Record as freely available as possible to whoever needs access.
As with any collections, of course, there are constraints: in the nature of some material, which can make it desirable to minimise the amount of handlings; in the security aspects of some of our air photographs, for example; also questions of manpower and space which do not allow us to do the job as conveniently as we would always wish. Nevertheless, we are positively encouraging greater use of the National Monuments Record. A current series of picture books, for example, is being produced precisely to this end. And we are trying to improve the service to at least some of our customers. For example, by computerising the index to the air photographic collection, which should be of especial help to conservation and planning officers in local authorities; by holding on microfiche all reports done for the Ancient Monuments Laboratory, and copies of original records from recent major Department of Environment-funded rescue excavations such as those in York, Cirencester, and in the City of London. Also by offering to acquire the best possible copying machine to be dedicated specifically to the needs of the Historic Buildings Council.
Such details, particularly the technological ones, may be tedious, but they are in fact basic to an understanding of how the National Monuments Record works, and to set at rest the quite groundless
144
fears about the consequences of a possible physical separation between the new agency and the National Monuments Record. We discussed this at the Report stage without any mention of the key to the future operation of any databank such as the NMR. That key is "information technology". I am assured that, within the timescale we must be thinking of here, which is the next few years, the physical location of the National Monuments Record with its original material will cease to be crucial. Conversely, the location of other bodies and their staff wishing to use NMR information will not need to be close to the NMR headquarters. By computer, word processor, tape, disc, microfiche, and photographic printout facilities, digitised cartography and other wizardry, the NMR can in fact be dispersed and disseminated.
We have already discussed with some counties the idea of their holding locally on microfiche a complete set of the National Monuments Record historic building photographs for that county. We are at the moment discussing with the County Archaeologists' Association ways and means of information flow once the National Archaeological Record is solely our responsibility in six weeks' time. We are ourselves splitting the National Monuments Record between London and Southampton from then onwards, and we do not envisage that physical separation of itself causing any great problems. Many of our likely problems, though on a larger scale, have already been solved in the British Library, whose goodwill we have. The necessary developments will of course take a little time and patience, and some money. The first phase of computerising the accessions to the National Monuments Record, now in hand, is to cost only tens, not hundreds, of thousands of pounds.
I understand absolutely the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her friends. If they expect the architectural section of the National Monuments Record to be run exclusively for their benefit, then of course they will be in for some disappointment. But if they are content, whatever their new guise, to continue as our most favoured customers, with a special relationship, then we shall do our best to serve them. And if perchance they are geographically moved away, or we from them, by then they could probably have their own set of National Monuments Record photographs on fiche and their own facilities to print out as required. That would certainly be our intention. Nor would the preparation of such duplicates cause unnecessary duplication in any derogatory sense, for we, as custodians of the National Monuments Record, need to copy much of the material in any event for security purposes.
Now, however, we shall have to be particularly careful that no duplication arises as a result of Amendment No. 13 which has just been accepted by the House. I am sure that the new body will keep to the spirit as well as to the letter of that amendment. Finally, I would wish to make one firm commitment. We all know that there is much still to be discussed, especially between the new body and the Royal Commission, and between both and local authorities. So far as we are concerned, consultation can start tomorrow. Indeed, on some issues, it has already begun. Once relationships have been established, responsibilities defined, and working practices agreed,

145
it is vital that the results of the consultations be made public. How this is done need not concern us at the moment, but I wish to commit the Royal Commission to consultation and publication of the results of the consultation.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I have been urging the Government by a series of amendments throughout every stage of the Bill to come to a decision on this matter before the Bill leaves us. I am relieved they have managed to do so on the very last day, and I thank my noble friend Lord Avon for having achieved that. The staff of the Royal Commission must be immensely relieved also. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, for having, first, welcomed the decision and, then, gone on to spell out in such comprehensive detail exactly how the Royal Commission are to set about their work and how they see the important and fascinating business of working out the relationships between themselves and the new commission and between the new commission and the local authorities.
I welcome very much everything the Minister said, but particularly his last remarks—which were endorsed so wholeheartedly by the noble Lord, Lord Adeane—in recognising that at an appropriate and not too far distant moment the detailed working relationships between the two bodies must be made public. As a general rule, I think it is wrong for us legislators to rely on assurances from Ministers or anybody else about what will happen in relation to a Bill; we want, generally speaking, to get it in the Bill. However, in this case it is not necessary to require that. The assurance given by my noble friend and by Lord Adeane is more than adequate.
Nevertheless, we look forward very much to full publication in due course of the working relationships established between the new commission, the Royal Commission and the local authorities. That is what we want to strive for, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having set the scene for that to happen.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, having had something to say at earlier stages about this issue, I wish to say now how much I welcome the clear and straightforward statement which the Minister made. Given that statement, and the undertakings which the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, made, I hope it will be possible to withdraw the amendment.
My interest in this hitherto has been the fact that the Royal Commission is a body about which nobody has advanced any criticism whatever. What has rather irritated me has been the way in which so many have begun by saying, "We have no criticism to make of it", and have then proceeded to move an amendment which would take away the core of the work of the Royal Commission. When I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, I recalled someone telling me many years ago that a camel was a horse designed by a committee. There seems about those who support the amendment something of that sort; they must somehow bring all the other organisations into some amorphous central body.
When we have an organisation with a professional zeal, to which everyone has paid tribute, whose
146
technical competence is acknowledged and whose forward planning (as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Adeane) cannot be criticised, I should have thought the best thing would be to leave them alone and let them get on together as civilised, professional people tend to do. I hope therefore, given the Minister's statement, that it will be possible for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have listened carefully to everything that has been said in debating the amendment, including the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, who stopped in midstream, as it were, in moving the amendment, the statement of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, and my noble friend Lord Beswick—and I am sorry if I have irritated my noble friend in dealing with this issue. The situation is, I would say, very much clearer now that the Government have spoken forth on it.
As for the National Monuments Record—that point has been plucked out of the amendment—it really all boils down to the practical side of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Adeane, referred to me and to others who were anxious that there should be access to the National Monuments Record and that that was the reason, so to speak, for tearing it away from the Royal Commission. I should have thought, in view of the need to have this access, that that has been the practical reason for it all so far as the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board are concerned.
The Minister said about that, "As soon as people can speak to the commission". That is one of the troubles; we do not know who will be on the commission, if it is set up, and we do not know who will be the chairperson and where it will be located. What is really needed from the Government is an assurance either that the commission, when it is set up, will be under the same roof as it is now or located geographically near the National Monuments Record, or, if it must set up its own procedures and machinery to do it, it will have sufficient finance to do that. That is really what it is all about.
I do not think anybody wants to disturb unnecessarily the Royal Commission; it is really this problem of the valuable services given by the National Monuments Record to which the commission will want to be sure it has access. In other words, it is the logistics of the matter which present the problem. If the Government would give an undertaking on that, then, while I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Montagu—although he moved the amendment, we have our names to it—I should be content to leave it like that.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has been slightly sidetracked off the amendment. However, if she would like me to undertake once again that which I have done on previous occasions—and assure her that the Government do wish to set up the new commission with every single advantage, and will certainly make sure that they have adequate funds to have computers and the like—then I reassure her on that, though I think that is probably slightly wide of the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I too wish to say at the outset how delighted I was to hear at long last a firm statement from the government on this matter. If the previous amendments have in some way implied a sentence of death on the Royal Commission, I would only say that that has certainly concentrated their minds, and I think that has been an extremely good exercise. The excellent statement by the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, will go a long way to satisfy many people who have been worried about the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, thought they did a wonderful job. That is indeed so, but the status quo is not always right to continue with, and there was deep concern in the council and local government that perhaps in the future they would not be in a position to do such a good job with the new commission. However, I am delighted to hear that consultations will now take place at a formal level and that they will be published. In fact, that is almost all the amendment seeks to do. As that will now happen, and as we have had a comprehensive statement from Lord Adeane on how he sees the future, that will go a long way to quieten the anxieties of many people. I do not think the Royal Commission have anything to hide or that that is the reason for their not wishing the amendment to be accepted. Having listened to the Government's statement and the statement of Lord Adeane, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The Boards]:
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22:
Page 23, line 12, leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert ("enable disabled members of the public to use any services or facilities provided by the Board.").
Page 26, line 18, at end insert—
("(3A) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to enable disabled members of the public to use any services or facilities provided by the Board.").
Page 30, line 11, leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert ("enable disabled members of the public to use any services or facilities provided by the Board.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I suggest it would be convenient to discuss, with this group of amendments, No. 27. They seek to fulfil the commitment I gave on Report that each institution should be under an obligation to include in its report a statement of actions it had taken on behalf of disabled people to promote its facilities and activities. We have reconsidered the draft amendments which were proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Winstanley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. As the House will recall, we wished to consider whether further amendments might be necessary. We now offer our own in substitution, which I hope the House will be happy to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for fulfilling his pledge at a previous stage by bringing forward these amendments. I am sure they improve the Bill.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 26:
Page 33, line 4, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Minister")
line 22, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Minister")
line 26, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Minister")
line 28, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Minister").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26, These are editing amendments, the effect of which is to make the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, rather than the Secretary of State, responsible for certain functions and responsibilities relating to allowances payable to the Kew board, I hope your Lordships will agree to these amendments. I beg to move the four amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 34, line 10, leave out from ("to") to end of line 11 and insert ("enable disabled members of the public to use any services or facilities provided by the Board.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Commission.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 40, line 1, leave out ("The") and insert ("Each").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a minor and, I believe, self-explanatory amendment which makes a small drafting change. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 40, line 4, leave out from ("Commission") to ("disabled") and insert ("to promote the enjoyment of ancient monuments and historic buidings by").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make what we believe is an improvement to the drafting of the amendment accepted on Report requiring the commission to make a statement in its annual report about action taken to help disabled people. We have already discussed similar amendments relating to the trustee institution in the Bill. The wording of this amendment is slightly different, to reflect the fact that much of the wide range of the commission's activities is not related to the public at all. I hope the House will agree, however, that this revised wording captures the spirit and intention of the original purpose rather better. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think this is a great improvement on the original wording in the Bill and support it entirely.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Commission: amendments].
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 43, line 21, leave out ("control or management") and insert ("management or in their custody")
(Page 43, line 24, at end insert—
"(aa) a building of which the Commission are guardian under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979; or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 together. These are concerned with the buildings with which the commission can acquire or accept historically appropriate objects. As it stands at present, it can do this for buildings vested in it or under its control or management. Amendment No. 30 changes this phrase to "under their management or in their custody", which we feel more accurately reflects the commission's powers and role.
Amendment No. 31 adds a third category of building, those which are in the guardianship of the commission. This will give the commission the same powers that the Secretary of State already has. We spoke to this at some length, I believe, at Report stage and we hope the House will appreciate these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 43, line 45, at end insert ("or

(c) objects of its kind were produced or used in a period falling within the lifetime of the building; or

(d) the Commission are of opinion that it would for some other reason be historically appropriate to keep it in the building.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, there was considerable pressure at Report for a widening of the definition of the kinds of objects that the commission can acquire or accept as gifts for its own or the National Trust properties. This amendment is the Government's attempt to increase the scope of the commission's acquisition powers. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as I think I moved the amendment on Report to try to produce this result, I am extremely grateful and welcome this amendment very much, particularly paragraph (d) which takes up a point which many of us were concerned about, the object being such that it was,
"historically appropriate to keep it in the building."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.47 p.m.
The Duke of Grafton The Duke of Grafton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 44, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

("(a) buildings which are situated in England and which appear to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest together with any land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto; and

(b) land which is situated in England and which comprises a garden or other land which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic interest.").

The noble Duke said: My Lords, My noble friend Lord Gibson, who has tabled this amendment, regrets very much that he is unable to be present to move it,
150
so I am doing it on his behalf, particularly so since it is an amendment of some concern to the National Trust, of which he is the chairman, and to the executive committee, on which I have sat for many years myself. My noble friend has also tabled Amendment No. 34 and I think perhaps the two may be conveniently debated together.
This amendment has been tabled again because study of the response to Amendments Nos. 117 and 119 on Report has revealed unsolved difficulties. The same goes for Amendment No. 34. Both sections 5B and the section which it mimics, Section 6 in the 1953 Act, allow grants to be made to the National Trust to assist it with its purchases of outstanding buildings, but not of land, be it adjacent or consisting of an outstanding garden in isolation from an outstanding building. One thinks at once of Studley Royal, that wonderful garden in Yorkshire.
It is really not good enough to have to rely on the Countryside Commission for grants outside its remit, as would be the case with land intimately associated with a building. The commission is to be much involved with entities of outstanding buildings, each plus its historically associated contents and adjoining land, that which makes the buildings a setting. It really seems most sensible to extend the commission's grant-giving powers that far. The commission is also empowered to give grants for the upkeep of gardens and other land of outstanding historic interest that are in isolation. Section 3A covers that. Again, this is not the remit of the Countryside Commission but of the new commission, so in logic its powers under Section 5A surely should be extended likewise.
While these two amendments relate strictly to the National Trust, there are others which have not been tabled this time which also have something or other lacking in them when one looks at the remit of the commission to deal with entities, plus outstanding land in isolation, always from the historic viewpoint. It simply is not good enough to rely on the Countryside Commission, which has many other obligations and interests. It would seem best throughout to give this commission powers on outstanding gardens equivalent to those in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments seek to add to the items whose acquisition by the National Trust can be grant-aided. The Government recognise the force of the case made that the acquisition of a building inevitably includes the land associated with it and it is right that grant should cover this too. We shall seek to bring forward an amendment in another place which clarifies the commission's powers in this way. My noble friend's amendments go on, however, to extend the functions of the commission to include grant aiding the acquisition of gardens and other land by the National Trust. The Government have, at various stages of this Bill, sought to indicate that with the best will in the world the resources of a new commission will, of course, be limited. The Government believe that these resources should not be spread too thinly. The acquisition of land by the National Trust can at present be grant aided in appropriate circumstances by the Countryside

151
Commission and by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The Government believe that this is sufficient.
Amendment No. 34, to which my noble friend has also spoken, seeks to apply the same powers to the Secretary of State in respect of Scotland and Wales. While the arguments of principle are the same, the House will understand that the amendment falls outside the Long Title of the Bill. We will therefore wish to consider carefully whether any action might be taken on the first of the amendments. In the light of the two assurances that I have given—first, to include associated land in the commission's grant-making power; and, secondly, to consider the position of Scotland and Wales, in consultation with my colleagues there—I hope that my noble friend will agree at this stage not to press his amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Duke, the Duke of Grafton, decides whether or not to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may add a few words of support to what has been said by him. The noble Earl the Minister has said that he accepts the underlying principle, that he will take it further, and that perhaps amendments along these lines will be made in another place. But if the noble Earl the Minister is to think further about these matters, perhaps it will be helpful if I say a little more about the background to the problem. It appeared that the Minister seemed to suggest that with the two amendments we were almost producing a belt and braces situation, in which there was an overlap where perhaps the National Trust or some other landowner could be in a position to seek grants from two different bodies. If there is an overlap, so be it; why not? What is very important is that we should not have a gap; and it is on that point I want to say a few more words, so that perhaps the noble Earl the Minister can consider it when he takes the matter further.
As I see it, the present position—as it has always been—is that the Countryside Commission, certainly during my period of years of close association with it as its chairman, invariably did what it could to interpret its statutory remit in as broad and as liberal a way as possible. Wherever we could, as it were, stretch the guidelines, we did so, to enable us to award grants. For example, in certain areas, if local authorities were applying for grants, and provided that the projects that they wished to further complied with the guidelines laid down by the Treasury, the Countryside Commission would always say, "Yes" to a grant. In a sense it was regarded as an open-ended commitment. But with grants such as this, which frequently were made to the National Trust and to other bodies for gardens associated with buildings, the commission was very much more dealing with its own funds—funds which were not open-ended, but which were necessarily limited. I recall occasions on which, for example, we gave grant aid in respect of Studley Royal, (I think a grant was made to the North Yorkshire County Council) and grant aid to the National Trust in respect of Beningborough and a number of houses of that kind.
As the present Bill now stands, it would appear that the new commission is in a position to grant-aid buildings, full stop, and so far as applications for grants for gardens are concerned, they have to go to the
152
Countryside Commission. The noble Earl has confirmed that the Countryside Commission retains its right to give grants in certain circumstances. But I think it right that we should understand the new situation that has arisen. The Countryside Commission, with its new and changed status—a status under which it is now an independent grant-in-aid body, rather than part of the Department of the Environment—necessarily has to look at its own funds perhaps with a little more care and vigilance than it did when it was dealing with Treasury funds. I think it possible that in future the Countryside Commission might find it necessary to interpret its terms of reference and its remit in as narrow a way as possible in order to conserve its own funds. Therefore, a future situation could be envisaged where a case might be marginal, and the Countryside Commission might say, "No, this is a matter for the heritage fund, or for the other commission. We have to focus our endeavours on countryside in the National Parks and things of that kind". I believe that a difficulty could arise, and that there could in the future be a gap.
I was very grateful when I heard the noble Earl the Minister say that he accepted the underlying principle, and that he would take the matter further. I would ask him to look at it carefully in the light of the changed situation in which the Countryside Commission is now placed as an independent grant-in-aid body, necessarily obliged to look at its funds and its activities in an extremely critical way, and thus to interpret its terms of reference very strictly. That might not allow it to do certain things that it did in the past in relation to the gardens of certain historic buildings, often in the ownership of the National Trust, which it was able to grant-aid for purchase, maintenance, or various other purposes.
There might be an argument as to the possibility of an element of overlap, but surely, in respect of these things, which are so very precious, an element of overlap is much better than the risk of a gap. Without amendments such as those tabled by the noble Duke and others, there might well be a gap in the future, and if there were a gap in relation to places such as Studley Royal and others, that would be tragic indeed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with other noble Lords, I am glad that my noble friend is to consider the matter further. I wonder whether when he is doing so he will bear in mind that the expression,
"land which is contiguous or adjacent".
may, I say with respect, be too narrow. One has in mind, for example, the possibility of including a long and beautiful avenue of trees, a lake, as well as such a thing as a deer park, and one would not wish the use of rather restrictive words such as those to prevent such land from being included.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I should like to revert to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in supporting the noble Duke. I agree with him that we should not be frightened of the overlap, and I also agree with my noble friend the Minister, who I think was helpful, even if he was being slightly delphic. He started by talking about clarifying powers, and then he appeared to be saying that he did not want to extend the powers

