Sitting of 24 February 1983

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

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 3 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received requesting value added tax relief for charities since he last answered oral questions.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): My Treasury colleagues and I have received 110 written representations on this subject since 27 January.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the Secretary of State for Social Services announced last week that there would be provision in the Finance Bill for VAT relief for contracted-out services to the Health Service, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no administrative reason why charities should not have VAT relief as well?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I cannot confirm that. There are formidable technical and administrative problems in meeting what I know is a widespread view in the House and which is represented by the early-day motion on the subject, which bears many signatures.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than 150 major charities now support that campaign? Will he do something to remove the obduracy of Customs and Excise, which is preventing those changes taking place and preventing the removal of a tax that should never have been imposed on charities in the first place?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I assure my hon. Friend that it is not the obduracy of Customs and Excise or any civil servant, but
    1038
    the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues that determines this issue.
    Mr. Cryer: Is there not a stark contrast between the administrative problems that are being solved by the Treasury to allow their friends who finance the Tory party to obtain relief on VAT when they provide contracted-out services to the Health Service and the Government's attitude to charities, which are working for other people but, apparently because of administrative difficulties, cannot possibly be given VAT relief? Does that not demonstrate double standards?
    Mr. Hayhoe: No, of course it does not. There is a complete difference between the case that is made for the charities—
    Mr. Mitchell: Why?
    Mr. Hayhoe: —and the number of charities involved and the business of the contractors that was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. Michael Morris: If it is the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues that determines these issues, in what way is it equitable for the private contractor who provides cleaning, laundering or catering services to a National Health institution to be considered more important than the charities that provide an identical service and on whom VAT is charged?
    Mr. Hayhoe: One is not comparing like with like in any way.
    Mr. Cryer: Come off it.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The interest of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in bringing more efficiency and value for money into services that may be contracted out of the Health Service is wholly dissimilar from the case that is made by the charities.

    West Midlands
    Mr. Beaumont-Darkasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take into account the problems of west midlands industry in framing his Budget.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I shall of course take them into account, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that industry and its work force have made huge efforts to cut costs and therefore make themselves more competitive? Does he therefore agree that the coming Budget gives him a great opportunity to help industry more and so help unemployment in the west midlands by giving all the help possible to reduce industry's costs? Furthermore, does he agree that it is more important to cut unemployment than to cut the standard rate of tax for those who are already in jobs?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said, I cannot anticipate my Budget statement, but I endorse my hon. Friend's opening remarks about the tremendous efforts made by industry. I also point out that substantial relief has been brought to industry by successive Budgets. I agree with him about the importance of industry, particularly the motor industry, to the west midlands. I have been pleased to note the

    1039
    substantial improvements that have taken place recently in sales by Austin Rover, sales of Metros, and the output of Sherpa vans by Freight Rover. I hope that that performance will continue to improve.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Chancellor aware that his last remark revealed a total misunderstanding of the gravity of the position in the west midlands? Will he confirm that, regionally and nationally, investments, output, profits and plant utilisation are at a post-war record low? Is that not a disgraceful record? When will he frame policies designed to reverse those trends?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The west midlands, having had so much of its activity concentrated on the motor industry, which has been through substantial difficulties in recent years, as he well knows, has therefore faced a surprising and unaccustomed portion of the economic storms that have been raging around the world. However, it is important to emphasise the improvements that are taking place and to underline the greater wisdom affecting local authorities in the region this year than last. There is a substantial contrast between the huge rate increases imposed on Birmingham by a Labour council last year and the substantial rate reductions under a Conservative council this year.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what the west midlands needs most is a reduction in the costs of employment, which could best be achieved by his cutting substantially the national insurance surcharge?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is manifest by the substantial reductions that we have already made in that tax on jobs imposed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Shore: After those incredible, complacent remarks, does the Chancellor not realise that last year he presented a budget for industry, the heart of much of which is in the west midlands? Is he not aware that the latest figures for industrial production showed that, overall, industry was producing 0·6 per cent. less in the last quarter than it was a year ago? When he, comes to construct his Budget, will he take account of his grievous errors of judgment last year, do something this time to lift British industry out of the pit into which it has fallen, and do something for the prosperity of the heart areas and industries of this country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has an astonishing capacity to disregard the extent to which many of industry's problems are the consequence of policies pursued over many years by the Labour party. He should acknowledge that total national output is already one and a half times higher than it was in the trough at the beginning of 1981. There is a prospect for growth in the year ahead, in some cases ahead of many our international competitors.