153
of the commission very much. However, other noble Lords appear to have understood him to have been saying that he is prepared to extend the powers of the new commission. Of course, this is the difficulty that we encounter when these kinds of comment are made at the Third Reading of a Bill, because the proper course is to be able to take away the remarks that the Minister has made and see whether they are satisfactory for what we are trying to achieve; and, if not, to be able to come back to them again. But, unfortunately, once again we find ourselves in a difficult position.
I believe that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was making needs to be underlined. He is nervous about a gap; he is not nervous about an overlap. I am nervous about something slightly different, in that it would be very unfortunate (would it not?) if it were necessary to apply to two separate bodies when trying to take over one entity; and this goes back to a previous amendment. Unless there are amendments which do some of the things which the present amendments seek to do, it might be necessary to have to apply to two bodies. We all realise that both bodies will have only limited amounts of funds, and there is not very much danger of each of the two bodies knocking on the door and saying, "Please have my money," and receiving the reply, "It is quite all right, Countryside Commission, we have all the money we need from the new commission. Thank you very much for your offer". I cannot envisage that kind of situation arising; I wish that I could.
However, if we do not make provision such as is proposed in the amendments, I can envisage a situation where, in relation to an important landscape or garden, the commission might say, "We should love to give you a grant for that, but unfortunately it is outside our remit. 'Beetle off' and see the Countryside Commission". The Countryside Commission might then say, "Well, we are very sympathetic, but we are a bit strapped at the moment". What kind of position would then arise? Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is to address himself clearly to eliminating the problem of having to apply to two different bodies in respect of one entity.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said. I am extremely worried about the danger of a gap arising. I should have thought that somewhere in our legislation it must be set out in black and white who is responsible for gardens. When we are talking about our national heritage surely the part of it that is closer than almost anything else to the general public is that concerned with gardening. We are a nation of gardeners, and there can be no question that our great gardens are part of the national heritage. The late Christopher Hussey, that revered expert and historian of our national heritage, in the foreword to his book on eighteenth century landscape gardens in Britain, stated that the dozen or so gardens covered by the book represented collectively unquestionably one of Britain's greatest contributions to western artistic culture. We are told by the Government that it is the job of the Countryside Commission to look after gardens and, by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that it may become more
154
difficult for the Countryside Commission to look after gardens. Somewhere, it strikes me, it must be written into the legislation who is responsible for this part of our national heritage.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, very early on—I think my noble friend Lord Strathcona will correct me if I am wrong; and I think it was actually at the Committee stage—I said that what exercised me in this particular question was the gap. I said that I should like to go back and make absolutely certain that there was no gap. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said at the Report stage that there is not a gap between the two. I can assure the House at the moment that there is no gap. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has underlined, there is a little bit of overlap. I find myself in a cleft stick because my noble friend Lord Strathcona does not want any overlap because if there is any overlap nobody will know where to go to. I can assure the House that we have looked at this particular case with extreme care because I fully sympathise with my noble kinsman that this is an important part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and I are assured that there is no gap between these gardens. Everything can be covered. In fact, there is a small overlap.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 44, line 38, leave out ("control or management") and insert ("management or in the custody").
The noble Earl said. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35. With permission, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. These concern the types of building for which the commission may accept endowments. At present, they may accept endowments for buildings under their control or management. Amendment No. 35 changes this phrase to under the "management or in the custody" of the commission. As I explained in relation to Amendment No. 30, this drafting change is made to reflect more accurately the commission's functions. Amendment No. 36 will enable the commission to accept endowments for monuments taken under their guardianship under the 1979 Act, as the Secretary of State can also do for his guardianship of monuments. Amendment No. 37 is a consequential drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 44, line 42, at end insert ("or
(c) a building of which at that time the Commission are or will shortly be guardian under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979,").
Page 45, line 20, leave out ("control or management") and insert ("management or in their custody, nor are guardian of the building under the said Act of 1979").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 45, line 32, at end insert—
("Register of gardens etc.
8B.—(1) The Commission may compile a register of such gardens and other land as appear to them to be of special historic interest and may amend it as seems apropriate to them.
(2) The Commission shall notify the owner and any occupier and the local authority concerned of any entry made in such register of any garden or other land and may publish any such entry.
(3) The inclusion of any garden or other land in the register and the publication of the entry shall be for the better information and guidance of all government departments, other bodies and persons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a revised version of an amendment which attracted all-party support at the Report stage but the noble Lords on the Front Bench had certain doubts. We have revised the form of the amendment, which I hope they will now find acceptable. The object of the amendment is to encourage the commission to perform a task which we all believe to be laudable. I do not believe that this need be an onerous burden upon them.
The point was made by the noble Earl himself (at the Report stage, I believe) and also by the noble Lord, Lord Digby, that some steps towards compiling the register have already been taken by a number of bodies and, in particular, by the Garden History Society, which deserves great credit for the work it has put in on a voluntary basis already.
I should emphasise that the word "register" is used to avoid any of the overtones which are attached to the words "list" and "listing", because the intention here is not to impose restrictions and obligations on garden owners. The case for a register is a strong one. Many noble Lords can think of examples where Government departments which are engaged in planning operations of any kind have made plans for developments which have gone too close to some of our best historic landscapes, gardens and places of national interest. Indeed, some of the developments have taken place and some of the results have been generally regrettable.
The concept here is that, if a register exists and has been published, then the local authorities have a chance of seeing the relationship between the plans they are proposing and the register of gardens so that they can assess and be made aware of any potential damage. The amendment now says "may compile a register" rather than "shall", and it no longer refers to the notifying and the consultation which was previously in the amendment; but we believe that the essentials are still there. If this amendment were to be accepted, one would hope that the commission would make the best use of it. The purpose, in the words of the amendment, is,
"for the better information and guidance of all Government departments, other bodies and persons".
That defines exactly the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, this is a further amendment on the subject upon which we had considerable discussions during previous stages of the Bill. As has been said, this particular amendment seeks only discretionary power to
156
compile a register. It would be true to say that my noble friend has bent over backwards to take account of what my noble friend Lord Avon and I have said both inside and outside the House during the passage of the Bill. I recognise that. The amendment also reflects the existing legislation in referring to "gardens and other land"—a wide but not contentious remit. Given these changes, I have to agree with my noble friend that the amendment is not intrinsically objectionable.
I can at this point confirm that work on registration is currently going on and, in part, is being funded by the Countryside Commission. Having said that, the House should be aware that this permissive power does not add anything to the Bill. I must repeat what I have said before: that existing provisions of the Bill provide the commission with all the powers necessary to undertake the compilation of such a register and to make it available to whomsoever they choose.
I myself do not believe that it is proper to add palliatives to legislation, but the Government recognise that there has been consistent all-party concern throughout the discussion on this Bill in the House on the subject of gardens. We still believe that this is misplaced. Nevertheless, the Government will certainly accept the will of the House on this particular matter.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, that is certainly a slightly grudging reply. However, I am sure that there is some joy in the House that this amendment may get accepted. Some of us feel very strongly that, despite the fact that it may be in the Bill, it is not terribly clear that it is. There is no doubt that a vegetable garden would be of enormous benefit to future generations and also to those concerned in the future with the administration of the heritage and planning in this country. I do not think I need say any more about the importance of gardens. It has long been the ambition of members of the Historic Houses Association, many of whom own great gardens, to see that their gardens are treated with the same respect as are their houses. I hope that, in spite of that rather grudging acceptance, the amendment really will be agreed to and will go into the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, all your Lordships will have great sympathy with this amendment. But when the noble Lord on the Front Bench says that it is unnecessary and is already covered by the Bill, with respect to your Lordships I suggest that we ought to be very chary about adding another 15 unnecessary lines to this measure.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I was merely going to underline the words of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I am delighted to learn that when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that this amendment is not intrinsically objectionable, he in fact meant that it was wholly acceptable. I underline every word that the noble Lords, Lord Montagu and Lord Strathcona, said. It is important to write this into the Bill. It will give immense satisfaction to all sorts of people. I do not think that it is a sterile exercise; I do not think it is just a matter of finding a form of words.

157
It is an expression of opinion from which a great many people who are doing a lot of work will derive a great deal of comfort, and they will perhaps continue with work about which they may otherwise have begun to feel a little dispirited. I am most grateful that the Government have so enthusiastically accepted this amendment, and I shall welcome its ultimate inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I can only hope that the House puts the same interpretation upon the speech of my noble friend from the Front Bench as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, does. My noble friend started well. Unfortunately, he deteriorated somewhat towards the end, if I may say so, in his resolve to encourage us to put these words in the legislation. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says, with the greatest of respect. There are a good many provisions in this Bill which seem to me to be repetitive, and some of them are unnecessary. I sincerely hope that the House will support me in suggesting that these words are valuable—and, as the noble Lord said, at least they do not do any harm.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 47, line 8, at end insert—
("(10) After subsection (5) there there shall be inserted—

"(6) Where a redundant building (or part) situated in England has been acquired for its preservation by the Minister under subsection (1) of this section either with or without any other land so situated, the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England may by agreement with the Minister undertake on his behalf the management and preservation of the building (or part) together with the other land (if any).

(7) Where the Minister has under subsection (4) of this section acquired land situated in England for its maintenance with a building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) of this section in relation to the building (or part), the maintenance of the land on behalf of the Minister.

(8) Where the Minister has under subsection (5) of this section acquired for their preservation the contents of a redundant building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) of this section in relation to the building (or part), the preservation of the contents on behalf of the Minister." ")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment, which will complete the provisions in the Bill relating to redundant churches, will enable the commission to make agreements with the Secretary of State to undertake the management, maintenance and preservation of any redundant buildings he acquires from any Diocesan Board of Finance or from the Redundant Churches Fund. This has of course always been our intention, but it is necessary to provide a specific power for the commission to enter into such arrangements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 48, line 26, at end insert—
(" (1A) In paragraph (aa) of subsection (1) after "of a "there shall be inserted "building which is scheduled as a monument or ".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, amendments similar to this one were considered in Committee and at Report stage. Now we have tried to take into account the criticisms made by the Minister. The effect of the amendment is that local authorities will have to notify the commission of any planning application that they receive significantly affecting the setting of any scheduled monument. The amendment simply accords to buildings scheduled as monuments the same treatment as is accorded already to listed buildings; that is to say, notice has to be given of proposed works involving planning applications where their settings are significantly affected.
It is something of an anomaly that a building of real merit can be scheduled rather than listed, but that is sometimes the case. In limiting the amendment to buildings that have been scheduled, all the field monuments are thus cut out. This has now largely met one of the criticisms made at Report. The amendment refers to buildings which are to be scheduled as monuments. Nonetheless, the amendment constitutes, I agree, a change in planning law. It is a small change and one that is needed if some very important scheduled monuments that are not listed are to be given proper protection.
Since Section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which is affected by the amendment, is already being amended in this Bill, it seems an appropriate moment at which to make this small and useful amendment. I am well aware of the letter written by the Minister to my noble friend Lady David about the question which centred on the amendments to planning legislation, but it really is impossible to get this Bill right without making some concession to the planning law. In any case, there have been changes all through the Bill, which is why we seem to have started with the dreaded and dreadful Schedule 4. Now that we have met most of the serous criticisms, I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is another revision of an amendment which we discussed on Report. I recognise that an attempt has been made to limit the extra burden it would place on local authorities by referring to buildings which are scheduled monuments, thus excluding certain types of monument such as field monuments, which I think we would all agree are less likely to be affected by local development. However, I am not sure that this really does get us any further.
This amendment is to Section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. In the Act the word "building" is defined in Section 290(1) as including any structure or erection and any part of such a building. This covers a vast range, as it would bring in all scheduled monuments which were, if only to a small extent, above ground. Therefore, although I acknowledge the attempt that has been made to reduce the burden on local authorities, I do not believe it has achieved its aim. I hope that in the light of this the noble Baroness will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I cannot agree with the Minister when he takes the point of definition because

159
in the amendment there is specific reference to buildings. I do not see that there is any problem there. We are back to the original objection. There obviously is a very deep and definite difference of opinion between the Government, on the one hand, and many others from all parts of the House, on the other. I still firmly believe that this is something which will have to be dealt with and cannot slide by. You cannot hive off a commission of this sort from the department and then say that you are not going to do anything about the planning law when it refers to such a crucial part of what will be the work of the new commission.
Obviously, at Third Reading there is no point in my pressing the amendment here. In any case, I am not wedded to the particular choice of words. I repeat again that it is the principle which is involved. I therefore believe very strongly that it is something which I hope will be taken up firmly in another place. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 48, line 31, at end insert—
("(2B) When the Commission is notified of an application for planning consent under this section the local planning authority shall concurrently direct the applicant forthwith to send a copy of the application to the Commission, together with copies of all the plans and documents that were submitted with it.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not suppose I am going to have much better luck with this! This is again an alteration. Amendments were down on this point on Committee and Report, and were debated. Much was made at those stages of the difficulties the earlier amendments would have made for local authorities. I think it was on Report that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, withdrew Amendment No. 133 so that a new version might be brought forward, and this is the new version. It would create the absolute minimum of work for local authorities and, by requiring applicants and not local authorities to send drawings to the commission, it should meet the otherwise grave difficulty that the commission would be faced with in having to respond to a notice without drawings and with little time in which to do it.
This amendment will make the minimal change to planning law. It is taking the burden off the local authorities, which I think was the point of the Minister's objection to it earlier. It will also allow the commission to get on with its job without being involved in a great deal of unnecessary expense and will give it the information which will be badly needed to make the decisions that are required. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is another subject which we have discussed at earlier stages, and about which there is clearly some disagreement. This version has been drafted to lessen the inevitable increase in the burden of work for local authorities. Under previous versions they would have had themselves to send to the commission copies of all the plans and documents relating to planning applications which have to be publicised: under this amendment they will have less paper to deal with since they are only required to send a direction to the applicant.
160
But the fundamental point here is that it would be an imposition to require an applicant—who has already had to send several copies of his application to the local authority—to go to the time, trouble and expense of supplying them to another body whose permission is not actually needed. And to place a burden on people just because they happen to live near listed buildings is perhaps also going rather far. As I have said before, the Government believe that the commission will be able to obtain the necessary documentation where they need it, and the development of their relationships with local authorities is best left out of a statute. I know the noble Baroness is getting angry with me for not being more amenable, but I hope that she will take the point.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am not angry: I am just weary. All mounted up together, what it proves is that there are some very important and difficult problems that have not yet been resolved. They will have to be resolved if the commission is to do its work properly, if the local authorities are to be able to do their work without having an extra burden and if the department is not to be kept busy duplicating everybody's work and being showered with a load of papers.
One of my objects in moving these amendments again is to underline that point both to the Minister and to our friends in the Box over there, so that they are well aware of the problems that are involved here. When the Minister first began, I thought for one moment that he was about to accept the amendment. That would have been very nice but I did not really expect it. However, I hope quite seriously that he will look again at this whole area, which I do assure him is going to cause a great deal of difficulty unless it is properly resolved before the Bill reaches the statute book. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 49, line 3, at end insert—
("16A. After section 56A of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted—
"Listed Building Consent applications: reference to the commission.
56B.—(1) When a local planning authority in England decides that it is minded to approve an application for listed building consent made with respect to—

(a) a listed building which is graded "Grade I", "II*", "A" or "B"; or

(b) the demolition in whole or part of a listed building which is graded "Grade II"; or

(c) a "Grade II" listed building or any unlisted building in a conservation area which is owned by the local planning authority or with respect to which it is an intending purchaser;

it shall forthwith refer the application to the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England for their consideration and not determine the application for two months from the date of such reference without the Commission having first indicated their approval thereto.
(2) Where the Secretary of State directs, on the advice of the said Commission, a local planning authority in England shall not determine in the affirmative any listed building consent application made to it for consent to—

(a) alter a "Grade II" listed building; or

(b) demolish an unlisted building in a conservation area;