    Loan Rescheduling
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives of British banks; when next he expects to have further discussions concerning the rescheduling of loans; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Bank of England is closely in touch with British banks, and I hold regular meetings
    1040
    with the governor. I discussed the difficulties that many developing countries face in arranging external finance at the IMF interim committee on 10 and 11 February. The committee stressed the importance of the fund's role in providing balance of payments assistance to member countries that engage in adjustment programmes and agreed that fund quotas should be increased from 61 billion special drawing rights to 90 billion special drawing rights.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Chancellor confirm that the British banks and the Government operate different standards regarding loans and their rescheduling for British people and firms in contrast to the large loans that are made to countries such as Argentina and Brazil? Will he confirm that on 20 December Brazil brought together 120 top international bankers and said "You accept our four-point package or else."? On new years's eve Brazil refused to make any capital repayments until the banking system accepted its terms, although it owed £90 billion—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is Question Time, not speech time.
    Mr. Skinner: Does it not show up the Government's policy in that they allow tax relief to British banks for lending such money while refusing tax help to charities and other bodies that have been mentioned today?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There has been no change in the provisions affecting tax relief for British banks in respect of their debts or prospective debts. The health of the British banking system and the world banking system is a fundamental consideration if they are to be able to offer assistance of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman to borrowers in this country.
    Mr. Eggar: If rescheduling were not permitted, would that not lead to a fall in the standard of living of many millions of people who are much worse off than we are? Would it not also lead to a lack of export orders for the United Kingdom?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The United Kingdom producer has a manifest interest, not just in the health of the United Kingdom banking system, but in the chances of restoring to balance the economies of other countries which represent in practice and prospect potential customers for this country.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peter Shore.
    Mr. Shore: No thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that the right hon. Member had nodded to show that he was seeking to catch my eye.
    Mr. Skinner: I shall nod a lot.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Chancellor explain the rationale of making loans to countries that cannot pay interest on them and then lending them more in order to pay interest on the money we lent in the first place?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Such arrangements only take place alongside substantial changes in the pattern of expenditure and borrowing of the countries involved. It is a condition of the granting of IMF adjustment loans, for example, that those countries should transform their spending pattern in order that they can improve their chances of repaying the debts that have been accumulated

    1041
    previously. That is precisely what was undertaken in this country when it was being managed, to its great misfortune, by the Labour party.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it comes ill from the Labour party to tell us that we should care more about the Third world and its problems and care more about jobs in this country and about making it possible for those countries' economies to be sustained when, in any event, many of the loans were negotiated during the period that it was in office?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with both of my hon. Friends. It is manifest that this country and its people have an interest in restoring the balance of overseas economies for the sake of the people who live there and of the people in this country whose jobs depend upon those countries' prospects. One would not expect consistency of any kind from the Labour party. I am not surprised at the silence of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore).

    Argentine Government (Loans)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding United Kingdom involvement in loans for the Argentine Government.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The IMF has approved loans amounting to about $2·2 billion in support of an economic stabilisation programme. International banks, including British banks, signed a short-term bridging facility for $1·1 billion at the end of last year and are still negotiating a $1·5 billion medium-term loan.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Chancellor aware that many people will be wondering how much of the loans advanced to Argentina will be used by the ruling junta to purchase arms for any future military adventures? Why should the Argentine economy need such assistance, bearing in mind the flattering remarks of the present chairman of the Conservative party when he visited Argentina on a trade mission in 1980 and said that the junta was running the economy well?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Argentine economy has many natural strengths. In addition, Argentina runs a trade surplus. There is never a shortage of countries willing to offer arms in exchange for commodities produced as a result of the trade surplus. The effect of the IMF programme is, as I have explained, to require the Argentines to undertake an adjustment programme to correct the balance of their economy because, notwithstanding the country's natural resources, its economy has been so managed as to accumulate substantial debts.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider that reply? Was it not a rather bland statement, because the Argentine Government have not renounced the use of force as a way of solving the Falkland Islands dispute? Is it not rather unedifying that British banks should be engaged in such negotiations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: British banks have substantial and long-standing financial interests in Argentina. One conclusion at which we arrived was that financial restrictions should be removed in both directions. One cannot, by manipulating such matters, stop the Argentines engaging in arms purchasing. I fully endorse my hon.
    1042
    Friend's complaint about the conduct of the Argentine Government and I hope, with all other hon. Members, that they will renounce their willingness to commit hostilities.
    Mr. Shore: As conditionality is at the heart of IMF lending, as the Argentine Government—a dictatorship—have been spending excessively on military hardware and services, and as Argentina is engaged with Britain in hostilities that it has not called off, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow the British member of the executive board of the IMF to agree to a further loan to Argentina? Since the Bank of England refused to join the BIS in the temporary bridging loan some two to three months ago, why has the Chancellor now allowed the Bank of England to organise not merely the rescheduling of old British debt, but the lending of new money to Argentina?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must accept the reality of the position. Conditions inserted into such loans will not stop the Argentine Government acquiring arms as a result of their surplus in trade. The Argentine Government's capacity to do so will be reduced significantly by the introduction of the IMF programme for its loan. The programme includes conditions that require substantial adjustments in the Argentine economy, and that will reduce rather than increase the scope for the purchase of arms.

    Value Added Tax
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the zero rating of all essential items of baby care for the purposes of value added tax; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Babies' clothing and footwear are already relieved from value added tax, as is most baby food.
    Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite what he said, it can cost people up to £60 in tax to buy essential items of baby care? Is he further aware that the maternity grant, which was fixed in 1969 but which is now worth much less, has been eroded by the application of VAT on other items of baby care? Will he consider increasing the maternity grant and zero rating all items of baby care that are not at present zero rated?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Questions about the maternity grant should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The hon. Lady should recognise that it is not just a tax on luxuries but that it covers some essential items. If we removed all the essential items from VAT, that tax base would be greatly reduced, which would lead to greater problems.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Raceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a rate band of income tax below the present standard rate.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Race: Does the Minister recall the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which stated that a married couple with two

    1043
    children on two thirds average earnings has suffered a combined tax and national insurance increase of 25 per cent. since the Government took office, while an identical family on 10 times average earnings had benefited from a reduction in tax and national insurance of 21 per cent? Why is the Minister not prepared to tell us now that the Government will do something to redeem their election promises to cut taxation, especially for the low-paid?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman asked about a reduced rate band. The publication "Labour's Programme 1982" states:
    "Our first priority, however, is a significant real increase in tax thresholds."
    That is the combined wisdom of both sides of the House about how to use any money that my right hon. and learned Friend may have to reduce taxes.
    Mr. Timothy Smith: Would not the introduction of a lower rate band lead to considerably higher administrative costs for the revenue, taxpayers and employers? Is not the greater priority the increasing of tax thresholds generally?
    Mr. Ridley: The Inland Revenue would require about 1,500 extra staff. However, I prefer to stress my hon. Friend's second argument, which is that one can do more good to more people by raising thresholds than by reintroducing a lower rate band.
    Mr. Cook: Does the Minister acknowledge that the reason why the first priority must now be to raise the thresholds is that his Government reduced them in 1981? Does he remember that when his Government abolished the reduced rate band they thereby increased the margin of taxation for 2 million low-paid workers? As the Prime Minister at Question Time on Tuesday admitted candidly that only the most wealthy are paying less tax under this Government, does the Minister accept that common decency requires him to reintroduce the low rate band and that he should do for the low-paid what the Government have already done for the higher paid?
    Mr. Ridley: It has been conceded many times from this Dispatch Box that taxation has increased under this Government. However, the counterpart to that is that taxation upon companies and industries has been greatly reduced. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged the Government to do more to help industry. It has been done.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Richard Wainwrightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the total European Community revenue from member countries' value added tax is derived from value added tax revenue of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ridley: The United Kingdom's share of total Community revenue from VAT own resources is estimated at 20·72 per cent. in the 1983 Community budget.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that Italy, which has a gross domestic product similar to that of the United Kingdom, contributed only 14·9 per cent. from VAT resources to the European Community, which compares badly with the figure that the Minister has given? What action will the Treasury take to remedy this and other persistent disparities that damage our economy?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot confirm that figure for Italy, but I shall check it. Our share of Community revenue is 22·46
    1044
    per cent. and the proportion that comes from VAT own resources is only 20·72 per cent. The main iniquity in our total contribution lies in our excessive contribution to agricultural import levies.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Treasury's expenditure of public money is rather more prudent than that of the European Commission? Therefore, will he make strenuous efforts to ensure that there is no increase whatever in own resources to Europe?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for the great compliment that my hon. Friend paid to the Treasury. Such compliments are hard to come by. I confirm that what he said is the Government's policy in relation to increasing own resources.

    Marriage (Fiscal Disadvantages)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to remove the fiscal disadvantages of marriage.
    Mr. Ridley: The fiscal advantages and disadvantages of marriage was one of the issues set out for public discussion in the Green Paper on the taxation of husband and wife. The Government are considering the wide range of views expressed on the Green Paper and possible options for change.
    Mr. Marlow: As it is not yet a crime for a couple to own two homes, or alternatively to save money during their lifetime and have an investment income from those savings, why is it that they would be better off in either case were they to live in sin rather than to stay married?
    Mr. Ridley: Against that, there are considerable advantages both in capital gains tax and capital transfer tax for those who are married, rather than performing that rather less elegant way of cohabitating that my hon. Friend has mentioned. What is more, a two-earner married couple are currently entitled to £4,010 in personal allowances, whereas a two-earner unmarried couple are entitled to £3,130 in personal allowances. That seems to be an advantage for marriage.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing child benefit as part of the fiscal advantages of having children within marriage. Will he also recognise that the withdrawal of the child tax allowances make child benefit an important part of raising the effective thresholds for those with children?
    Mr. Ridley: I was animadverting to the fiscal advantages of marriage, and to stretch that to the consequences of having children is pushing me a little far. I confirm that child benefit is an essential method of support for the family and one that the Government have done their best to enhance.

    Keith Committee
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to receive the report of the Keith committee.
    Mr. Ridley: My right hon. and learned Friend has recently received part I of the report. It covers income tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax and VAT. It will be published on 23 March. Part 2 of the report dealing with the remaining duties and taxes should be ready later in the

    1045
    year. We are grateful to the committee for its work. The report is a very substantial document. It deserves careful study and full consultation. This will inevitably be a long process.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has already put an end to the Soviet-style methods of investigation and interrogation and breaking and entering that have been used by VAT inspectors and Customs and Excise men? Will he accept the recommendations of his hon. Friends who are members of the Conservative small business bureau contained in a booklet recently published called "Moving Forward", to the effect that a High Court warrant should first be issued before documents can be seized?
    Mr. Ridley: I pay tribute to that booklet. I must also pay tribute to the Keith committee report. The latter is an extremely weighty document of great length and I suggest that all concerned would be wise to study both documents before coming to a judgment.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: When dealing with income tax evasion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take account of the concern of the House at the extent of the evasion of income tax and contrast the penalties and the treatment of those offenders with those people, particularly in Oxford, who found themselves arrested merely on suspicion of fraud? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware by now that for a tax system to be accepted as important, as it is, it should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair?
    Mr. Ridley: These matters have been examined in great detail by Lord Keith and his committee. It is right that the House should read the report and then give its views on what the report says, and I look forward to that debate. It will be most important, as it is important that the principles in these matters should be established. Equally, it would be wrong for me to prejudge that by answering such specific questions.