161
which is not owned by that authority and shall forthwith refer it to the said Commission for their consideration and shall not dertermine any application so referred in the affirmative for two months from the date of such reference unless the Commission indicates its approval thereto.
(3) When on consideration of any such application referred to them under subsection (1) or (2) above the Commission advises that an application should be called in for the Secretary of State's own determination it shall be called in unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is in a rather different category, because it is intended to stop a situation which works all right at the moment with the department and particularly the Historic Buildings Council; but unless this amendment or something very similar is accepted it is going to make things not only difficult but in some instances quite impossible for the commission.
Without going into the history of this, the essence is, again, that not enough thought has yet been given to the way in which the commission will be involved in dealing with listed building consent applications and in advising the Secretary of State on them. That is a very important part of the functions of the Historical Buildings Council. I know from conversations with a number of members of the council that there is a great deal of worry and anxiety among them about this. What the amendment seeks to do is to provide a straightforward, simple and entirely proper procedure whereby the commission will do the job that is now being done by departmental officers who, however, should all have moved across to the commission by the time the commission is set up.
The semi-judicial aspects involved in listed building control are strictly and entirely for the Secretary of State, as they must be. I do not think there can be any quarrel over that. The direction of local planning authorities to refer cases is now left entirely to the Secretary of State, even if that means adding a little time to the processing of applications. The amendment was drafted in this way in order to cover that point. The overall effect of the amendment is to give the commission the stature and standing it must have to deal effectively with local authorities. I must stress that is extremely important. The amendment does not allow the commission to reject a listed building consent application when this is referred to it. The commission can either say "Yes" to the local authority—and nobody can be aggrieved by that—so that it can issue a consent which it has already said it wishes to do, or, alternatively, the commission will be in a position to refer the matter to the Secretary of State so that after a public inquiry he can say "Yes" or "No".
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this amendment seeks to do no more than is now done by the department, but to do it appropriately in the changed situation which will arise through the existence of the new commission and to do it in a sensible and practical fashion, giving the commission the stature and authority it ought to have and also preventing the duplication of personnel within the department. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, applications for listed building consent are at present determined by local
162
authorities, with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may also call in important cases for his decision. The amendment would interpose the commission between the local authorities and the Secretary of State, as they would have to be consulted about a large number of consent applications and could cause any of these to be referred to the Secretary of State. It has never been intended that they should be formally involved in these decisions, and we believe it is wrong that they should have any powers over elected bodies such as local authorities.
This version of the amendment has been slightly altered since the last stage, in particular so that the Secretary of State, rather than the commission themselves, would formally direct the reference of certain applications. This, however, makes no difference to the fundamental point that the commission would be interposed between the Secretary of State and local planning authorities; they would be given the right to question the judgment of elected bodies, and would thereby delay decisions. I do not believe that the commission should be given this role in the planning system; nor can the Government accept the formal introduction of additional delays in a system they have generally been striving to speed up.
As I said before, I assure the noble Baroness that we have given considerable thought to these questions, and believe that the proposals embodied in the Bill are the right way to proceed. The question of relations between the commission and local authorities needs careful handling, and we continue to believe that what is proposed in the amendment is not the way to ensure a good working relationship. I am sorry not to be more forthcoming in respect of this amendment; but I stand on the position as I have already stated it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry that the Government are taking that view on this amendment. It raises a very fundamental query as to whether there is sufficient merit in setting up this commission, if they are to be hamstrung in this way. It is one thing to have two advisory bodies, with the department doing the decision-making, but it seems to be both wrong and quite absurd to hive off a commission, as a more or less independent and autonomous body, and then to keep clawing back part of the tools which they need in order to do their proper job.
It also seems to me that what has not been looked at is the situation as regards numbers of officials, the level of their expertise and having sufficient senior people in the department. What will they do in between, when these applications are not coming in? We were talking earlier about overlap and, in this case, there will be the most tremendous and expensive overlap, if some of these problems are not solved before the commission are set up. The Government are in great difficulty over this and they seem to be emasculating the commission before they can start work. But I cannot see any point in pressing this amendment, unless someone else wants to jump to his feet in support. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, wants to speak on it. If he does, I will delay my withdrawal of the amendment—
The Earl of Avon: He is against it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 51, line 41, at end insert—
("20A. After section 10B of the 1972 Act there shall be inserted—

"Eligibility for section 10 and 10B grants in certain circumstances.

10C.—(1) Where the Commission for ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England are of the opinion that an area is of special architectural or historic interest the character of which they desire to preserve or enhance they may so advise the Secretary of State and notify the local authorities concerned.

(2) If the Secretary of State concurs with their opinion the said Commission may make a grant with respect to any works which would have qualified for the purposes of grant from them under section 10 or 10B above as though such an area had been designated as a conservation area and, with respect to a grant made under section 10B above, as though a Town Scheme was in operation and the building in question was shown on a Town Scheme Map and any such grant may be made direct to the applicant without the involvement of any local authority and be administered by the said Commission." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will remember that we had a debate about the words "outstanding" and "special". The Minister replied by saying that we could not keep on enlarging the area, and that the word "outstanding" should remain. He said that if there were exceptions for special cases the Government did not think that the system would work.
We have now tackled the problem by making an entirely new approach. What this amendment seeks to do is to allow the commission to make grants under Section 10B of the 1972 Act—conservation area grants and town scheme grants—when, for reasons best known to themselves—and not always known—local authorities have not designated a conservation area. Some local authorities do not designate areas which ought to be conservation areas, and that is unfortunate. There are not so many such areas now, and truly rural parts are often very difficult to find.
When I was in the department I tackled the problem the other way round, by setting up conservation advisory committees within local authorities, together with amenity groups, and got the interest going in that way. But that does not always work and is often quite difficult. This amendment is a way of dealing with the situation when a local authority has not designated an area. When a conservation area has not been designated there is no legal way of giving a grant to a conservation area or a town scheme, with the result that the people who live in those areas are disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
What the amendment does is to allow the commission to make such grants direct if, in their opinion, the area concerned is one of such special architectural or historic interest that it should be preserved or enhanced. If the Secretary of State concurs with their view, the legal barrier is lifted and the commission can make a grant just as if the conservation area had been designated. This is not tinkering with the planning law. It has nothing to do with it, it will not cause a lot of work and it will not ride roughshod over a local
164
authority, and those are the three limbs which have been used in order to knock down other amendments.
Nothing will be done by the elected representatives only, for the Secretary of State has to concur before the commission can take action. The amendment does not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which would probably be said to be the case were it suggested that the Secretary of State himself should designate a conservation area, when, for its own reasons, a local authority does not wish that to be done. The amendment does the minimum that is needed to break this unfortunate log-jam, and to enable grants to be made to areas which should be conservation areas, or to town schemes. As this is in a different category, and, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate, it is quite different from the amendment to insert the word "special", I hope that he will look at it benevolently. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, before the Minister, as I fear he may very well do, stands up to say that he does not want to extend the powers of the commission, which will have limited resources, may I tell him that the reason I put my name to this amendment was that it seemed to me that here again we were getting into a situation which was somewhat similar to that we were in a few moments ago on the other amendment, when we were talking about gaps and overlaps. I put it to him most simply: can he not envisage a situation where the commission might be wanting to do something which in their judgment entailed a proper use of their resources, but which they would be precluded from doing unless something like this was in the legislation?
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, may I say just one word, as a member of the Historic Buildings Council, about the very great importance which we attach to these conservation areas? Therefore, from the view-point of the work of the Historic Buildings Council, I regard this amendment as an immensely important one.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do indeed recognise what the noble Baroness described as the new approach in this amendment. It seeks to enable the commission to make grants for works in an area, as though the area had been designated a conservation area. They would also be able to make town scheme grants, where no town scheme was in operation. What this amendment means is that where an elected local authority, having considered the question, had decided not to declare a conservation area, or not to set up a town scheme, the commission would be able effectively to overrule that decision and, where they wanted to, they could behave as though an area had been designated or a town scheme had been set up. Surely this would be totally wrong.
Of course, the commission should and will be able to make representations to local authorities, supporting or suggesting the designation of an area. They will be able to help an authority which seeks advice. And, as I have said before, we hope and believe that the good relations that can, and should, be established between the commission and local authorities will ensure that each listens to the other's views with great care. I am sure that local authorities will pay great

165
attention to the commission's views, but they must also take into account all other considerations, including local ones; that is their role as elected representatives. They are, and must remain, the proper authority to take such decisions.
The noble Baroness spoke of difficulties, and I hope that she is seeing difficulties where they do not exist. I assure the noble Baroness and my noble friends that I shall read carefully all that has been said on this group of five amendments. If a grey area appears, the Government will not hesitate to table an amendment. We shall find out whether there are any loopholes which we feel ought to be covered.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, again the Minister's reply does not surprise me. However, this amendment, which does not contravene any planning law inhibitions or local authority objections, is rather ingenious and I should have thought the Government would have had the imagination and creativity to recognise it as such and accept it. As for the grey areas, when the Minister reads the report of this debate I believe he will find that they are not grey areas but charcoal, bordering on black. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 60, line 6, leave out paragraph 44.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 64, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
("(2) After paragraph 4 there shall be inserted—
"4A(1) Notwithstanding any other provision in any enactment, where application is made for scheduled monument consent in respect of any monument in England it shall be made to the Commission, who shall publish it in such manner as the Secretary of State may by regulations under this Act prescribe, and in all cases as they may think appropriate.
(2) Not less than 21 days after receiving any such application or their publication of it (whichever is the later), the Commission shall notify—

(a) the applicant; and

(b) the Secretary of State; and

(c) any body or person from whom they have received representations with respect to that application;

of their proposed decision and they shall give reasons in writing for that proposed decision, whether it be to grant scheduled monument consent (with or without conditions) or not, and in reaching that proposed decision they shall take into account any such representations that they may then have received.
(3) In notifying the applicant of their proposed decision, the Commission shall inform him of his right to have his application determined by the Secretary of State under paragraph 3 of this Schedule.
(4) The Secretary of State may call in for his own determination under paragraph 3 of this Schedule any application for scheduled monument consent up to 21 days from his being notified by the Commission of their proposed decision, or such later date as he may have within those 21 days directed in respect of any particular application.
(5) If the applicant has not informed the Commission within 21 days of being notified of the Commission's proposed decision that he intends to exercise his right of applying to the Secretary of State for him to determine the application, and if the Secretary of State has not called in the application for his own determination within such period as
166
is referred to in paragraph (4) above, the Commission shall determine the application and serve notice of that determination on the applicant, the Secretary of State, and any other person who has made representations to them in respect of that application.
(6) Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Schedule shall apply to the Commission as it applies to the Secretary of State." ")
The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another amendment of the same species. It has not been debated before. Although it was on the Marshalled List it came up each time so late at night that it was not moved. It is concerned with the determination of scheduled monument consents in England. From the lack of provision in the Bill, and other things which have been said, it is clear that the Government intend to allow the commission to give them advice only on scheduled monument consents, reserving their determination for a not inconsiderable staff of civil servants to be retained by the Secretary of State. Once again, civil servants will be duplicating many officials on the commission's staff. If the aim is to reduce the number of civil servants, it will not be achieved until the Secretary of State has divested himself of this particular job, among others, and given it to the commission. In any case, it is, I believe, a job which on its own merits should be given to the commission. The commission should be trusted to do this work and be given the authority to do it properly. This the commission can very well do.
As I am sure the Minister will have noticed, the amendment builds in all sorts of checks and balances. Therefore I do not believe that the Minister can say that any individual's property rights are prejudiced because the commission, as a non-elected and appointed body, does this or that. For every term under the amendment it is the Secretary of State, who is elected as a Member of Parliament, who is directly accountable and who takes the responsibility. This means that at all times the individual can turn to the Secretary of State if that individual does not like the commission's way of doing things, or even its decision. There are, therefore, all the necessary safeguards built into it but once again it enables the commission to do work which I very strongly believe it should be doing and which should be within its terms of reference. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the question raised by the amendment is, I believe, a constitutional one. The statutory system of scheduled monument consents set up under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 is designed to protect and thereby preserve scheduled monuments. In order to achieve this, the system places restrictions on the normal property rights of owners so that they are unable to undertake works affecting a scheduled monument without consent, and that consent can be, and often is, made subject to specific conditions. In these circumstances, it is the Government's view that the determination of scheduled monument consent applications should be the responsibility of a body answerable to the electorate and thus should stay with the Secretary of State. This is what the Bill provides for, but with a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the commission before determining any application. I recognise that this amendment attempts to deal with this by allowing the applicant to opt for the Secretary of State rather than the commission to

167
determine his application; but this, I believe, is only an appeal process by another name and does not alter the fact that the commission would be given the right to determine applications.
The Government have considered this issue carefully. It was raised specifically in The Way Forward and valuable comments were received. It is an evenly balanced judgment. The response to The Way Forward on this point showed just that. But in the end the Government believe that the key point is accountability. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and, where decisions involve private property rights, the public, I believe, expects them to be taken by an elected, not an appointed, body.
This is perhaps not so much a charcoal decision, as the last one was, but pure black and white. I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Baroness that what the Government propose in the Bill has been considered, is a balanced judgment as a result of The Way Forward, and is a way by which we can progress.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I cannot accept that explanation, because the Minister himself said that the responses received were evenly balanced and the Government decided to come down on one side rather than the other. With great respect, the constitutional element is a bit heavy-handed. Whether or not it is an appeal system, as the Minister called it, by another name does not matter. If it is, it means that there is still the right to go to the Secretary of State. There is, therefore, accountability. The commission is being fined down to just a handmaiden or, perhaps I should say, a handperson of the Secretary of State and the department, with a tremendously expensive number of slaves in both places.
Obviously I am not going to get anywhere tonight. With great reluctance, therefore, and hoping that the other place will take it up vigorously and persuade the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 65, line 39, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
("1. Section 4(2) of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 (restriction on certain loans of works of art by Trustees) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46 and, with permission, to speak to Amendment No. 49. These amendments tidy up paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 and the corresponding reference in the Long Title as a result of the amendment tabled on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 (which lists Museums and other institutions to which transfers may be made under sections 3 and 5 of that Act) there shall be added in the appropriate places:

The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History).

The British Library Board.

The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47. This amendment is similar to Amendment No. 155, which I moved at the Report stage and withdrew. I withdrew the amendment because the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that the Government were in sympathy with the objective of the amendment but wished to table their own amendment. I was therefore hoping that the Government would table an amendment, or amendments, for Third Reading, but to my disappointment nothing has appeared.
The purpose of my amendment, if I may remind your Lordships, is to bring Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act up to date by adding three institutions which have come into being since 1954. The Act allows such institutions to be added by order, but the only institution which has been added in this way is the Ulster Museum. Why the Government—I do not mean particularly this Government but previous Governments as well since 1954—have made no attempt to keep this schedule up to date I do not know. This amendment gives them an opportunity to do so. If they are finding it difficult to do so in this Bill—and I do not see why they should as the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act appears in it—what is to prevent them from doing so through the statutory instrument procedure, as required by the 1954 Act? I do not mind if the Government prefer this course, provided the order is laid without delay. I put this amendment down for information and beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord did indeed draw attention to this point at Report stage. The Government accepted in principle that the Armouries, the British Museum (Natural History) and the British Library Board should be added to the institutions listed in Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. Since Report the Government have made some inquiries and are still considering the extent of the consequential effects of this amendment and the next one, and their position in relation to the scope of the Bill. I wrote to the noble Lord at the end of last week to keep him informed, and the position at the moment is that this is going to the House authorities to see whether it is within the scope of the Bill. I should like the noble Lord to give us a little more time before I come back to his point about a statutory order, and of course we shall bear that in mind as well.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. This, of course, is not his fault. I wrote to him and the Department very soon after Christmas, I think on 4th January. They have had quite a lot of time, but they will have more time before the Bill goes to another place. I hope that they will then be able to table something to repair this omission. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 66, line 18, at end insert—
("British Museum Act 1963 (c. 24)
In section 9(1) to the British Museum Act 1963 (which allows transfers to other institutions) there shall be added at the end "the National Gallery Trustees, and the Tate Gallery Trustees".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48. Here, again, I have once more tabled an amendment which I moved at Report stage in order to find out what the Government intend to do. I understand that this is at present in the hands of parliamentary counsel. Certainly no Government amendment has been tabled today for Third Reading. I do not see why an amendment to the British Museum Act cannot be included in this Bill, since Schedule 5 already includes amendments to the Public Records Act 1958 and to the Charities Act 1960, to bring these two Acts up to date by adding several institutions. Further, Clause 33 of this Bill allows amendments relating to the Bill and to other aspects of the national heritage. That is spelled out quite clearly.
The purpose of my Amendment No. 48 is to correct an oversight in the drafting of the British Museum Act 1963, when the National Gallery and Tate Gallery were left out by mistake. This means that the British Museum is at present able to transfer objects to most of the national institutions in the United Kingdom except to the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery themselves. This is a nonsense, and I hope the Government are going to make an effort to rectify this, either today or when the Bill goes to another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in this case, the case of the British Museum Act 1963, before reaching a decision the Government wished to check whether there had been a specific reason at the time the Act was passed which precluded the addition of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery to the institutions to which the British Museum could transfer objects. We also expressed reservations about whether the scope of the Bill might be extended in the manner envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his amendment. Since Report we have completed our historical researches, and it would appear, as he correctly surmised, that the omission of the National and Tate Galleries from Section 9 of the 1963 Act was nothing more than an oversight—an oversight, furthermore, that was very soon recognised. As to why we have not tabled anything at this stage, my answer is the same as that to the noble Lord's previous amendment: that we are discussing this with the House authorities and we shall indeed wish to table our own amendment, if everything is satisfactory, in the other place.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and am glad to hear that there is nothing to stop the Government from tabling an amendment in another place. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 49:
In the Title, line 11, leave out ("amend sections 3 and 4") and insert ("repeal section 4(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words at this last stage of the Bill. I may say I am speaking about the second half of the Bill; my noble friend Lord Strabolgi wants to say a few words about the first half of the Bill. We all know Pirandello's play, Six Characters in Search of an Author. In this part of the Bill we had something like five clauses and a schedule desperately in search of a script. I think that during the progress of the Bill through the House a great deal has been done and the Bill has been enormously improved. I should like to express my very warm thanks—and I really mean this—to the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who has been sympathetic and has taken such an interest in the Bill and tried so hard to get it right.
This has been a Bill which has cut across all party lines. Even when the noble Earl was, quite rightly, promoted to the Department of Energy he still held on to this Bill. I should also like to extend our thanks from these Benches to the officials, who have been as helpful as they could be during the procedures of the Bill, producing at short notice the mini-Keeling, which I hope will be kept up to date as the Bill proceeds on its way. Those officials have been extremely helpful to us.
At this point I should like to look briefly at what we have achieved. First of all, we have this afternoon found a simpler name. We have included conservation as well as preservation, which I think perhaps is going to have an even bigger impact in the future than we realise now. On the very important subject (one of the most important) of finance, there are now some very sound financial provisions. It is true these are mostly by assurances rather than being included in the statute, but we accept those assurances. They include the carry-forward of voted but unspent grants, which is vital. I find it excellent that the commission can hold on to any profit it may make, together with voluntary contributions. It is also now expected that the commission will have the power to invest such monies until spent, and also endowment money.
Charitable status has also been discussed. This afternoon we were able to discuss the clause dealing with the trading company. It is unfortunate that it got off to such a scrappy and rather bad start, I think mainly because of the infamous Schedule 4. The sooner we have consolidation, which has been put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on many occasions, the better the legislation will be, the easier it will be for people to understand it, and the easier it will be to operate it. I think that is the only answer to that.
We are left with the relationship between the commission and the department on planning, listed buildings and scheduled monuments, which I think is still far from right. I am still reeling from the rebuffs of having amendment after amendment turned down in this area this afternoon. This will certainly need a very beady-eyed look when it goes to another place. Many of the civil servants who are going over to the commission feel very concerned that they will be treated disadvantageously compared with those working in the national museums. I would beg the Minister to see that consultations take place so that they are not left with this feeling which I know he will agree with me would be quite wrong, if there is really no reason for their fears, which are very strong at the