    Public Expenditure (Shortfall)
    Mr. Altonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the general allowance for shortfall made in "The Government's Expenditure Plans" (Cmnd. 8789-I).
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): The figures in Cmnd. 8789 for estimated outturn in 1982–83 were based on estimates prepared by Departments at the end of 1982. These made provision for shortfall in expenditure on individual programmes where it could be identified at that time. The general allowance for shortfall of £950 million in 1982–83 was an estimate by the Treasury, at the time of preparation of the White Paper, of further shortfall from spending Departments' earlier estimates of outturn. For 1983–84 the figure of £1,200 million is an estimate of the overall net shortfall in expenditure which can be expected to arise in that year.
    Mr. Alton: Why does the White Paper not specify individual areas where shortfall will occur, instead of giving a general global estimate? How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman presume that local authorities will fall short by specific amounts when he cannot have any idea whether they will underspend or overspend?
    Mr. Brittan: It is not possible to be precise as to exactly which Departments will experience a shortfall of a particular amount.
    Mr. Latham: With regard to shortfall, is the Treasury giving active support to the appeal by the Prime Minister and by the former Secretary of State for the Environment that local authorities and nationalised industries should spend up to their permitted targets on construction?
    Mr. Brittan: The Treasury is involved with the advice being given to reduce the underspending and considerable progress is being shown in that direction.

    Betting Tax (Racing)
    Mr. Freudasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the effect of the betting tax on the racing industry.
    Mr. Hayhoe: A joint memorandum has been submitted by the Jockey Club and other leading betting and racing organisations. Representations have also been received from the British Greyhound Racing Board and other interested groups and from many hon. Members.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister accept that a cut in on-course betting duty would give a huge fillip to this labour-intensive industry, at a small cost to the Government?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I can confirm that such a move would be welcome, but I must also use the traditional formula and say that I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is it not time that it was recognised that bookmakers have had their day and should be abolished?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Whether that is a desirable objective or not, I am sure that it should not be the function of the taxation system to achieve it.

    £1 Sterling
    Dr. M. S. Millerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed as a percentage, what is the value of £1 sterling today compared with May 1979.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: According to the general index of retail prices, the value of £1 sterling in January 1983 was 66 per cent. of its value in May 1979.
    Dr. Miller: Would it not make more sense, if a devaluation of that kind is to be carried out, for it to be done as an operation for the benefit of the country, so that we are not dragged into that position, with such an injurious effect on the country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no benefit in a loss in the value of the pound as measured by the retail prices index. It is a measure of the rate at which inflation is taking place, and compares favourably with a much sharper fall, during the same period under the Labour Government, from 100 to 55 per cent. It is a significant step in the right direction, but inflation is still greatly to be deplored.
    Mr. Latham: Can we not be sure about one thing, which is that if there were a Labour Government there would not be a 20 per cent. fall in two years, but a 50 per cent. fall in two days?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to predict, but my hon. Friend may be aiming in the right direction.
    Mr. Straw: Is not the truth of the Government's alleged success on inflation that it has been bought at the cost of an overpriced and dishonest pound, a catastrophic loss of competitiveness and 2 million people on the dole? Is the Chancellor not aware that most forecasters are now predicting that, on a continuation of present policies, inflation will go up and not down? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the analysis of the Financial Times—the Conservative party and the bankers' paper—that there is a big round of price rises on the way?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Under this Government substantial headway has been made in reducing the rate of inflation, and provided that we maintain sound financial policies there are prospects of continuing to move in that direction. We have succeeded ahead of all expectations in recent months, but progress in the immediate future is likely to be slower. As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that an overvalued pound, as he puts it, is to be regarded as a dishonest pound, I should have thought that this was precisely the opposite of what is desirable. As for his suggestion that loss of competitiveness, as he puts it, is to be recovered by adjusting the value of the pound, that is again a misleading insight. The only worthwhile way to improve competitiveness is to improve the competitive performance, in terms of price and quality, of the output of our goods and services.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Knoxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many member states currently take part in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
    Mr. Ridley: Eight.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the damaging effects of short-term fluctuations in sterling, does my right hon. Friend not think that it is high time Britain became a full member of the EMS?
    Mr. Ridley: One of the difficulties, as demonstrated recently, is that when the oil price has been tending to fall, sterling has tended to fall, too. At the same time, the German mark has tended to rise. It is that disequilibrium that occurred before, in the opposite direction, with the oil price rise in 1979. It is a problem that has always presented a difficulty. It remains our policy that we should join the EMS when conditions are right.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the Minister not accept that the damaging uncertainty for traders about the international value of sterling would be assuaged substantially if the Government announced that they were starting negotiations with a view possibly to joining the European monetary system?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not think that the instability in exchange rates would be helped by joining or not joining. The instability arises because of varying degrees of success in various economic policies. A change in the price of oil, the balance of commodity prices throughout the world, and a whole mass of matters go into determining exchange rates. They cannot be taken out simply by negotiating in relation to the EMS.

    Competitiveness (Exchange Rates)
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the influence of the fall in sterling exchange rates on competitiveness of the United Kingdom since July 1982.
    Mr. Leon Brittan: There are many aspects to competitiveness such as marketing, reliability and design, which are not directly affected by the changes in relative costs. But the fall in the exchange rate since July has probably improved relative unit labour costs by about 12 per cent. Whether this improvement is sustained depends upon the future level of wage settlements and productivity.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Chief Secretary now saying that his statement in December that three-quarters of the improvement in competitiveness had been due to the decline in the value of the pound was wrong? If he is not saying that, does he not agree that the pound should fall still further if we are to improve our competitiveness?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not think that a further fall in the pound would improve our competitiveness. It improves relative costs only so long as the nation is prepared to accept lower real wages and lower living standards that result from the higher cost of imports. It does not follow by any means that this would be the case.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that many sections of our industry are extremely competitive, bearing in mind that last year we had a balance of payments surplus of £4,500 million, £2,000 million of which was on manufactured goods?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I would go further and say that the comparison of the competitiveness figures in terms of cost competitiveness can be extremely misleading. West Germany's relative costs deteriorated by 20 per cent. between 1970 and 1980, but during that period she maintained her 20 per cent. share of main manufacturing countries' exports. That is not, therefore, the proper test of these matters.
    Mr. Shore: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presided over a 12 per cent. depreciation in the past three months, and as, on his own admission, this has improved relative normalised labour costs by 12 per cent., why does the Chief Secretary not come clean and say that he thinks that this is, on the whole, to the advantage of this country and its manufactures? If he does not think that it is to the advantage of this country, what does he propose to do to reverse it?
    Mr. Brittan: I have explained in my last two answers just how misleading that statistical test is, if one looks at what has happened to Germany. I have also explained that it is by no means beneficial for the value of sterling to fall unless the consequences of lower living standards are prepared to be met. At the same time, it is right that full advantage should be taken by British industry of the advantages that do accrue.