171
moment. Some of the archaeologists are still unhappy about the effect of the Bill as it stands now on some aspects of their work. I heard from two distinguished bodies this morning, but it was too late to put down an amendment.
Finally, in thanking the noble Earl for the co-operation that there has been across the Floor of the House, I would hope that the many quite serious problems left to be worked out will be worked out. If we are to have this commission, I certainly—and I speak for my noble friends—would want it to work successfully, to be effective and to be able to do a better job than the really good job that has been done by the directorates concerned within the department.
7 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as I have been responsible for the museum side of the Bill from this Bench perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. I should, first, like to associate myself with all that my noble friend Lady Birk said about the noble Earl, Lord Avon. We are most grateful to him for the way he has handled the Bill. I have also received much courtesy from him during the Bill's passage. I should also like to say that I very much enjoyed working in harness with my noble friend Lady Birk.
I think the Government were wise to start the Bill in your Lordships' House, particularly with regard to the trustees. We have had a useful discussion about trustees. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is not here. He contributed enormously to the debates on this. We had a useful discussion about trustees generally, their functions, qualifications, terms of office and responsibilities. To my knowledge this is really the first time that this has been discussed in any depth in either House of Parliament. I think the general feeling of the House was that there should be a rather wider choice in future and that the same people should not be appointed to all the museums, but that the net should be widened in fairness to the people concerned, and indeed also to the trustees.
With regard to admission charges, we had a useful discussion and we were glad on this side of the House to have an assurance that the Government do not intend to impose a charging policy on the museums—the Victoria and Albert, the Science Museum, or indeed any other national museums or galleries.
I was particularly glad also to have assurances about Ham and Osterley, that these two great houses are to continue to be maintained as before in view of the threat to their future that was contained in the Burrett Report.
There have been various useful amendments to the Bill from the museum side, for which we are grateful. First of all, we are glad that the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew have been so specified to make clear that they are not the only Royal Botanic Gardens in the United Kingdom, as there are other Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh, as your Lordships know.
The Government are also still required to come to Parliament if they wish to add institutions to Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act. They are also—and this is even more important—still
172
required to seek parliamentary sanction if they wish to take more pictures from the National Gallery and Tate Gallery collections than the permitted percentages: that is, pictures for extended loan to Government offices and to British embassies overseas. The Bill in its original form attempted to bypass Parliament in both these respects, and I am glad that the Government have had second thoughts.
We have spent a lot of time on the so-called minor and consequential amendments, which were quite far-reaching. I think that they have given me, and probably the noble Earl, more trouble than any other part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the concessions that have been made.
I should like to say a final brief word on staff. Some of the staff unions at the museums still have reservations about the change of status. The Government have given certain assurances, but there is still some dissatisfaction, I am sorry to say, and this was voiced during an interview on the radio this morning, which your Lordships may have heard. I am sure that these matters will be further discussed in another place and I would urge the Government to pay attention and to enter into further discussions, because there are still certain fears, although whether these are justified or not I do not know.
So far as the museum side of the Bill is concerned, we on this side of the House support its general intentions and we are grateful to the noble Earl and to the Government for accepting these various amendments. In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl for bringing the Bill to this stage of its proceedings.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, so we have finally come to the end of many hours of discussion on this Bill. Of course, in this House we pride ourselves in having experts on every subject. I am certain that when a Heritage Bill of this kind comes along it must be the dread of the civil servants and the Front Bench because a few experts are fine, but this is really too much. However, it did seem right to me at the time to form an informal all-party committee to discuss the Bill behind the scenes, and I am very grateful to all those who took part. I am sure that together we have greatly improved the Bill in a very good bipartisan way. There has been virtually no party conflict, and I am most delighted about that.
Turning to the museums for a moment, it must be stressed once again that the new trustee status for the Victoria and Albert and Science museums is widely welcomed, not only by the directors, the keepers and a large majority of the staff, but also by many people outside these museums. Naturally, there is concern about jobs and conditions, but I believe that the Government have done much to allay that and I certainly have made it my duty as president of the Museums Association to keep in close touch with the IPCS, which has, on the whole, expressed satisfaction.
The radio broadcast this morning only reflects a very small minority view of people who prefer to misread the Bill and its intention, and some of the people who expressed those views wished to remain anonymous. But I believe those are the people who do not realise that most of us feel that the museums should be run for the benefit of the public and be

173
enhanced in the future. They are not run for the benefit of the staff. It is those people who close the museums on one day a week and deny thousands of people the joy of seeing the museums, for instance, on a Friday—a policy which no private museum could ever keep to.
I must also thank the noble Earl for allowing science to be enjoyed in the Science Museum. I would just like to ask him to confirm the continuing provincial responsibility of the V and A and Science museums. This is very much valued by so many provincial museums.
I am sure that we all want to convey to the new commission our best wishes. I am sure it will make a major contribution, and indeed a great impact, on the quality of our heritage, particularly as presented and made available not only to our own people but to the world at large. But it must have the right authority and the right resources to do it. That is something which we in this House will make sure of and see that it happens. Our heritage is one of our great assets. We have no sunshine to sell. So far as the private sector is concerned, that has been showing the pioneering spirit of what people in the 20th century really want to see in the heritage. I welcome the fact that the new commission will combine the expertise of both the private and the public sectors to the benefit of all. Finally, I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Avon for the way in which he has met so many of our points and conducted the Bill through the House.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, hitherto I have played a very minor and insignificant part in the proceedings on this Bill and I have no intention of trying to play a larger part at this very late stage. The burden, in so far as there has been any burden on these Benches, has been borne by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Had he been here, and regrettably he cannot be, I am sure that he would have wished to thank the noble Earl and other Ministers for the unfailingly courteous and conciliatory manner with which they have greeted the various arguments that we have put to them. Purely personally, I think that on a Bill such as this we see your Lordships' House at its very best. I have found it fascinating to see the unusual ad hoc partnerships that have arisen from time to time in various parts of the House, crossing all kinds of boundaries not only between parties but boundaries within parties, when we have little groups working together on a matter such as this. It is exactly like the proceedings on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill all over again.
Perhaps I may also say that it is when we deal with a Bill such as this that we become aware of the extent to which the heritage—if I may use a word which I understand is presently to be expunged for all time—is dependent on a whole number of voluntary bodies and amenity societies. It is as well that we should realise how deeply we rely on them. They do invaluable work and give us invaluable advice which I have personally found to be of immense assistance in dealing with this matter.
I am sorry that we have had to leave so many matters to be dealt with by another place. The other place does not always accept our advice to the very end of the line. We shall just have to wait and hope.
174
However, I should like to express words of thanks to noble Lords and to the Ministers for the way in which they have dealt with the Bill. I think we have improved it. It will be better when it leaves us than it was when it came to us. I hope that when it comes back to us—if ever it does—it will not have been damaged in any way.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like briefly and with modesty to add our congratulations from these Benches to the noble Earl for his unfailing courtesy and his co-operative attitude throughout the Bill. I should like personally to say how grateful I am to him for the way in which he resisted so resolutely the seductive charm of the attempt by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to undermine the whole trustee system under which the museums were to operate in this Bill. Let me say to the noble Earl that a good radical quickly sniffs out a reactionary wolf masquerading beneath a with-it sheepskin coat. It was not long before those of us here saw the dangers inherent in the noble Viscount's amendments. I am so glad that the noble Minister was not long in seeing the same dangers himself. I should like also, as regards the other part of the Bill, to thank the noble Earl on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet—who unfortunately cannot be here today—particularly in relation to the redrafted Clause 30, towards which he made such a significant contribution.
On Second Reading I ventured to describe Schedule 4 as a veritable cat's cradle. My only regret in leaving this Bill is to notice that in its final form it now has 65 criss-cross paragraphs as opposed to the original 59. That is my only regret. Otherwise I would like to repeat on behalf of these Benches that we acknowledge the debt we owe to the noble Earl.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have brought such a range and weight of authority and experience to our consideration of this Bill that I should like to confine myself to the Bill as a legislative instrument. In doing that I do not wish to go again over the ground that has been so cogently covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and just now by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and by others of your Lordships. But I do wish to investigate why the Bill comes in this form; what has gone wrong; and how it can be avoided in future. But before I do that, I should like to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the noble Earl's truly masterly parliamentary performance. Indeed, my only reservation is that that very mastery has blunted part of your Lordships' indignation at Schedule 4 and other provisions of the Bill as matters of legislative technique.
I agreed entirely with the noble Baroness, who said that this ought to be two Bills. In fact, Schedule 4 should have been a separate National Heritage (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I would, with respect, venture to draw to the attention of Government business managers the way in which the social security legislation was managed in 1975, when actually a programme Bill was consolidated alongside the other Bills that were consolidated. If that had been done with Schedule 4 as a separate Bill, I think that many of the

175
misgivings that have been expressed by your Lordships would have been obviated.
How has it happened that this schedule has come before your Lordships in this form? I think there are two stages where it goes wrong. The first is in the Future Legislation Committee, where Ministers jostle for a place in the legislative programme. The Minister promises that there is one Bill, which will be uncontroversial, and as a result two Bills are crammed into one and come before your Lordships in that form. The second stage takes place in the Legislation Committee, where, if the Bill comes before the committee soon enough they can return it back to the draftsmen for redrafting or even, as I think would be appropriate here, for redrafting as two Bills. But it comes before the Legislation Committee, if my experience is still extant, at the very last moment, immediately before parliamentary introduction. If that is done the Legislation Committee can at best only tinker with the shortcomings of the Bill and cannot effect a major reference back. It is really the Government business managers who have to secure the improvement.
We had the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, as a result of which the Renton Committee was set up. We debated the Renton Report and we have had another debate since. But still things seem to be going seriously wrong. The Government business managers are making rods for their own backs. I counted up the amendments on Report. To the main clauses there were 43, but to schedules there were 124—very nearly three times as many. There were more amendments put down to Schedule 4 than there were to the main clauses.
But my objection to this Bill as a legislative instrument starts before Schedule 4. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out on a number of occasions, Schedules 1 to 3 have no force that can be made valid in any court of law: they are in fact Whitehall nanny exhortations. We set up bodies; we tell them what they should do; and then we go on in minute detail to tell them how they should do it. Of course, that is a temptation to all of us to add to the exhortation. The Prime Minister must have regard to experience in the fine arts. If the fine arts, why not architecture? If architecture, why not archaeology? If archaeology, why not local government? Why not theatre? Why not administration? Each one is the subject of a new amendment and endless time is wasted.
Therefore, in my respectful submission, the Government business managers can really effect an improvement here and prevent again what your Lordships have put up with so patiently on this Bill. The noble Earl by his very manner, which was so consummate, blunted a good deal of justified criticism. I desire to say only this in conclusion. Throughout your Lordships' deliberations on the content of the Bill, to which your Lordships bring so much greater and more recent experience than I have, there has been a concentration on the potentiality of the Bill. On the face of it, the Bill is a mere piece of administrative tidying up. It is not to be dismissed on that ground, because orderly and efficient administration, although not a guarantee of good government, is a prerequisite for good government. But in this respect, as your Lordships have constantly pointed
176
out, the Bill has a potential to disseminate enjoyment and to disseminate knowledge of the national heritage.
Your Lordships will remember:
"I want to know a butcher paints,
A baker rhymes for his pursuit,
Candlestick-maker haply mute,
Blows out his brains upon the flute!".
If this Bill enables the butcher, the baker and the candlestick-maker to enter into the national heritage, to foster it and to pass it on, enhanced, to their own heirs, it will have amply justified all the work that has been done upon it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, if I may, for a moment, I should like to underscore what the noble and learned Lord has just been saying. First, of course, we must congratualte my noble friend Lord Avon for the truly masterly way in which he has handled this Bill. I wish him well before he goes over to an area which, in fact, is slightly more familiar to me. But the energy area is even more complicated than is the heritage area.
Frankly, the Bill was a shambles when it arrived here. My noble friend has succeeded—sometimes with a certain amount of prodding—in improving it considerably. In particular, he has worked wonders with the Treasury regarding the tax régime of the commision, as he told us on Report. It is a sad fact that his achievements are not at this juncture recorded on the face of the Bill. I think it is worth pointing out that the face of the Bill says, in one of the noble and learned Lord's dreaded schedules:
"The Commission shall not be exempt from any tax".
Then, at the Report stage my noble friend, thank goodness!, told us that for the purposes of taxation the Government wished to treat the commission in the same way as charities. He went on to cite the analogy of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and he said that that fund was exempt from income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, development land tax, national insurance surcharge and stamp duties on sales and transfers to the fund. That is a fairly comprehensive list, is it not, when the face of the Bill says that it shall not be exempt from any taxes?
The lawyers—and I say this with great temerity in the presence of the noble and learned Lord—assure me that they find nothing strange in looking behind legislation, because they say that earlier on in the Bill it says "subject to any other enactment". That is what they look for. They do not find it anomalous to look behind the legislation to find what really happens in some other piece of legislation.
I am bound to say that it confronts my legislative common sense, if I might use that expression, to treat legislation in this way. I find it profoundly unsatisfactory for us to be sending forward a Bill which says on the face of the Bill something which the Government have declared —and I sincerely hope they mean it—they intend radically to alter in future legislation. Incidentally, it is said that that legislation is intended to be included in a Finance Act, which cannot be amended in this House. We have talked about gaps this afternoon; that seems to me to be an aching void if ever there was one. I cannot believe that this kind of situation enhances the public understanding of and respect for their legislators.

177
Most of my remarks have been carping, perhaps niggling criticisms of the Minister, and I would not want to fall into the trap which is precisely the trap I am complaining about, because I do not think that these criticisms should in any way blind us to the very valuable work that has been done by this House with the co-operation of my noble friend Lord Avon, and in particular the enlightened undertakings which he has given to the House of the Government's intentions in another place.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, having had not one but three or four amendments accepted, it would be churlish of me not to rise to thank my noble friend for his conduct of this Bill. It is rare for a Bill to arrive with its heart missing, but I think we would all agree that in introducing Clause 30 to the second part my noble friend on the Front Bench has indeed done a masterly job.
The first of my amendments concerned local government, and I am grateful to my noble friend for having accepted it. Perhaps I may say a few words about local government, and in particular about the Association of District Councils—all 333 of them, containing among them some very enlightened authorities and some less enlightened authorities. I was grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for having staunchly defended them when we were dealing with Amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 135 on Report, and today when we dealt with Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45. I say to those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who moved those amendments: do not despair of converting the unenlightened local authorities. I should like to suggest that they respond very much better to persuasion than to statutory coercion, and I can say with reasonable confidence that if noble Lords will persevere and join me in that I am sure we shall be able to achieve what is wanted.
I should like to conclude by wishing my noble friend well in his new department and by thanking him for his services to us all on this Bill.
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we have spent three days in Committee and a further two days on Report discussing this Bill, and I am very conscious that gathering around us now are others who wish to get on with the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. This afternoon we discussed further amendments. All these discussions have been very helpful and constructive, and the Government are grateful for the interest and trouble taken by so many noble Lords in contributing to these deliberations.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned the word "heritage". At an earlier stage we thought that it covered a very wide scope. Today, I think perhaps it could have covered the Wild Life and Countryside Act as well as this Bill and as well as the butcher, baker and candlestick-maker. I would remind the House that the Bill provides an important opportunity to legislate for a change in status of four major institutions and for the creation of a new institution, which we have discussed mainly today. All of them are of importance to the preservation of our national heritage. We have been concerned throughout the passage of this Bill, and will
178
continue to be so during its next stages, to legislate for an administrative framework for each of these bodies which is the best we can make it in the present circumstances but which is sufficiently flexible to allow change to occur as occasion demands. It is not always easy to gaze into a crystal ball, but the Government hope that to a degree this has been done.
I turn now to the Bill itself. The first part deals with the establishment of boards of trustees for the V and A Museum and the Science Museum, the Tower Armouries and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, and enables the Secretary of State for Defence to make changes in the funding and staffing arrangements of museums having connections with the Armed Forces, some of which already have trustee status. The second part provides for a new Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England.
As to the first part, the Government are grateful for the support that they have received for their proposals, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have given so unstintingly of their time, both inside the House and between formal sessions, to test and debate a number of detailed aspects.
My noble friend Lord Montagu asked one specific point about the local purchase grants and provincial responsibilities. I should like to say to the House that it is the Government's intention that the V and A and Science Museums should be able to continue to assist the provincial museums as at present in a variety of ways. I have in mind, for example, the loan of objects, the provision of specialist technical or curatorial advice, and financial assistance. As my noble friend has rightly said the museums have a good record in this field and the Government hope that they will continue to be able to maintain and develop this.
I should at the same time like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and the all-party group which he set up and which examined this Bill in such detail. Members of this House are uniquely placed to make such contributions. There cannot be anywhere else in the country where such breadth of knowledge and experience could have been assembled to offer its collective advice and judgment. If this is not a euphemism, may I say as an example that we have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lords, Lord Gibson, Lord Charteris, Lord Adeane, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, all of whom are chairmen of their own well-established national institutions.
Not all amendments found complete favour in the House. Some indeed were not carried, being defeated by small majorities, and illustrating the narrow divide on the decisions. The Government are very conscious of the debt they, and the institutions concerned, owe to the thorough discussions, and I hope that the Bill will go down in history, even after it has been through the other place, as a farsighted and sensible measure. The Government feel confident that these provisions, as now amended, will form a sound basis for debate.
Turning to the commission, the Government are grateful to the House for a great deal of help in, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, at one stage put it, knitting the Bill together. We do not necessarily apologise for that, because we think that as a result of the