    Budget (Representations)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from industry on the forthcoming Budget.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have received a number of representations both from individual companies and from national bodies, such as the CBI, which represent their interests.
    Mr. Miller: While warmly welcoming the fact that the two main concerns of industry—inflation and interest rates—have been met by the Government, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless, in pursuit of his recognition of the importance of manufacturing industry for employment and its competitiveness, to examine those taxes that discriminate against employment in industry, such as the national insurance surcharge and the special car tax, which is of particular relevance to the west midlands?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already done a great deal to reduce the pressure imposed by tax on industry by knocking 2 per cent. off the tax on jobs imposed by the Labour Government. In addition to the pressures on industry, there are tax pressures on people. I shall have to consider all these matters, as well as the fiscal position as a whole, in the weeks that remain before my Budget.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer remember that he won votes at the last general election with the master plan that he was to reduce personal taxation, fill the pockets of working people with rebated tax that they would use to buy consumer goods, which would set the wheels of industry humming and reduce drastically the high unemployment figure of 1 million? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that there remains only the coming Budget for him to do something about that promise and that if he fails to take action his hon. Friends will be disastrously embarrassed when they ask for more votes at the next election?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course the reduction in the burden of taxation on people and industry is, and was, an important objective. That is why the basic rate of income tax and all other rates of tax have been reduced. Unfortunately, to a significant extent that has been offset by the substantial increase in earnings that took place as a result of the collapse of the pay policy over which the Labour Government presided.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wardasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Signor Fanfani, the Prime Minister of Italy. This evening I shall be giving a dinner in his honour at 10 Downing Street.
    Mr. Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that most of the hardships inflicted on the public during the recent water strike resulted from the trade union leaders concerned using their monopoly supply position and a closed shop to break agreements that they had freely entered into? Does this not show the need for a withdrawal of trade union immunities where essential services are concerned and for binding arbitration?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the abuse of monopoly power. It seems sometimes to be used to give the producer what he wants rather than the consumer what he or she needs or wants. There was an agreement between the water workers and the employers about binding arbitration. That agreement was broken. Another agreement was made, when they first went to ACAS, with the mediator. That agreement, too, was broken. So there can be agreements that are broken. We are looking at the consequences of this for future legislation and the need for a statutory duty to continue the supply of essential services.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that much the clearest lesson to be drawn from the water strike is how damaging it is for the Government to accept the advice of the Secretary of State for Employment? Does she not understand that if she had consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) she would not have come to the Dispatch Box with the false figures that she has provided today and my right hon. Friend might have saved her from a great deal of embarrassment?
    The Prime Minister: I have not mentioned any figures so far today, none at all. What the water strike has shown is that there are people who are prepared for their own personal advantage—
    Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Lady.
    The Prime Minister: —to attempt to withhold essential commodities and services from old and young alike, and that people who attempt to do that will be supported by the Opposition.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady has it wrong again. If she really wants to stop strikes, why does she not compare her record in that matter with that of the Labour Government? She will then discover that the number of working days lost under her Administration has been 40 per cent. higher than it was under the Labour Administration. That is because she accepts the advice of her Secretary of State for Employment.
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense. Did the right hon. Gentleman condemn the water strike, or was he on the side of the strikers?
    Mr. Foot: Of course I did not condemn the strike, because the strikers have a right to justice under this Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]
    The Prime Minister: Do not the consumers, the pensioners and the family have a right to justice, and why did the right hon. Gentleman prefer to—(Interruption.)—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The Prime Minister is asking questions.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House knew the correspondence that I received after last week's exhibition, it would ensure that every one has a right to be heard here.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, true to his typical beliefs, preferred to be the strikers' friend against the consumer, and was prepared to see old-age pensioners and mothers with young children go to

    1051
    standpipes rather than urge the trade unions to honour a clause in their original agreement. As a result, the consumer lost, the strikers lost—
    Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Lady lost.
    The Prime Minister: We now have the new socialism, the new caring society, in which the trade unions care for themselves but not for those whom they serve.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does—[Interruption.] No doubt there will be even more noise next week when the Labour party has had time to get over the humiliation of Bermondsey and the Conservative has lost his deposit. In the meantime, will the Prime Minister, instead of merely exchanging insults with the Leader of the Opposition, tell us what lessons she learnt from the water strike? Does not the lack of a coherent incomes policy in the public sector give the worst of both worlds—great inconvenience to the public and a vacillating approach to the level of settlements?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the lessons of history. If one can break an agreement of the kind that the water workers broke in breaking the original NJIC agreement, one can also break, as we know, a statutory incomes policy. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that?