179
discussions in this House we have achieved a good outcome.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford because he helped us to include a much clearer piece of legislation, and also the resolution of some difficult policy issues such as the commission's financial and tax régimes. Here also I pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Strathcona, who indeed needled us on these particular tax questions. I assure him that I too questioned the validity of the legal advice, and I am assured that it is technically correct.
The commission concept has benefited and developed greatly during the passage of the Bill through this House, because of the very real contribution which individual Members of the House have been able to make. There are now, we hope, very few gaps or defects in the commission provisions remaining for attention in another place. The new Clause 30 is generally (and rightly) regarded as a great advance. We are still unfortunately confronted by Schedule 4, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, found so difficult. But I repeat the undertaking I gave at Committee stage that we will continue to provide to Parliament an updated version of the "Guide to Schedule 4", together with Notes on Clauses.
We have, too, been pursuing with the Law Commission, as I undertook earlier, the possibility of early consolidation of the legislation affected by this Bill. We have not yet reached a conclusion. It may be helpful if I describe the progress so far. It seems unlikely that a full consolidation will be at once possible. This is partly because of the Law Commission's heavy workload of urgent consolidation, but also more fundamentally because the enactments affected by the Bill do not, as a group, fall within the overall classification used by the Law Commission for consolidation purposes.
It has, for example, rightly been pointed out that provisions in the Town and Country Planning Acts fall naturally within planning legislation rather than heritage legislation. The Law Commission do, however, agree with us that the extent of the amendments to the 1953 and 1979 Acts, which constitute the bulk of Schedule 4, would justify an early reprint of these enactments as amended, and we are looking into what might be done to secure such reprints and to make the results publicly available. Progress of this kind will go a long way to meet the concerns of the House, and will in practice be almost as good a solution as a full consolidation.
I have taken note of the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and shall make sure that the Government business managers also take note of it. I am sure that in future we may get an easier passage. We have taken the opportunity of Third Reading to make further improvements to the Bill by means of amendments; some in response to your Lordships' expressed wishes, and others as part of the drafting process. In so far as any amendments may be made in another place, your Lordships will of course have the opportunity of discussing these at a later stage.
One or two of my noble friends, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made mention of the question of staff.
180
I believe that during the course of this Bill we have made many undertakings that the staff will be looked after, and I hope that the misunderstanding of some will not in any way take from the others the pleasure which I am sure they will get when this Bill finally becomes an Act.
I should like to thank all speakers for the kind remarks they have made about the way that this Bill has been handled, which I very much appreciate. I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Skelmersdale, and I am grateful for all the excellent assistance I have had from the departments during the course of this Bill. I should particularly like to thank that flutter of Ministers for the Arts, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for their contributions, and the Liberals, the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Winstanley, not to mention Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, with his pertinent remarks about the ancient monuments. Before closing I should of course like to thank the Opposition team, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for their stimulating and often constructive remarks, which have helped to make this Bill so much better. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.37 p.m.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 7 [Appointment and functions of mental health officers]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, leave out lines 5 to 17 and insert—
("(4) A mental health officer shall make an application for admission in respect of a patient where—

(a) he has received the two medical recommendations required for the purposes of such an application; and

(b) he has been requested to do so by a medical practitioner who gave one of the medical recommendations,

and the application shall include—

(i) a statement of the mental health officer's opinion as to whether or not the application should be granted; and

(ii) a statement of the grounds on which that opinion is based.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draftsman has followed up a number of suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, and I think that the outcome, as reflected in this amendment, is a much better drafted provision. However, I am all too aware that the amendment does not meet my noble friend's real aim, nor indeed that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, which was to free the mental health officer from a duty to put forward an application with which he disagrees.
I have to say again after more reflection that I can see no sensible way of getting out of this difficulty. It is essential that the difference of opinion between the doctors and the mental health officer should go before the sheriff to be resolved. Otherwise, on the fortunately

181
rare occasions on which such differences of opinion arise, a mental health officer is placed in an awkward position.
Your Lordships should be aware that Scottish members of the British Association of Social Workers have made it clear that they appreciate the purpose of the new provision. They agree with the Government's view that it should not be for the doctors or any other third party to put forward the application. If there is no relative who is able or willing to exercise the function of the nearest relative in making an application, the mental health officer is the only person who should be empowered to do so. I understand that the duty which is to be imposed on the mental health officer will be acceptable to the social workers concerned, provided it is made clear that the mental health officer will have a right to be heard by the sheriff when the application is considered by him. I do not see any difficulty in this, but careful consideration will be given to the relevant provisions to see whether further changes are required. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are grateful for the attention that the Minister has paid to what was said at the earlier stages of the Bill. He certainly has not met the objections that I have had to the Bill. Effectively, this is purely and simply a redraft, but what we have to appreciate in any redraft is that it has to be settled and slotted into the whole Bill. You cannot understand what is being done here and the implications of this unless you go back to the 1960 Act and the changes we have already made in that Act, and now this further change.
As I read it, the present position in respect of applications for admission is that they are made either by the nearest relative or the mental health officer. If the mental health officer does it on his own—and I should like to know whether the new re-draft, along with all the other drafts we have, fits in with this—and puts forward the application, he must inform the nearest relative of his right to object.
At an earlier stage we passed an amendment saying that the local authority, if required by the nearest relative, must direct the mental health officer to consider the case for making an application, and if he decides not to make the application he shall inform the nearest relative in writing. I am pointing out that I do not think we have the legislation right, certainly so far as the whole of Clause 4 is concerned. One of the dangers with a Bill like this is the tendency to look at individual amendments in isolation; each must be related to what remains in the Bill. If the mental health officer proposes, after interviewing and so on (and if he is satisfied in all the circumstances), that detention is best, then again he must inform the nearest relative. That is in the Bill as whole, and I suggest that we are getting rather mixed up over the whole issue.
Now the Minister introduces an amendment to say that the mental health officer shall make an application according to paragraphs (a) and (b), and the provisions mentioned there will obviously happen in all cases. What is proposed now is completely new. Prior to this, according to the Bill, the mental health officer would make a statement only if he disagreed with the medical practitioners. Now, in all cases, he
182
will put forward his opinion. This is purely to disguise, as a matter of cosmetics, the fact that he must make the application whether or not he agrees with it, and the amendment goes on to say that the application shall include his opinion, and so on.
Another important point arises in this connection. If he has been requested to do it by a medical practitioner who makes one of the medical recommendations, one asks who the other medical practitioner will be and which one will do it. There will be two. The first one is approved by the Mental Welfare Commission for the purpose, a psychiatrist, and the other could be his general practitioner or somebody else who is acquainted with him. Which of the two is it to be? Is it to be either of them? That question will be asked in another place. Why not the one whose qualifications to act have been approved?
That is why I say I do not think we have the proviso right yet. What is proposed is probably an improvement, but it begs the question I have posed before: why should the mental health officer have to make an application with which he effectively disagrees? We shall probably have to accept what is proposed, but I am still not satisfied; and I am more worried having looked through the whole Bill and tried to slot into it the changes we have made. My fear is that the provision does not make the kind of sense it should make bearing in mind the clear intentions of the legislation.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for this amendment because it represents an enormous improvement on what went before. We are at a difficult point of a very difficult legislative decision. The problem of mental health rests on the question of compulsory detention. That is the big problem, and it is quite different from physical health. It is the element of compulsory detention about which we are all a little nervous, the big question being how it can be done fairly without the possibility of abuse. It is very difficult to get that right, but I think the amendment goes a long way to making it right.
It seeks, secondly, to try to bring together two great services in the community. The first is the local authority, which is responsible for the social welfare, more or less, of the community, and the second is the National Health Service, which is responsible for the medical side of it. It tries to bring together (I will not pretend it is easy to do, because it is not) those two facets, and I believe that within limits it does not do it badly at this juncture. Let us be plain about it. Clause 7 is the crucial provision in the Bill because that is where compulsory detention starts, and it is important that we get that right if possible.
My anxiety over it is that the application must be made by law either by the nearest relative or the mental welfare officer. I wonder whether that is too narrow? I wanted to include any relative—something which is quite closely defined in the measure. I am thinking, for example, of an old lady who is looking after a man or a son and who may be reluctant to put forward a recommendation. After all, I would say, with respect, that the actual application to the sheriff is a relatively small matter compared with the medical advice from two sources, the decision of the sheriff and probably the opinion of the mental welfare officer. As

183
I say, the actual application to the sheriff is a relatively small matter.
While I should have liked to see something along those lines, if there is another relative he can go to one of the doctors who made the recommendation and ask, "Will you please ask the mental welfare officer to make the application?" So it should be possible to get it right. The problem of the circumstances in which anyone should be compulsorily detained is one that can be argued at any time. I am not at all discontented with the improvement that has now been achieved. I regard it as a step forward and I thank the Minister for the improvement he has made.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his welcome of the amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is making rather heavy weather over the drafting. The first part of the amendment arises because of an amendment moved by my noble friend on Report; he moved it and subsequently withdrew it. The object of it was to seek to clarify who was to be entitled to make an application, and that is really the crux of the matter. Your Lordships can see from the Bill that before I tabled the amendment it was provided that the request had to come from a psychiatrist—
"a medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 27 of this Act".
The redrafted provision makes it clear that the request is to come from either of the two medical practitioners who have given the two medical recommendations required. One must be a psychiatrist, and the request would normally be made by him. But there is no reason to exclude the possibility of the request being made by the other medical practitioner, who might be a general practitioner.
The House will recall my noble friend's other two amendments on Report, Nos. 28 and 30, which would have been acceptable in that the effect of them would have been to shorten the new provision, as it then appeared, without altering its essential effect. I may say I do not think that was the intention of my noble friend at that stage, because he made it plain that what he was really seeking to do was to remove the obligation placed on a mental health officer to submit an application with which he did not agree.
I can only say that I agree that the application is, within the scheme of things, a small matter, as my noble friend has said. Therefore, what we considered was the best way out of an admitted difficulty was to make it easier for a mental health officer who is put in this particular position. The important thing is that the mental health officer is and should be the only person who can make, and is empowered to make, an application; but if he does not agree, so to speak, with what is to happen, then I think the safeguard is that he has a right to be heard by the sheriff. That, I think, puts the whole matter in perspective.
I therefore hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will agree to this amendment. I have absolutely no doubt that the matter will be considered afresh in another place and that they will, in all probability, address themselves to the very points that have occupied your Lordships.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he says that the mental health officer will be the only person who can make an application. But, with all due respect to him, Section 26 of the principal Act, which this amends, says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section an application for admission… may be made either by the nearest relative of the patient or by a mental health officer".
Therefore, he is not the only person; there is "the nearest relative". Then one follows that through the other sections which are not amended and ties in the amendments. One cannot see it in the Bill. One cannot even see it in the old legislation. One has to put the whole thing together. I think there is confusion here. The Minister says the mental health officer is the only person who can put forward an application. It is obvious he is not. The nearest relative can.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord has had two speeches. Of course it is obvious—and the noble Lord will see it when he comes to read the Official Report—that I am talking in the context of this amendment, not in the context of Section 26, which is there for anyone to see.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, my noble friend says that the mental welfare officer would be heard by the sheriff. Is that not already quite clear in the principal Act? I think it is Clause 32, but I cannot quite remember. The sheriff certainly has the right to ask for evidence. I doubt whether any sheriff would refuse to hear a mental welfare officer if he asked to be heard.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not think it is Section 32, but my noble friend is right in what he says.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Duration of authority for detention and guardianship]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 15, line 14, leave out ("one or more other") and insert ("such other person or")
line 15, leave out ("professionally") and insert ("principally").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may also refer to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the same time. There are three places in the Bill where a doctor is required to consult "one or more other persons who appear to him to be professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment. These are in Clause 16, in relation to the renewal of authority for detention, and in Clause 29, in relation to the certificates required before certain forms of treatment may be given. At the last stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, suggested that I should address myself to a dictionary or Roget's Thesaurus. I confess that I have done neither, but I have consulted the draftsmen and looked at the Bill again, and scope has been found for improvement.
With these amendments, the provisions will express more clearly what is intended. The doctor concerned will be required to consult
"such person or persons as appear to him to be principally concerned with the patient's medical treatment".

185
Before important decisions are taken affecting a patient, it is normal practice for the doctor to consult his professional colleagues in the disciplines of nursing, psychology, social work and so on, where they have been involved with that particular patient. The aim of the three provisions in question is to make it clear that such consultation is required as part of the process of renewal of detention or the certification relating to certain forms of treatment.
It has proved very difficult to express in one short sentence precisely what is intended. There will of course always be a nurse who will be able to offer a view from his or her professional knowledge of the patient. The word "principally" is intended to make the point that it will normally be the nurse in charge of the patient's ward who is consulted, and not every nurse on the ward. There may be other professionals, such as social workers or psychologists, who are concerned with the patient's treatment, but the extent of their involvement will vary considerably. It is therefore necessary to introduce an element of discretion on the part of the doctor. This is the purpose of the words "appear to him to be". I hope that your Lordships will agree that these amendments will serve to improve and clarify the provisions in question. I beg I to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not think there is a doubt that the drafting in respect of the first amendment is neat. I do not know whether it is an improvement, but it is neater so we will take that one. But to remove the word "professionally" and to insert "principally" ("concerned", I think, is the word that follows) without any reference to the profession of nursing or anything else—I do not know whether that makes it clearer or not. It extends the discretion of the doctor who is to find the supporting person from his profession, from the hospital or from whoever gave the treatment or was concerned with the treatment. I am not entirely happy with "principally" but I will not argue at this stage. I think the Minister said that he had not consulted his thesaurus or dictionary. It might have been better if he had, but I am prepared to leave it at that.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend suggested that Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 might be discussed at the same time. They clearly also follow the principles he has explained, Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are Government amendments to Government amendments which were made at the Committee stage. As those amendments were made at the Committee stage to meet amendments of mine, I should say that the wording which my noble friend has just explained is much better than the original wording in the Bill. So far as I am concerned, I am content with the redrafting which my noble friend has now done and I would remind your Lordships that my original intention, which the Government met, was to give discretion to the doctor; as the Bill was originally drafted, it seemed very restrictive because it tied down so closely the other persons whom the doctor had to consult.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 29 [Consent to treatment]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7:
Page 29, line 27, leave out ("any one or more") and insert ("such person or")
line 28, leave out ("professionally") and insert ("principally")
Page 30, line 42, leave out ("any one or more") and insert ("such person or")
line 43, leave out ("professionally") and insert ("principally")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this Bill is, in its way, an important Bill, but it could have been so much better had the Government at the start not limited themselves to making changes, as they said, to bring the 1960 Act more in line with present attitudes, but had followed, so far as they could within reason, the changes made in the English Act. The changes give greater safeguards and further strengthen the rights of appeal, and we are grateful for that. But at the same time we must appreciate that there is a new power to detain: that is the power in Clause 13 which gives to a nurse the authority to detain for six hours. I do not think that the Government have produced figures to justify that power, nor have they justified it by argument or by history in Scottish terms, and this will be one of the points that will face them when the Bill is dealt with in another place.
Another point concerns me. We made very considerable changes (and the Government have been helpful) in respect of the size of the Mental Welfare Commission, and in relation to an annual report—provisions which were not included when the Bill was first printed. The Mental Welfare Commission is central to the Bill. Bearing in mind that we had a welfare commission which reached its majority over 21 years ago, before the English Mental Welfare Commission was even born, I believe that we are entitled to suggest that the poineering work that we have done should have led to a far better and clearer Bill in regard to the work of the new Mental Welfare Commission.
One of the points that has not yet been properly answered concerns the nature of the commission. There will be medical practitioners on the commission, and we are told that they will continue with what might be called their present executive functions. They will go out and do work. They will perhaps be psychiatrists or other people concerned with mental health, who have experience and qualfications. There will also be on the commission people who, if they are paid at all, will not be paid anything approaching the kind of salary that will have to be paid to the medical practitioners who are on it. It will be a strange commission. I do not think that so far we have a clear