    Brookmans Park
    Mr. Murphyasked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Brookmans park.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Murphy: On behalf of my constituents may I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the former Labour Government's advertising campaign on defence, which said:
    "While we work for a lasting peace, we have to have nuclear weapons?"
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I remember words to that effect in the great advertising campaign that was inaugurated and carried through by the Labour Government of 1969, in support of Polaris missiles, of which some of the members of that Government did not approve. Words to that effect were used in that advertisement and, if I might say so, while we have the threat that we have from the Soviet Union, those words are as true today as they were then.
    Mr. Weetch: In view of the nauseating publicity, especially in the tabloid newspapers, about the private life of the Royal family, and, indeed, about others, does the Prime Minister agree that it is high time that we had a Right to Privacy Act—[Interruption]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman read question No. 2, which relates to Brookmans park?
    Mr. Weetch: —which could be extended to the people in Brookmans park? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is high time that we had a Right to Privacy Act, so that the families of many people could be protected from the predators of the media?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that that was dealt with in a private Member's suggestion in the House last week,
    1052
    and the House voted on that measure. I have nothing to say about what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. I understand that the matter is sub judice.

    Engagements
    Mr. Dykesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has time today to consider the future of the National Health Service, a matter which all Governments must consider all the time, will she agree that it is absurd for people in the Labour party to suggest, for instance, that limited privatisation of certain maintenance and contract cleaning activities in the NHS would be a serious attack on the basis of the NHS? As the chairman of the trade association has suggested that £40 million could be saved if those activities were privatised, would it not be a good idea to provide more resources for genuine patient care?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal of money could be saved by putting some services such as cleaning out to contract and that the money thereby saved would be much better used in patient care. If money were saved it would go to patient care.
    Mr. Grimond: If the Prime Minister today is considering further possible wage claims, will she discuss with the leaders of industry how they expect workers to take very small increases when very large increases and large golden handshakes are constantly given to directors, regardless of the success of the companies, and when, even in the nationalised industries, increases at the top have been far bigger than at the bottom? If Victorian virtues are to return to this country, should they not start at the top?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the top in politics, what he says is indeed true?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In considering the National Health Service, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that during this Parliament expenditure on patient services has been increased by 6 per cent., after allowing for inflation, which is indeed poor evidence of an intention to dismantle the welfare state?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. There has been an increase in expenditure on patient services, and that is reflected in the increasing numbers of doctors, nurses, and professions ancillary to medicine in the NHS under this Government, over and above what happened under the Labour Government. So it is we who should boast about our record in the NHS, not they.
    Mr. Stoddart: Will the right hon. Lady call in the Secretary of State for Defence this afternoon, reprimand him for his Goebbels-type party political broadcast yesterday, and remind him that this Government left us nearly defenceless against the Argentine attack by running down the Navy and proposing to sell Invincible? Will she bear mind that at the time of the Russian invasion of Hungary we did nothing because we were invading Egypt? Will the right hon. Lady also remind the right hon.

    1053
    Gentleman that this Government are committed to the non-proliferation treaty? Does her policy, which says that nuclear weapons will stop war in Europe, extend to all other countries?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, Sir. The Falklands war was fought with an excellent Navy and was won gloriously. It is a blot on the whole of the Western world that we stood by and
    1054
    allowed the invasion of Hungary. [Interruption.] With all due respect, the whole of the Western world was not fighting somewhere else and it is a blot on the United Nations and on the Western world. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten what happened recently in Afghanistan? Why does he not condemn that? The truth is that my right hon. Friend's party political broadcast last night was excellent and it clearly drove home very hard indeed.

Northern Ireland (European Parliament Inquiry)
3.30 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the constitutional implications of the European Community decision to interfere in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): The Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament decided yesterday to make a report on the situation in Northern Ireland on the basis of three motions for resolutions before it. No decision was taken on a fourth resolution in the name, inter alia, of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), nor has the Committee taken a decision about the appointment of a rapporteur. There is not yet, therefore, any clear indication of how the Committee will seek to take this forward.
The Government's view on this matter is clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) stated it in the House on Monday. The European Parliament has no business to discuss the internal political affairs of a member state. These resolutions, in so far as they cover such affairs, are therefore in our view not within the competence of the Parliament. Moreover, in June 1981 the European Parliament itself accepted that it had no competence to make proposals for changes in the constitution of Northern Ireland. It follows that any conclusion that the committee may reach can have no practical effect and the decision of the political affairs committee of the Parliament can have no constitutional implication for the United Kingdom. The Government were not in a position to prevent yesterday's decision, which we regret.
It remains the Government's wish to promote the greatest possible understanding of their policy in Northern Ireland amongst our partners in the EC, in the Parliament and elsewhere, but this decision will do nothing to advance such understanding.
Mr. Molyneaux: May we take it that in those cases where the Secretary of State, perhaps by a slip of the tongue, used the term "European Parliament" he meant "European assembly"?
In the light of the statement on the Government's position in the House last Monday and in the light of the Secretary of State's words this afternoon, can we take it that the Government will afford no facilities, no special protection, and no co-operation for these itinerant meddlers? Secondly, as the motions were sponsored by representatives of the Irish Republic, where stands now that which Dublin used to refer to as the unique relationship between these two nations?
Finally, will the Secretary of State take steps to increase security measures to counter the upsurge in killings which will result from this incitement to violence?
Mr. Prior: I do not think that this is in an incitement to violence. I think that it is a meddling in other people's affairs, which will not help. That I make perfectly clear. I shall also make clear to the rapporteur the constitutional position of Northern Ireland if he were to decide to take the matter further.
The hon. Gentleman can call the European Parliament an assembly if he likes, but I shall call it a Parliament.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the main thrust of his answer today is one with which we shall concur? Does the Secretary of State also know—I am sure that he does—that we have a policy for Northern Ireland which we are and shall be pursuing? We also have a policy for the EC and its assembly—not Parliament—and we shall be pursuing that. We agree that the matter in the private notice question is not one for the EC assembly but for the House. Therefore, we shall not co-operate with any inquiry into the internal affairs of this House by the EC assembly.
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I try to take every opportunity, as I believe do all hon. Members, to put forward the facts about Northern Ireland, and we should continue to do so.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Secretary of State aware that three resolutions before the political affairs committee of the European assembly yesterday were sponsored by the three main parties in the Dublin Parliament, which claims jurisdiction over Northern Ireland? Is he also aware that one of the resolutions stated clearly that the committee should word a resolution that would lead to a united Ireland? Is not that a constitutional matter and, as the Secretary of State has admitted that there is a violation of the treaty, are his Government prepared to go to the appropriate court in Europe and fight this matter so that Parliament's competence can be seen and declared?
Mr. Prior: The last point is a matter to which we must give consideration now, and we shall do so, but on the earlier points it is clear that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland could be discussed by the committee, and that we utterly reject, as I have already stated.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time, as the House well knows; I shall call one more hon. Member from either side.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the objection to this proposal is not that the United Kingdom has anything to fear from a wider knowledge of the problems in Northern Ireland, still less that the committee has any power to do anything about it, but that by its activities it may make life a great deal more difficult for those who have to contend with the problems within Northern Ireland?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for that remark. It is the most extraordinary thing that nearly everything that happens about Northern Ireland makes it more difficult to solve the problem.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend use every means at his disposal to bring home to the MEPs who are contemplating this action the fact that any attempt at mischievous meddling in the affairs of Northern Ireland will do nothing whatever to solve the deep-seated problems of that province—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why did you set it up?
Mr. Atkins: —and that if they attempt to hold meetings in Northern Ireland, the only achievement will be to put at risk the lives of innocent people?
Mr. Prior: Yes, I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend said.