187
enough picture of that situation, though we tried to get it from the Government, and I believe that they will run into difficulties over this in another place.
At the start, the Government laid down that they wanted to make a limited number of amendments, and that, above all, anything that savoured of expenditure had to be looked at very carefully. They said that they would have to be careful about anything,
"that would have considerable resource implications".
I am glad to say that the Minister—and I believe that he asserted himself—accepted the feeling of the House in respect of the need for a mandatory after-care service. However, having congratulated the Minister on what he did, I must point out that it will have considerable resource implications. Will the Government meet those resource implications?—because otherwise the after-care service will be stifled at birth. It will cost money, and we know of the difficulties that local authorities have at present. So I ask the Government whether they are prepared to meet this new financial commitment.
One other point worries me slightly, in that I do not think that we have clarified the position of the mental health officer. You see, my Lords, we are cluttered with things from the past. We have had 21 years' experience, but in that time the mental health officer has become a different person altogether. The duties of such a person used to come under the local authority's medical officer of health, but now the responsibility has been taken over by the social services department. That came after the 1960 Bill—by about another eight years. We asked—and were not given the answer—how can we be sure that there will be enough of these officers. In England they are called approved social workers; I suppose that in Scotland we shall have to call them mental health officers. Will there be enough of them, and how will they become qualified?
In the original paper it was thought that these officers would have the same title as was used in England—approved social workers. It was said that that would have implications in regard to training and that there would be consultations with the organisations concerned with training. The other day, I asked a seemingly rather silly supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he was talking about the Barclay Report, which had reviewed the role and tasks of social workers in local authorities in England. I asked him whether it had anything to do with Scotland. I received the answer in a letter from him, which states:
"The consultations by the National Institute for Social Work, which I mentioned in my answer, are now being extended to include organisations in Scotland".
So a Bill has gone through this House in relation to all this business about training, and not a single Scottish voice has been raised about it; we did not think that it concerned us. Here is the body that in the future is to be concerned with training. I hope that when Members in another place come to this point they will pay attention to the letter that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, though the Barclay Report, in its review, did not look at all at what was happening in Scotland; and it has been happening in Scotland for longer than it has been happening in England and Wales, and so we have been doing things
188
slightly differently. But now organisations are going to be consulted, and it may well be found that Scotland will be affected, though we were not part of it.
This situation affects the mental health officers, who are effectively social workers, and I believe that there is still a vagueness about the position of mental health officers in relation not only to the applications but also to their qualifications and training. It may well be that we shall end up with new social work officers grade one, two, and three, and that could well have considerable resource implications in the long run if the Government do not watch what they are doing.
I want to thank the Minister for his attitude during our consideration of the Bill. He has been flexible and has listened to what has been said on all sides of the House. He has accepted a considerable number of amendments, and the Bill, though it is still quite unintelligible to anyone who reads it and tries to make sense of it—and will continue to be so until we get some consolidation—is certainly a little better than it was at the start of its passage.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for the way in which he introduced the Bill and explained it to us at its various stages. I should like to thank him especially for his willingness to amend it. Some of the amendments changed the Bill from the form of words which had been used in sections in the equivalent legislation passed last year for England and Wales. Amendments have thus been made to meet the Scottish situation.
The need for a Bill of this kind has been questioned. The 1960 Act and the Commission in Scotland have worked reasonably well, but life does not stand still; some things have changed. In my view, this new supporting Bill will be of help. One reason for saying that is that a larger proportion of mentally ill people can now live out of hospital in the community, largely due to advances in medicine and treatment. For example, many can circulate in the community on a regime of drugs. Furthermore, the public is more ready to accept the situation. I believe that the International Year of Disabled People, of which I had the honour to be chairman for Scotland, has helped in this respect. Previously members of the public could be embarrassed, or even frightened, by meeting people who were mentally ill. There are now more informal patients and fewer compulsorarily detained than had been expected. This underlines the importance of care in the community. I, too, welcome the fact that a clause on after-care has been added to the Bill.
Patients now come into hospital at their own request, sometimes at very short notice. This can happen because of relapses, for example, after failure to follow the prescribed routine medicine. Also such patients leave hospital when they feel they are ready to do so, and some try to leave when they are still seriously ill. Mental illness of certain kinds can induce a determination in a patient that there is nothing whatever wrong with him, even when he is harbouring extraordinary illusions, hallucinations and crazy intentions, and indeed when a casual observer would consider that he was raving. Care in the community is

189
not applicable in that case because that patient, if he is out of hospital, clearly will not submit to it. Unfortunately, the result is often a drift towards becoming homeless and destitute.
It is important with those patients, and in such circumstances, that there be a basic system to detain and provide a suitable treatment. This is in the interests of the safety of the patients and of others. Here Clause 13 plays its part because it introduces a new holding power for a nurse for a very short time. I support that clause. This is the counterpart of the greater freedom in the community which people with mental illnesses now have. Before 1960, the year of the previous Act, many such patients were detained for years, or for life, in hospitals or in institutions. I find that doctors still advise against identifying or labelling patients with mental illnesses except where absolutely necessary, for example, to parents or employers.
It is not easy to give chapter and verse of cases or hospitals when questions are asked while this Bill is going through. The reason is clear. It is easier for someone who is chronically ill with a mental illness to live an ordinary life if he is not tagged, for example, as having been a manic depressive.
I have tried over the years and, marginally on this Bill, to make a contribution on a subject with which most people outside the medical profession are not familiar. I am a layman. Later this evening I am due to start a debate which primarily affects physically disabled people. I should like to make it clear that I am just as concerned about mentally disabled people.
Nearly 40 years ago, at the end of the war, I spent over a year in a ward of a leading brain surgeon. I must explain that he was operating on my back and not my head—although no doubt there has been cause since then for many to think he should have tackled my head as well! But since that time my interest in the effects of damage to, and illness of, the brain has continued. My concern in particular has been to promote more understanding of the disabilities involved.
I will end by pointing out that there is a simple but helpful contribution which can be made by some people in public life, including Parliament. There is one mental illness from which a large proportion of the patients to be dealt with under this Bill in the future will be suffering. Its cause is still unknown. No cure has yet been found for it, although alleviations have been. It continues for many years and usually for life. Consequently it is the most common of these illnesses. I am referring, of course, to schizophrenia. It is widely thought to be simply a Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon, instead of the serious and disabling illness which in fact, it is.
The contribution which would greatly help better understanding would be restraint in future in public speeches in using the words "schizophrenia" or "schizophrenic" as derogatory terms criticising or attacking policies or opponents. It may be too much to ask, but it would be worth while, nonetheless, because that single illness is responsible for so much of the illness and so many of the situations which this Bill and the principal Act of 1960 will have to deal with.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. But it is only right that an English intruder to these Scottish matters should say a brief word of thanks to noble Lords for the manner in which they have received the intruder's contributions on this Scottish Bill. Perhaps I should widen my thanks to embrace my noble friends Lord Mackie, Lord Thurso and Lord Tanlaw, who have absented themselves. Normally if I dream of saying anything in a Scottish Bill I bring down the wrath of my noble friends in Scotland about my head. On this occasion, the Bill being so very complex and perhaps technical, my noble friends from Scotland have disappeared from the scene altogether and have left it to me.
Having said that this is a very complex and technical matter, I really would like to say—and I say this as a doctor who has been deeply involved in these matters for many years on a practical professional basis—that I have been very impressed by the extent of the grasp of the underlying matters of this Bill that the noble Earl has achieved. I should like to congratulate him on the extent of his familiarity with the very difficult territory which underlies this particular Bill. I think it has been a remarkable achievement, and it has been immensely helpful to your Lordships' House to have a Minister dealing with the matter who clearly understood it in the way in which he did.
I am almost tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in what he said about this complicated and difficult condition, schizophrenia; but if I were to do so I would speak for too long. But I think it right to say—the noble Lord himself having mentioned this disease—that this is a desperately distressing and often disabling disease; but it is right to emphasise that with modern methods it is now possible to cure cases of schizophrenia to such an extent that at any rate the sufferer is able to lead a fulfilling life, and a productive one, in the community. I think there is too much of a tendency for us all to say, "Once a schizophrenic, always a schizophrenic" and that that is a condition about which nothing at ail can be done. I think we should not leave noble Lords with that impression.
Before sitting down I should like to say that I am glad that, in this Bill, Scotland does not diverge overmuch from what is to be done under the parallel Bill dealing with England and Wales. I have never been a passionate believer in total uniformity. I would like to see more variety throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and I like to see different parts of the United Kingdom doing things in different ways. But I believe that, when we are dealing with matters as sensitive as some of these—and here we are dealing with a section of our community which is perhaps more vulnerable than many, namely the mentally ill—and when we are dealing with the rights of those people in relation to detention in hospital, or perhaps consent to treatment and the whole question of compulsory treatment and the giving of consent for certain forms of treatment of special concern, it is surely absolutely essential in our society throughout the whole of the United Kingdom that the rights of individuals are defended in precisely the same way, and that there are not variations in rights according to where one happens to live. All that

191
I would say is that I am grateful for having had an opportunity to take part in our consideration of this Bill, and I now wish it all possible success in its journey over the border.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am distressed to hear that Lord Winstanley's intervention in a Scottish Bill is objected to in the Liberal party. I think that I can assure him that the rest of the House are always delighted when he contributes at any time on Scottish Bills. Heaven knows! Scotsmen take enough part in English Bills. So we have no possible grounds for complaint.
I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that consolidation is an absolute necessity at a very early stage and I hope that my noble friend will use all his influence on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to get this started. It is very difficult to follow this Bill, to get the dovetailing between the existing principal Act and the additions which have been made. I was once a member of the general board of control and I am delighted to see what I think I can say in the re-independence of the Mental Welfare Commission. It is a very important step. It was, I believe, substantially under Scottish Office influence for a time and I always felt that that was a dangerous example of what should have been done by the commission. I believe that it will be able to use its powers—and I hope it will—very effectively.
We have given a considerable increase in the standing of the mental welfare officers. I hope that they will show themselves well worthy of the additional responsibilities which are put on them. I do not doubt that they will but I think that it is up to them to show that they can do it. Another point I want to make is that, as has been said, the application to the sheriff is a very small matter. I think that it should be on a wider basis. I have suggested that it could be done by any relative; but quite frankly it might be done by any solicitor. It is merely collecting the signatures together, stating the opinions of two medical officers, the mental welfare officer, and putting them before the sheriff, who can then make such further investigations as he may or may not think relevant.
I should like to thank the noble Earl for handling what I regard as an extremely complicated Bill on which people feel strongly. I am grateful to him for the concessions and for the alterations which he has made very willingly in answer to the wishes of this House.
8.22 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, when I moved that the Bill should be read a second time, I said that it was not intended to alter the framework or the main thrust of the principal Act, but to make a number of improvements so that the intentions of that Act might be more effectively realised in practice. I know that that is not nearly so far as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would like to have gone. The noble Lord has confirmed that this evening. Nevertheless, it was what the Government decided to do in the legislative time which we have been given. Within that context I think that we have, so far as your Lordships' House is
192
concerned, devoted a good deal of time and thought to the Bill. Your Lordships have made many improvements, and those will ensure that the intentions of the Bill will be more effectively realised.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Government have been ready to accept changes in the Bill whenever a good case has been made. We have carried out our task very thoroughly. I am quite sure that a good many more changes will be suggested in another place. The Government's approach there will be the same, I have no doubt. I have tried to apply consistently the criteria of practicability and the true interests of the patient. Those I am sure are the right criteria.
There are a number of matters about which your Lordships are still not wholly satisfied. Further thought will be given to those questions before the Bill is dealt with in another place. I hope that when it returns to us eventually those problems will have been resolved in an acceptable way. There are three matters to which in the course of the Bill's proceedings—and even tonight—your Lordships have paid particular attention. We debated at length at earlier stages the composition and functions of the Mental Welfare Commission. We have taken very careful note of what has been said. We shall have to give further consideration to the manner in which mental health officers should discharge their responsibilities under the new provisions of the Bill.
We have had considerable debates as to the duty of the local authority under Clause 7 of the Bill to appoint a sufficient number of persons, and the way in which such persons shall be competent to go about their duties. I use that word advisedly. I hope that matters have now become clearer. There is also the question of the power which it is proposed should be given to a nurse to detain an informal patient for up to six hours until a doctor is available to make an emergency recommendation, if necessary. We had considerable debates on Clause 13 of the Bill.
I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for the helpful and co-operative spirit which has prevailed throughout our consideration of the Bill. There has never been a party point, there has never been a Division. I do not think either of those criteria have applied to any other Bill which I have put forward since I have been occupying this particular position at the Dispatch Box.
I am particularly grateful—as always—to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, not only for his constructive suggestions, but also for going through the Bill itself so finely so that we tried to get it more comprehensible and saying what it means with greater precision at the end of the day. My noble friend Lord Selkirk has also contributed much in this process. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, has, if I may say so, cut her parliamentary teeth on this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said at Report, we shall welcome her participation in Scottish debates in the future.
I too welcome the very constructive manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, contributed to our debates. I noticed, slightly to my surprise, on reading the Official Report that at one moment I was

193
enjoining him to cast his pearls in the right place. May I say that this particular swine is always very pleased to receive them and gather them up. Other noble Lords who have not found it possible to be here this evening have also contributed to our discussions. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lyell and the officials for the part that they have played. It is not always realised what 450-odd miles means for officials who have to gather up amendments which are tabled on a Thursday and produce something for a Minister to say the next Tuesday. They have performed their duties magnificently in respect of this Bill.
I am grateful to everybody who has set the scene so that when this Bill gets to another place I am sure that they will be able along the way to devote their time and energy to it and no doubt find further improvements as they go along.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations (S.I. 1982/1740)
8.29 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to move, That this House takes note of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations (S.I. 1982/1740).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper on the subject of the parking of road vehicles being used by disabled people. The new regulations were laid by the Government just before Christmas, and they are due to come into effect on 16th March, in about a month's time. I understand that they are the result of much consultation. There are three Government departments involved, the main responsibility resting with the Secretary of State for Transport. As some of your Lordships will know, I have been urging that the Government should carry out rationalisation and improvement of the national scheme, which has been operating since the 1970 Act; so I am glad now to see these regulations, and I congratulate the Government on having produced them.
My Lords, if severely disabled people are to live normal lives, they have to be able to travel in road vehicles. Some, of course, can drive themselves; others have to be driven. There is little purpose, however, in using a car at all if one cannot park the vehicle at, or very near, the destination of the disabled person. An effective and respected scheme would be a boon, therefore, to severely disabled people. This came out during The International Year of Disabled People, and I know the department started their consultations and studies during that year—consultations and studies which have now led to these regulations.
I was one of those who encouraged them to reconstruct the present orange badge scheme. That system has evolved over a dozen years, but it has been open to abuse. The badge has been stuck on a windscreen when the car is not being used by a disabled person. This has happened through carelessness or even deliberately because the car has been left in a parking place on purpose, or on a yellow line, with the benefit of the privilege conferred by the orange badge.
The general public have suspected, in my opinion rightly, that there were too many badges being exhibited and that they were being used in the wrong circumstances. The situation can arise, for example, of an 18-year-old son driving his severely disabled mother in the early part of the day. After she has ceased to need the use of the car, that young man continues to use it (this is what has happened in the past) and parks the car in places which only a disabled person with a badge could use—without using a meter properly, or on a yellow line. When that is suspected or is known to have happened, it has thrown the whole scheme into disrepute.
A principal purpose of these regulations, I perceive, is to eliminate such abuses and to induce confidence in the reconstructed scheme. This is not a ticket for free family parking; nor is it a licence for easy shopping from a yellow line. The most important principle is that the badge is directly related to a named disabled person. It is not related, like a road tax licence disc, to a particular vehicle. It must, therefore, be easily removable.
This brings me to the main point where I believe that the regulations are not strong enough. The scheme will still be defective and suspect if the new badges, when issued, are not accompanied by an adhesive container. There is nothing in the regulations to require local authorities to provide a container; but if an adhesive badge without a container is issued, it will be stuck on the windscreen and not removed. Then, I fear, the abuses will continue.
I saw the press release which was issued on 16th December by the Department of Transport and which stated that a letter of guidance had been sent to local authorities which asked them to encourage the use of transparent adhesive containers so that badges might be more easily removed. The Government have sent a letter encouraging this; but, surely, the local authorities should in every case provide the container. They can, after all, under these regulations, charge up to £2 for the new badge—and it is cheap at the price—in return for the crucial requirement that able-bodied people should not be enjoying or appearing to enjoy special parking privileges.
I am glad to see that my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox is still here—unfortunately, I am blocking her route at the moment. She is particularly concerned with these matters, and has asked if I would bring from Scotland—which I have done—a sample of a transparent container. I have brought the one which my enlightened local authority (the Highland Region) have provided. Some might say they are enlightened in this but not in everything! It is a very simple pocket into which the badge can be slipped or taken out. If that is not provided, but simply an adhesive badge, then I fear that the abuses that have happened in the past will continue.
I would ask my noble friend if the letter of guidance to local authorities has been sent to local authorities in Scotland and Wales, too, because I know there is always the difficulty that the Department of Transport has overall responsibility hut the Secretaries of State are responsible for sending circulars in Scotland and Wales. I would hope that the text of that letter will be placed in the Library, if indeed it has not already been

195
placed there, so that we can see what guidance has been given to local authorities.
Now I should like to come to the other reasons why the present administration of the scheme has fallen into some disrepute, and at the same time I should like to underline the improvements which these regulations will make. After the 1970 Act came into effect, local authorities were empowered to issue badges. It was important that similar standards and criteria should be observed by those local authorities because the orange badges were to be valid over the whole country and not limited to each individual local authority area, except for central London, which I will come to later. For example, a badge issued in the 1970s by Strathclyde in Scotland was valid in Sussex. Some local authorities were over-generous in the early 1970s. They virtually handed out these orange discs to any disabled person who was over 50 or 60 per cent. on the standard scale. My Lords, someone who is seriously handicapped by deafness can be in the 60 per cent. or more degree of disability, but the difficulty of parking does not normally apply to that form of disability. So I welcome the categories which are stipulated in the new regulations. I believe the local authorities have always had good intentions over this. It is a matter of administration, to try to observe common standards of scale.
The categories are, briefly, those disabled people who cannot walk or who have considerable difficulties in walking, and the blind. This, of course, includes those who are suffering from respiratory disorders. For example, some people may look hale and hearty but can walk only very short distances because of severe lung disability. The categories also include, automatically, numbers of persons who have already been medically tested or registered; for example, those who are eligible for a mobility allowance. That is certainly sensible, and saves unnecessary bureaucracy.
During the previous scheme (the one still existing) some local authorities have not included on the badge the name of the disabled person. That was particularly so in the early years; they were not required to do so. I had some responsibility, because I became Secretary of State for Scotland in 1970. In the subsequent four years, I had a great many things to do in other fields, but I was able to supervise a little what local authorities were doing in Scotland, and I think they all insisted upon a named person being on the badge. But that was not so over the country as a whole. To provide an orange disc with no name and which could adhere directly to a windscreen was bound to lead to abuse. The new regulations require that every badge must bear a name.
Another point is that the large, square, stick-on rear badge is to be abolished. My noble friend probably knows that I have been advocating this for years. It adds nothing to the parking eligibility and simply confuses, and because it is sticky it is very difficult to take off. However, there may be a need for some sign on the back of a car which simply indicates, for example, that the driver is severely disabled and cannot get in or out of the vehicle easily. If there is a need for that, it should be a sign which is different in shape and colour and it should have nothing to do with parking. It should also be removable, because there
196
will be times whem the car is not being driven by such a person. The new orange badge is to be rectangular and I applaud what the Government have done in deciding to have a different shape, because, again, this will help to indicate that this is a new, improved scheme which is coming in.
I should like the Minister to tell us this evening, if he can, something about how the new scheme is to be policed. With the requirements under these regulations, it should be possible for a police constable to challenge the driver of a car, if he has parked with the privilege of the badge, to show either that he has been attending upon and driving the severely disabled person who is named on the badge, or that he is that person himself. In recent months in your Lordships' House, we passed the measure which puts up the fine for an offence of this kind to £200. I think we all approved of raising the fine in that way, but it is necessary to know how the regulations will be policed. In particular, I should like to know whether traffic wardens will also have authority to challenge and take action, if they find that the scheme is being abused.
I should now like to come to inner London. There are at least two local authorities in the centre of London which have not accepted the orange badge scheme, and I understand the reasons for that. They have their own schemes. The Westminster local authority has a white card which is available only to persons who are 85 per cent. or more disabled, or who have been examined by their medical officer. But I suppose that there are between 10 million and 20 million people living within easy motoring distance of London, and there could be times—perhaps, before Chritmas for shopping—when a very large proportion of that part of the population which is entitled to have a badge could all be coming into central London.
There could then be a situation where motor cars with disabled people, who were entitled to use the badge, were converging on the centre of London for various reasons and making it impossible for any able-bodied person to park. I recognise that there is a problem there and I hope that something can be done to improve the situation, because someone who has a parking card for Westminster, where we are now, cannot use it in Kensington and Chelsea, and most people do not carry a map around showing where the dividing line is. The Minister may be able to tell us, and I shall be grateful if he can, whether there are any other large cities which have decided to protect their centres, in the way that central London has, from an avalanche of badges which could completely swamp them.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is to reply for the Government. His knowledge of, and great interest in, transport matters means that, although he has only recently arrived on the Government Front Bench, he will have given a great deal of thought to these matters. This is not the first debate in which he has taken part since he joined the Government, but I welcome him in taking part in this one today. Because I have been pressing the Government, I am very pleased that they have now carried out this operation and have laid these regulations.
I am on the record as having said what I thought should be done. I was commissioned by the Nuffield Trust to write a small book on "Disablement in the United Kingdom" during the International Year, and a section of that was devoted to this subject. These new regulations attempt to meet all the main points which I put on the record in that book. There is only one, which I will mention again, on which I do not think the Government have gone far enough, and that is insisting that the badge should be removable. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to reinforce that in some way.
Parking is an irritating problem for everyone who uses road vehicles, and that means a large part of the population. This scheme should be of interest and of help to all of them—able-bodied as well as disabled. In future, there will be no excuses for anyone who is misusing a disabled parking badge. Parking will continue to be an aggravation, oppressing the mind of citizens in the western world. That cannot be avoided in the foreseeable future. However, a scheme which wins public confidence, as this can if it is properly administered, will be of great benefit to disabled people, because it will no longer be distrusted by the able-bodied. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations (S.I. 1982/1740).—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
8.47 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for drawing our attention to this very important series of regulations. I would say, at the outset, that I agree with almost everything that the noble Lord has said, and the fact that I do not follow him in making contributions of a general nature does not mean any lack of interest. As one who, I suppose, is relatively able-bodied, I can appreciate the importance of these regulations to those of our fellows who, unfortunately, are disabled.
I think that the whole House wanted these regulations for two reasons: first, to endeavour to meet the wishes and needs of disabled persons, which is very important; and, secondly, to do everything possible to stamp out the abuse which, as was shown in various debates in your Lordships' House, was so apparent to everyone and which has discredited the whole scheme. Likewise, I am pleased to see the clear definitions of disablement that are set out in Regulation 5. I am also glad that the regulations exert the general pressure, which was mentioned in our previous debates, to ensure that the name of the holder and the period of validity are inserted on the new badges.
I should like to ask one question about the institutions to which badges may be issued. I notice that in the interpretation in Regulation 3, an "institution",
"means an institution concerned with the care of the disabled".
That is the same phrase as was used previously. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is to reply, is in a position to say whether this will cover bodies such as Rotary Clubs, Lions' Clubs and similar bodies, which have vehicles that are used from time to time to take disabled people out for the day or for holidays. Is the interpretation wide enough to cover them?
198
I would emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said about removing the badge. In our previous debate, noble Lords laid great stress on the fact that that is essential if we are to avoid abuse and wrongful use. Condition 3 on the back of the badge, which is shown in the schedule, quite clearly stresses that the badge may be used only by the holder. In our debate on 21st January of last year the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that local authorities would be asked to provide transparent, adhesive containers. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that a request is not sufficient and that this ought to be a compulsory issue, otherwise there will not be the easy facility by which a badge can be not only removed simply but also replaced simply. Replacement is as important as the initial removal.
Regulation 8 deals with the issue in certain circumstances of a duplicate badge. This is reasonable, but I should like to ask the Minister whether the penalties for misuse would apply if after a duplicate badge is issued the original is found and passed on to another person. I have looked at the interpretation of the relevant conviction and at the department's memorandum in the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and I cannot see clearly whether there would be a penalty for passing on to somebody else a previous licence which was thought to be lost but which had been retrieved. That appears to me to be an important question.
Regulation 12 quite properly provides for appeal to the Secretary of State in the event of a decision by an authority to refuse a badge to an applicant. Regulation 10(2) provides that, where an application is refused, the local authority must issue to the applicant a notice stating the grounds for refusal. There appears to be no provision for information about how to appeal to be given with that notice. If one looks carefully at Regulation 12, which deals with the provisions for appeal, one sees that the provisions are quite detailed but that the ordinary person, unless he is a member of an organisation which may be able to assist him, will know nothing whatever about how to appeal. If, therefore, a notice which states the reasons is to be sent to an applicant who has been refused a badge, it appears to me to be simple enough that with the notice details should also be sent about how to appeal.
I note also that according to Regulation 13, which deals with transitional provisions, badges which have already been issued will continue in force. Explanatory Note No. 8 says that this will preserve the validity of a badge issued under earlier provisions. Will this not create a certain amount of confusion, and is there to be no time limit by which badges which have already been issued should be exchanged? That appears to me to be a reasonable request.
I note also that a number of noble Lords who took part in our earlier debates, particularly in our debate on 21st January of last year, urged that there ought to be some kind of rear badge. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that this may have no effect on parking, which is the main purpose of the regulations, but it appears to me, as an able-bodied driver, that it would be helpful not only to me and to other motorists but also to disabled persons if there were a sign of some kind to indicate that the

199
driver in front was disabled. I know nothing about the controls on vehicles which are used by disabled drivers but I am told that some of them are very sensitive. It is therefore important that the person in the car behind a disabled driver should know that such a driver is in front because he can then take a little more care. Furthermore, if the orange badge at the back of the car is to be discontinued there needs to be a considerable amount of publicity about it in order to ensure that people no longer continue to use it and the public no longer recognise that badge to be valid. Nevertheless, I would urge that there should be some kind of sign at the back of the car, although not necessarily an orange badge, to indicate that the car is being driven by a disabled person.
Finally, in a previous debate I asked what could be done to extend the period of parking for disabled drivers. Disabled persons may wish to go to a place of entertainment. There may be a two-hour parking period. If they have got their disabled badge they can put it on the car and park legitimately where other people cannot park. But that parking period is not sufficient for them to enjoy their entertainment, and they cannot get out to take the car elsewhere. I believe that we ought to look at this point. When the noble Earl, Lord Avon, replied to that debate he said that no facilities were provided for this, but I would ask that this point should be looked at and provided for in future legislation.
My points have been devoted mainly to questions. Nevertheless, I realise the importance of the regulations and agree with the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who introduced them.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, who regrets his inability to be present this evening, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss these regulations. The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have covered the ground comprehensively, so I shall intervene briefly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us, we discussed the question of the orange badge scheme when an Unstarred Question was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on the 21st January of last year. The regulations are almost exactly as forecast by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for the Government on that occasion. We have heard that there is to be a tightening of eligibility for a badge. There is to be a fixed term of three years. There is to be a new design of badge—larger, with the name of the holder upon it and with prominence given to the date until which the badge is valid. And there is to be power for local authorities to refuse badges and to recall badges, once issued.
I find all that to be very satisfactory, subject to an important point with regard to the power to refuse a recall which my noble friend Lord Airedale will raise. But some of the questions which were raised in our last debate remain. Are the criteria for eligibility broad enough? Will there be difficulty over the phrase "very considerable difficulty in walking"? Is it right to have
200
no differentiation between passengers and drivers? Do the Government feel that any abuse of a kind to which the lack of such a differentiation has given rise in the past will be prevented by the fact that under the Disabled Persons Act 1982 misuse of an orange badge by a non-entitled person is now an offence? Is there any information yet available about the working of this new law?
Finally, I should like to join in emphasising the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and also the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave considerable significance—the question of the removability of the badge. In our last debate, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that local authorities were to be encouraged to provide transparent adhesive containers to permit badges to be removed more easily from the windscreen when not in use. What form does the encouragement take? Is it only the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred, and is such encouragement enough? It seems to me that it is essential that these badges should be easily removable. I share the disquiet which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have expressed on this particular point. So, with one or two reservations, as I have indicated, I welcome the new regulations and hope that they will help to restore confidence in the scheme.
9 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, as usual, brings before your Lordships' House a matter that is not only positive but in this case needing to be explained before 16th March. It is, as I understand it, about 16th March that local authorities will start to tighten up their issuing of orange badges. The aim is, of course, to control the misuse of badges such as we know at present exists, and local authorities are going to get stricter.
Although the categories named as eligible appear to be satisfactory, there will almost certainly be fringe cases of hardship. RADAR, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, intends to monitor the working of the new scheme and to report on hardships that occur. Those with weak or frail arms, yet whose legs are strong so that they cannot qualify for walking difficulties, may need to park conveniently if they have to carry or somehow get goods or work or shopping to a certain spot. That is one example of those who fall outside the present scheme. However, knowing the pre-orange badge era, I can say with absolute certainty that this scheme may not be perfect but so far as it goes it is invaluable and in our very best interests, and it is in our very best interests to try to make it work.
I say so far as it goes, because my noble friend Lord Crawshaw, who, alas, cannot be in your Lordships' House tonight, has pointed out the difficulties that he has, created through the Inner London boroughs that stay outside the scheme. Lord Crawshaw's disabilities prevent him from using public transport and because of these local limitations on the orange badge scheme he practically cannot drive himself to London without falling foul of the law. He lives in the Midlands and works diligently for projects for other disabled people, so he needs to be in London sometimes. He feels that his case reflects the difficulties of others in similar predicaments. While realising the traffic problems of

201
these inner boroughs, I do hope that with the tightening of the orange badge scheme and with the wheel clamps on their side the boroughs will try to provide for such unfortunate cases.
To return to the badge itself, it is incumbent on us, the fortunate holders, to return the badge to the local authority either when a vehicle changes hands or when the owner no longer requires it. At present there have been occasions when the badge has been an unjustified bonus with the purchase of a car, or even where less scrupulous friends and relatives do not always return the badge if the holder goes away into a home, or even further. Those of us who are passengers in specially adapted vehicles—and mine has been likened to the Pope-mobile or to a van that dispenses ice cream and hot dogs—know that even such vehicles can be put to other good uses than just to transport us. But disabled drivers of ordinary cars are still more vulnerable to the misappropriate use of their badges. We have just got to try to guard our badges jealously, impervious to all persuasive pleas from friends and families to borrow our car, plus badge, for an outing without us. We must also keep the badge secure from unauthorised drivers. These are our clear responsibilities, and I accept them.
My hope is that the new square orange badge really will have a container, as has been mentioned, that is easier to manipulate. Most of us have had windscreen badges to flower shows, race meetings, garden parties, easy to remove from our windscreens. I appeal to the Department of Transport that the design for the square badge be better than the round one, and that this should reduce the battle for the finger nails which obtains at present. I would just like to say one last word about the rear window badge. It does not have to be an orange one. Disabled driver badges are available through advice obtainable from the Disabled Living Foundation. On that note, I strongly support Lord Campbell in this Motion tonight.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, nobody, I think, could fail to be in favour of a scheme of this kind to assist disabled drivers and disabled passengers in their own cars. I join with my noble friend Lord Banks in what he has said about the scheme. I only wish to direct criticism, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments directed criticism, to one small aspect of the scheme—the words in Regulation 10 under the heading "Grounds for refusing to issue badge". The words are
"there has occurred on at least three occasions misuse which has led to a relevant conviction"—
and then, so to speak in capital letters—
"or which would give grounds for a relevant conviction".
I approached this matter wondering whether we were dealing with a privilege which a local authority is conferring in its discretion on a disabled person, or whether we were dealing with a disabled person's rights. When one looks at Regulation 5, under the heading "Descriptions of disabled persons", one sees that it says:
"disabled person to whom a local authority may issue a disabled person's badge"—
not shall issue, but may issue. I supposed at that point we were dealing with a privilege at the local authority's
202
discretion. But when we come to Regulation 10, which I started to quote, we read:
"The cases in which a local authority may refuse to issue a disabled person's badge are cases where—"—
and then follow paragraphs (a), (b) and (c); and then we find, perhaps to our surprise, that we are not dealing with a privilege at the local authority's discretion; we are dealing with a disabled person's rights. If a local authority is going to be allowed to take a badge away because it thinks that there has been misuse which would give grounds for a conviction, one is giving the local authority the power to punish a person by taking away his rights.
Who is a local authority to say that if a case were prosecuted it would lead to a conviction? The Attorney-General would not claim that; the Director of Public Prosecutions would not claim that; no chief constable would claim that. The very most that any prosecuting authority could claim would be that there are prima facie grounds for instituting a prosecution, but what the result of the case would be if it were tried in court no prosecuting authority would have any business to presume to decide. So, I suggest, this really will not do.
A person's rights can be taken away under these regulations because the local authority thinks that, whatever he might say in his defence, having taken legal advice and perhaps being legally represented, the view of the court at the end of the case would be that he is to be convicted. This simply will not do. I know that an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has pointed out, but that is no substitute for a trial in open court. The parties submit their written representations to the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State does not have to tell the applicant what the local authority said about him in its written submission. That is quite unlike a trial in open court, when he knows exactly what it is the other side is saying against him.
This is trial by local authority. This is punishing a person by taking away his rights because the local authority thinks that if he were prosecuted he would be convicted. It is not good enough. I close by referring to what the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said about this in its Eighth Report. It had "grave reservations about a presumption of guilt not tested by the courts".
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for instituting this debate, however short, this evening. I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, had to say. He has an absolutely cast-iron case, and I hope that before the regulations go through something will be done about what he suggested, because it seems to me, as a disabled magistrate, that they would not hold up in court at all. Other than that, I warmly welcome the day, 16th March, when this is to come about.
The noble Lord talked about abuse, as have other speakers. I wish, perhaps, that we could have stopped so much abuse by not having an orange colour. I should have preferred a bright green, or something

203
that everyone could see, where people have abused the orange badge scheme.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about the badge container. That is very important. I also hope that the badge will not be made of such a flimsy material that by being put in and out of a container it will soon be ripped and quite useless, and unable to be put back into the container.
As regards the local authority, I live in a county and I pay my rates to quite a large town, but I am not able to get an orange badge from that local authority. That is mentioned in the regulations. I have to go to the county. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps be able to help us on this matter because it is important that people should know where they can get a badge, I obtained mine about two years ago, so it is fairly up-to-date.
One more point I should like to mention is the problem of getting petrol at garages. As a driver of about, I suppose, 15,000 miles a year, I have very great difficulty in getting anyone to put petrol in my car. Without a badge on the back of the car, I have very great difficulty in getting the garage attendant to see that I am carrying an orange badge on the front of it; it makes life very difficult. I am constantly—and I am sure that this is the case for other noble Lords who are in my predicament—made to feel that I am a thorough nuisance on the road, and certainly in garages because more often than not there is only one person there and that one person is at the cashier's desk, and he or she finds it quite impossible to come out from behind that desk. Therefore, with a fast emptying tank one goes on one's way hoping against hope very often that one will find someone kind enough to fill one's tank for one.
Like other noble Lords I should like to say how pleased I am to have the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Front Bench tonight. He has always been a staunch supporter of ours and also a very knowledgeable person on all matters to do with transport. I wish to conclude by saying how much I personally am indebted to his predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for all that he has done. Indeed, two noble Lords have mentioned him in their speeches tonight. Over the last 18 months or so he has done a very great deal to help us all, and I would like that to be recorded, in the only way I can, in Hansard. Meanwhile, I very warmly welcome the new regulations.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I intervene briefly tonight because for many years I have been president of the Disabled Drivers' Motor Club and with them I have fought many battles—some with the late Graham Hill who did so much for disabled people—against, for instance, the disabled vehicle at the time when it was such a deathtrap, which has now led to the very satisfactory mobile allowance.
Speaking on behalf of the members tonight, I should like to say that we warmly welcome these new regulations. They consider this orange badge to be a very precious privilege, but they have been very saddened in recent years to see this privilege debased and discredited by the abuse that has been accorded to it. Indeed, sometimes wearing it on the car has been a
204
positive disadvantage rather than an advantage. As a joke I believe it is said there are 50,000 disabled drivers in this country but 150,000 badges. This cannot be right. Indeed, I had a friend who broke his leg skiing, and quite rightly for two or three months while it healed he had a disabled badge. Five years later he was turning up at a squash court with that badge still on the car. Speaking on behalf of members, I point out that they want to see a scheme that is well administered, least subject to abuse, and one that will be of positive advantage to them.
I should like to support my noble friend Lady Macleod by saying that some more thought must be given to the colour. To specify in the regulations that it should be orange is absurd. I should have thought that the first time these new badges are issued they should be of a different colour, and after three years they should be yet a different colour. Surely there will be the great advantage of weeding out abuse each time a different colour is introduced. It is very easy to do and it is done in many countries all over the world. Licences change and a different colour is issued, as it is with our local vehicle licences today. These new regulations are long overdue and I very warmly welcome them, not on behalf of the disabled, but on behalf of the House as a whole.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure that I echo the thanks of the House to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in bringing forward this Motion tonight. Of course, my noble friend is well known for his interest in matters pertaining to disabled persons, and I am sure that it would not be amiss if I reminded your Lordships that he was the chairman of the Scottish committee during the Year of Disabled People. I should like to thank him very much for his very kind personal remarks to me.
I welcome the opportunity to confirm to the House—and I use that phrase because my noble friend has outlined the new scheme as set out in the regulations very well—the steps that are being taken to improve the operation of the orange badge scheme and to eliminate the level of abuse. There is no doubt about the value of the scheme in helping the severely disabled. It is important. The Government pay particular attention to the fact that disabled people can and should be helped to live the most active lives they can and do so many of the things which we who are fully able take totally for granted.
The scheme operates under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and under regulations made by the Secretary of State. As I say, it was introduced to help people with various disabilities. The scheme has allowed people in cars or driving cars displaying the badge to park for up to two hours on yellow lines without charge or, on time limits, in meter bays without charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and indeed my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu illustrated the kind of abuse that has crept in. Over many years now there has been a great number of complaints about abuse of the scheme, particularly about the number of able-bodied people taking advantage of what we have normally called a concession, because it really is a concession that people who

205
have a badge do not have to pay the same kind of fees as others do. So in that respect it is a concession. I shall return to the question of privilege or right, which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised, a little later.
There is no doubt that some local authorities have taken a fairly liberal view, and in fact one can understand this. Local authorities have never seen it as their job to be an authority to determine these things, and if there was a balance of doubt that balance went to the benefit of the disabled. It is interesting, however, to note that in 1976, when the last census of badges was taken, there were some 220,000 badges in use, and that now it is generally thought that that figure might be nearer half a million, in which there could well be an element of abuse—abuse, not in the application for a badge, but in not surrendering it. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox referred to the bonus on buying a motor car if it displays a badge. I do not have to tell my noble friend that I know quite a lot about bonuses and motor-cars, and I hope that the badge has never been one in my experience.
Because of this criticism from all quarters—local authorities, police and organisations representing the disabled—a review of the scheme started in 1979, and a package of changes was announced in July 1981 by my noble friend Lord Avon. This package was produced after extensive consultation with all interested bodies. There are, in fact, three main strands to the package. The first and important one is that of there being included a separate offence for misuse of badges by able-bodied people. Then there are the new regulations, the subject of our debate this evening and, thirdly, the further guidance to local authorities. The separate offence, to which I have just referred—that of misuse—was introduced in the Disabled Persons Act 1981. As we have been reminded, it came into force in October of that year and it carried a maximum penalty of £200.
The new regulations—the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982—were laid before Parliament in December. They introduce a new design of badge, streamlined entitlement criteria, stronger powers for issue and withdrawal of badges and an increase in the optional fee from £1 to £2. The third strand of the package comes in the new guidance to local authorities; that is, Circular 4/82 issued in December of last year. Badges are available to four groups of people: the recipients of mobility allowance; the blind—that is, those registered under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 or, in Scotland, those within Section 64(1) of that Act—those using a vehicle supplied by a Government department or in receipt of a grant in respect of their own vehicle; and, lastly, those with a permanent and substantial disability which causes difficulty in walking. This restating of the availability should in fact streamline quite considerably the issue of badges.
On the question of badges, they will be square; the date of expiry will be much more prominent as, particularly, an aid to enforcement; and, as now, the name of the holder will be noted. Generally we are not in favour, although it has been considered, of changing the colour. Orange is a warning colour. It is quite a well known colour in that respect. It is generally accepted that this is the colour that denotes a disabled person. It would cause confusion if we started to change that
206
now. As for changing the colour at the end of a three-year period, or even from time to time, certainly that point has not been made to us in any forceful way by the disabled groups, and I have to say that it would undoubtedly add to the cost of the scheme. This is something which I am sure all of us would like to minimise.
The regulations provide for a local authority to refuse renewal of a badge if the applicant has misused a badge on at least three occasions, or allowed another person to do so in certain circumstances. The circumstances are those that may have led to a prosecution or payment of a fixed penalty, or in circumstances that might have given grounds for such a penalty. Badges may also be refused where the applicant fails to pay the fee if any fee is chargeable by the issuing authority.
The authority can, and may, require the return of a badge where the holder has misused it on three such occasions, but there is an appeal procedure. The appeal procedure was put in at the specific request of the disabled groups, and if noble Lords refer to the regulations they will note that under paragraph 12(3):
"The Secretary of State may in his discretion determine an appeal made under paragraph (1) even if the provisions specified in paragraph (2) (a) to (d) have not been fully complied with".
There is really a lot of room in which an appellant can make his case.
I was asked about enforcement. The police and traffic wardens can check the identity of people using badges to see that they are in fact entitled to use them. They are then at liberty to enforce the law as the law stands. It would not be for me this evening to say in what circumstances a police officer should make a charge. The badge may be forfeited on grounds of misuse, and there may be an appeal. This appeal procedure, to which I have referred, was introduced in Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and amended by virtue of Section 68 of the Transport Act 1982, which is perhaps why it has taken so much time.
The circular to which I have referred, No. 4/82, was sent out to local authorities and urged them to discontinue the supply of rear badges. These have been a source of great complaint. A number of noble Lords mentioned the question of a rear badge, and I shall come to that when I deal with specific questions. In the circular, authorities were asked to supply a transparent adhesive container to make it easier to house the badge. Local authority associations have been consulted about that, and I understand that the containers will be supplied by all issuing authorities once the new badges come into use. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, urged that local authorities should be compelled to issue them. I do not feel we want to compel anybody if they give an undertaking—which I understand has been given—that the containers will be given voluntarily. One does not want to get into compelling local authorities.
In that connection, most local authorities have done quite well in the past 10 years with regard to the badge scheme. It is those outside the local authorities who have brought about the abuse which now requires us to urge on local authorities a stricter practice; that cannot be laid at the door of the authorities. A new explanatory leaflet is being prepared. It will be available to the public, particularly those seeking or

207
using badges, before the changes come into operation next month. The leaflet will set out clearly the obligations—the obligations as well as the entitlement—of badge holders. It will also remind holders of the restrictions which apply in the four London areas.
Perhaps at this point I may touch on the four London areas, a matter which noble Lords have raised. They are the four boroughs in central London where the concessions do not apply; the Cities of London, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and part of Camden. Those areas have been excluded since the scheme's inception because of the acute traffic congestion and pressure on parking space, a matter which, noble Lords will recall, we have debated many times. The four boroughs are concerned, and they run their own local schemes. The Government have from time to time reviewed the position with the authorities to see if they could join the national scheme, but they maintain that they are not at this time able to do so. The situation is continually under review and the Government will be making further approaches when we see how the new scheme is beginning to work.
My noble friend Lady Macleod asked about the issuing authority for badges. Applications are dealt with by three bodies: in the shire counties by the appropriate county councils; in metropolitan areas by district councils; and in London by each of the boroughs concerned.
I come quickly to the various questions I have been asked. My noble friend Lord Campbell spoke about wanting a rear badge to indicate that there was a disabled driver. While I may have some sympathy with that, it is rather outside the present regulations. I have dealt with his question about enforcement in London. He then asked whether the circular was issued in Wales and Scotland, and I can tell him that it is. Copies of the circular will go into the Library of your Lordships' House automatically. He asked whether there were any cities in England, Wales or Scotland other than the four boroughs to which I have referred which excluded the orange badge scheme, and the answer is, no, there are no others.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked a number of questions. If I could first dispense with the voluntary bodies, the institutions—the Rotary Clubs, the Lions and so on—badges are provided for institutions caring for the disabled and it is open to any organisation to apply to the local council to get a badge and satisfy that authority that it carries disabled people for shopping trips and so on. But there are no concessions for an institution other than the concessions that an ordinary badge holder would have.
The noble Lord asked me about the appeal procedure. I think I have referred to that in saying that it is set out in this leaflet, which is quite easily available.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, what I was really asking was that, when the notice is sent to an applicant refusing a badge, if there is a leaflet to be obtained that should automatically be sent with that notice.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I would imagine that having a refusal notice would prompt the
208
badge holder, or the expectant badge holder, to go to his disability group or, indeed, the Citizens' Advice Bureau, which could then say to him "Here are your rights", bearing in mind that, when he originally received his badge he would have been sent a copy of his rights, his obligations and his entitlements. The leaflet includes some details of the appeal procedure and I think that it is up to him to keep that document by him because it is part of the whole system.
The noble Lord also asked me about anybody using a duplicate badge, a badge which was not specifically issued to him, whether duplicate or otherwise. That person commits an offence; it is a separate offence to which I referred and it has a maximum penalty of £200. There is no doubt that, should a badge holder misrepresent the facts, say he has mislaid his badge, get a duplicate and pass on the original, he, too, would be guilty of an abuse of the system. A local authority might feel that that should attract one of the three penalties going towards a refusal on another occasion.
Badges remain valid for three years, and the present badges will disappear over that time, which I think is probably the point that the noble Lord queried in relation to the transitional period. The noble Lord also asked about the two-hour limit. He felt it was not quite reasonable. I think he will probably accept that that is perhaps a different issue. The time period was arrived at in consultation and is a fair balance of what the Government, local authorities and the disabled groups felt. It is just a balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke about criteria and the differentiation between passenger and driver. The only thing I need say in this regard is that a badge holder can use a car that is being driven by someone else and it is up to him to satisfy an inquirer—the police or a warden—that he is using the badge and the concessions that attach to the badge properly. The noble Lord asked me about the circular and, as I have said, that is now available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, asked about hardship. We feel that the appeal procedure, in the light of a refusal to issue a badge, provides sufficient latitude. In all matters a line has to be drawn, and those of us caught on the wrong side always feel aggrieved. This is natural. But I am quite sure that, should an appeal be made, my right honourable friend would view it with as much sympathy as the circumstances would allow
I think that I have dealt with the questions about the inner London areas and the rear badge. I have to say to the noble Baroness that at one moment I was a little worried when she started talking about wheel clamps on their side; surely they should be underneath.
I turn to the rather difficult question that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale mentioned—that of privilege or right and the grounds for a relevant conviction. This provision has been included to enable an authority to take an action and withdraw a badge when complaints are made to it. It is in the main legislation, which is cast in terms of the word "may", and it would be for the courts to say whether it was a privilege or a right; it would be quite wrong for me to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said in his remarks that his group—and he has done an awful lot of work for disabled motorists—regard the scheme as a privilege. I think that most people in fact would.

209
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve asked a number of questions. I have dealt with them all, other than those relating to garages and petrol. Let me assure my noble friend that I ran a petrol station for some years and no disabled driver is a nuisance—thorough or ordinary. The Motor Agents' Association has encouraged a number of its members to display a badge which would identify those petrol stations which are prepared to offer the physical help which a disabled driver may need. I shall certainly undertake to draw the association's notice to the point that my noble friend has made. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for the continuing work that he does in this field, and I am glad to have had his help tonight.
Apart from the orange badge scheme, the Department of Transport is making efforts in many other fields to improve the quality of life for disabled people. Many noble Lords will know of the department's publication, issued a short while ago, entitled, Door to Door: A guide to transport for disabled people. This has been very successful, and quite recently my honourable friend announced the publication of another booklet, entitled, Transport for Disabled People: An Introduction to Local Guides. She also announced a few days ago that the very first motor show for disabled people is to be held at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, in Berkshire, in May of this year.
In conclusion, I would say that we believe that the orange badge scheme plays a vital role in helping people with severe mobility problems. It is essential that badge holders should be recognised as people genuinely entitled to assistance. The regulations and our efforts in this area, I hope, will improve the rules that will lead to a fair and balanced scheme which will continue to help those people in need.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether I may ask him one quick question. I thought that he would allude to it, but he did not. Regulation 9 refers to "The fee (if any)". Who is to decide whether or not people pay fees?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the fee was at a maximum of £1, which has now been raised to £2, and it may be levied if the local authority, the issuing authority, so decides. Some do so decide, and some do not.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part in this short debate. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox managed to come back in time, and I was delighted to have her support. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, took a clear view, as he has before, about the need for a rear badge, which would have nothing to do with parking. I would say to my noble friend who replied for the Government that I, too, simply referred to it for clarity; because there may be a case—and I am not demanding it myself—for a badge on the back to indicate that there is a disabled
210
driver. But that has nothing to do with parking; I want to make that clear. I agree that the present sticker, the square badge on the back, should go. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox also informed us that there are some separate badges of that kind already available and recognisably different from the parking badges.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised the important point to which the Joint Committee has drawn attention; that is, the matter of the presumption of guilt, rather than proof of guilt, enabling a local authority to ask for the badge to be returned. This is not the place for this to be pursued. I am grateful to him for raising that matter, which is one I did not have time to raise. There is a procedure whereby the Government will no doubt decide whether or not to give their views on this matter.
My noble friend Lady Macleod drew attention to something which, again, does not relate directly to parking but is important from the point of view of signs. That is the difficulty of severely-disabled people who cannot get in and out of their motorcars when getting petrol. I have raised this before in your Lordships' House because it has become much worse with the introduction of self-service stations. That is what really makes it difficult. What my noble friend said in reply certainly was the case in the past, when there were numbers of people serving at these stations, but now there is nobody serving and only somebody in the cashier's office at certain times of the day. The only thing which surprises me is that in the case of my noble friend Lady Macleod people were not dashing forward to help her—whether with petrol or changing a wheel or anything else! But that is a matter which does need attention, and I know that those who own these forecourts are trying to have a scheme whereby there is somebody who is available immediately to help the disabled driver, and an appropriate sign is visible at that petrol station.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for replying in considerable detail to the points that have been raised. I should like to deal with one point, which was my main one. He seemed to assure us that all the local authorities were going to issue a transparent container or pocket for the badge. My disquiet had been aroused by the extract from the press release of December 16th, which I will now read. There, it simply said:
"Local authorities will be asked to encourage the provision of transparent containers".
What my noble friend has told us tonight goes much further than that. I welcome it; but I should like to be certain that he has received an assurance from the local authority associations (which, I hope, will include the local authority associations in Scotland, too, which are separate) that every local authority will do this. I believe that if I could read that assurance into what my noble friend has said this evening, then that will be one of the main achievements of this debate.
When the local authorities do take decisions about their own schemes and then launch them I hope that the local press in those areas, and the other media, will give as much publicity as possible to the main point. That is the way in which the public are going to hear about these schemes—and, I hope, approve of the changes that are being made—and do their best to

211
make them work. I say again that I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  FILM LEGISLATION: PROPOSED CHANGES
  FILM LEGISLATION: PROPOSED CHANGES
  TEXTILES: IMPORTS FROM TURKEY
  TEXTILES: IMPORTS FROM TURKEY
  EUROPEAN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES: SUBSIDIES
  EUROPEAN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES: SUBSIDIES
  AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVES: EEC GRANTS
  AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVES: EEC GRANTS
  WORPLESDON LABORATORY
  WORPLESDON LABORATORY
  SALMON: PROSECUTIONS FOR ILLEGAL TAKING
  SALMON: PROSECUTIONS FOR ILLEGAL TAKING
  GILL NETS
  GILL NETS
  CIVIL SERVANTS AND THE EEC
  CIVIL SERVANTS AND THE EEC
  THE CHEMICAL DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT: RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
  THE CHEMICAL DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT: RESEARCH ACTIVITIES