Business of the House
3.37 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on policing in the Metropolis on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY I MARCH—A debate on the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH—Motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order.
THURSDAY 3 MARCH—Until about Seven o'clock, a debate on the CAP price proposals for 1983–84, and other measures. The relevant document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Afterwards, motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order.
FRIDAY 4 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 7 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of the review by Lord Jellicoe, Cmnd. 8803.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order.
[Documents for Debate on Thursday 3 March and relevant reports of European Legislation Committee: 4020/83, 11946/82, 4376/83: Agricultural Price Proposals 1983–84 and related matters (See HC 34-x (1982–83) para. 1); 11089/82 Intervention prices for butter, skimmed milk powder and certain cheeses (See HC 34-iv (1982–83) para. 6)]
Mr. Foot: I put to the right hon. Gentleman four matters which, I am sorry to say, I have had to put to him before, but their urgency grows week by week.
First, on the takeover of Anderson Strathclyde by Charter Consolidated, the right hon. Gentleman has sometimes sought to escape from our request for a debate by saying that the question about the Minister involved has now been dealt with. However, the major question is the overruling of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the employment considerations that are involved. We still ask the Government to provide time for a debate on that matter.
Secondly, there are the reports, which have given rise to widespread questioning in the House and throughout the country, on the so-called "family policy" discussions in the Government. We ask that that matter should be debated in the House of Commons and that the Government should tell us exactly what their proposals are. The House should have a chance of debating them.
There are a further two major questions that I have put constantly to the right hon. Gentleman. I repeat them now. The new Brandt report was presented a few weeks ago. I hope that the Government will agree to a full debate on the matter. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put copies of the new Brandt report in the Vote Office. It is a substantial report. This is a very important matter. Hon. Members should have the chance of reading the full report before the debate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to concur with that request.
Finally, and most important, we have constantly asked for a debate on disarmament. The proper way to do it now
1058
would be to have a full two-day debate on the subject, which is becoming more important, particularly in the light of the misrepresentations included in the political broadcast last night sponsored by the Government, when the Secretary of State for Defence spoke. The more that happens, the more it is necessary that we in the House should have the opportunity of debating those matters. I hope that there will be no further delay in the right hon. Gentleman arranging for that debate.
Mr. Biffen: I shall take the four points that were made by the Leader of the Opposition in the sequence in which he presented them. I note that his concern about the Anderson Strathclyde issue is no longer about the propriety of the action of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade or of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade but about the employment consequences. I can offer no prospect of Government time for such a debate next week. The right hon. Gentleman might like to consider such a debate, as Opposition days have recently been devoted to employment prospects in various parts of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the discussion of the so-called "family policy" group, which was featured in The Guardian. As we are now coming to the phase of parliamentary life that is dominated by the Budget, many of those economic considerations are bound to colour our discussions. That will be a useful trailer for the general election debate, which I know the right hon. Gentleman anticipates keenly.
I accept that the Brandt report is a matter of major substance. I cannot at this stage say whether time will be available for a debate on the report, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to believe that I am sympathetic to the proposition. I take very seriously the matter of copies of the report being available ahead of the debate, should it come about. On the last occasion that facility was guaranteed.
I said last week that I looked forward to having a debate on disarmament. I cannot state the precise date, again because of the exigencies of the Budget debates, but I note the importance that the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the topic and his desire that there should be a two-day debate. Doubtless he would like to consider providing 50 per cent. of the time.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it as easily as that. I am in favour of a two-day debate in Government time. I hope that the Government will seek to provide it.
With regard to the Brandt report, it is absurd that the Government should wait until the debate before the document is put in the Vote Office. The right hon. Gentleman has been forthcoming about the promise of a debate on the matter. I am glad that that has been agreed.
The right hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what I said about the first matter that I raised. We are concerned about the employment consequences in Scotland. My right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland are constantly seeking to raise employment questions whenever they have the opportunity. However, this is a special case of a takeover overriding the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that in such exceptional circumstances, which include the employment consequences, he must provide time for a debate.
Mr. Biffen: With regard to the provision of copies of the Brandt report, I dealt with that question by correspondence after it was raised on a point of order last week by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). I shall see how speedily the report can be made available to the House. With regard to the other point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I am afraid that I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time on the Anderson Strathclyde decision.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Why not?
Mr. Biffen: Because I have to judge the many demands that are made on Government time and the priorities that have to be attached to them. The Opposition have to do likewise with the time that they have. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Cover-up".] It is not a cover-up. It is a practical judgment.
Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the catastrophic shrinkage of the Merchant Navy, which has lost half its ships in the past six years, does not the Leader of the House think that that should be of grave concern to the House? Will he arrange for a debate on the subject at an early date?
Mr. Biffen: There was an Adjournment debate recently on trade, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who has responsibilities for shipping in the Department of Trade. In view of that recent debate, I cannot hold out the hope of an early debate in Government time on the topic requested by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the debate on disarmament, which will be just as welcome on Government Benches as on Opposition Benches, whether it is for one or two days, will be broad enough to cover the entire defence posture of this country and not just disarmament proposals as more Conservative Members are becoming more bewildered about exactly what is or are the defence postures among those in the Opposition? Every time we listen to a television programme, we become more bewildered than we were before.
Mr. Biffen: I take at once the point that my hon. Friend has raised so constructively. I am sure that the motion for the debate can be drawn in such a way as to enable a wide-ranging debate to take place.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: Has the Leader of the House reflected on my comments in the House last Monday about the presence of Boundary Commission personnel and officers in the place reserved for Government advisers? What are the Government's intentions for the relevant debates next week?
Mr. Biffen: I hope to write shortly to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for discussing the most important topic of jury service? Is he aware that there is now a danger of wholesale bribing and in some cases terrorising of jurors and that the whole system is liable to break down? Will he assure me that there will be a debate and action on that subject at least before the general election?
Mr. Biffen: I am glad that I was allowed the leeway of having such a debate before the general election. While
1060
I can say certainly that the debate will not be next week, I cannot be certain that it will be before the general election. If my hon. Friend uses his ingenuity, as I am sure he can, he could make some of the points that he wishes to make in the debate on policing in the metropolis on Monday.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: As the Leader of the House is concerned about Back Benchers, will he seriously consider the problem that, after a full day's debate on private Member's Bills, the House does not have the chance to make a decision? Will he consider private Member's Bills debated on a Friday with a view to finding time for decisions?
Mr. Biffen: That problem has been with us since the Flood, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. W. Benyon: Further to the previous question, in view of the widespread concern on both sides of the House about the procedures of the House, will my right hon. Friend have discussions through the usual channels with a view to re-establishing the Procedure Committee, and will he make a statement?
Mr. Biffen: I well understand my hon. Friend's point. However, it is unrealistic at this late stage of a Parliament to think that much practical good would result from trying to set up that Committee.
Mr. Tom Ellis: Has the Leader of the House seen the names of several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, praying against the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Commencement No. 8) Order 1983, under which the Government seek to impose a duty on six different councils in Wales, including Wrexham and Maelor district council, to dispose of properties that they own?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Commencement No. 8) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 94) dated 26th January 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be annulled.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that that will have serious implications for the Wrexham and Maelor area, as it raises questions about the proper exercise of responsibility of such district councils? Will he provide time for debate on that subject?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) has been in touch with me. I have written to him on this matter suggesting that it may be taken upstairs.
Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind that Barbie is in French custody and that tremendous sacrifices were made by this country in the war against Nazism, will a statement be made shortly on what action the British Government intend to take to urge the Chilean authorities to extradite Walter Rauff, who is considered to be one of the most notorious Nazi mass murderers not yet caught? The Daily Telegraph stated two weeks ago that he is living openly and in great comfort in Chile.
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to declare the Government's

1061
intention about the commercialisation of the Gibraltar dockyard? This is a very important matter and people there are concerned about it.
Mr. Biffen: I will certainly do that.
Mr. David Stoddart: The Leader of the House will have heard the exchanges on the private notice question about itinerant and meddlesome assembly persons visiting Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people feel this is a serious matter of usurpation of the powers of the House and the powers of the Crown by an alien, polyglot and insolent assembly? In those circumstances, ought he not to find time next week, before those people get to Northern Ireland, to debate the matter?
Mr. Biffen: The reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland clearly underlines the serious nature of the issue and how the Government have reacted to it. I hope that message is sufficiently clear to those people in Strasbourg without the necessity of the House having to underline it with a debate.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Would the Leader of the House reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) as many hon. Members think the procedures of the House need looking at? Would it not be appropriate for a Committee to sit now and make proposals that a new Parliament would be able to consider?
Mr. Biffen: I promise my hon. Friend that I am not unsympathetic to the cause for reform. I do not think it will necessarily be enhanced by the setting up of a Committee, which would have, at most, a few months to conduct its investigation and make its recommendation. I am prepared to discuss these matters.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Since the United Nations has requested that Parliaments debate disarmament, and most Parliaments have responded, there is an obligation on the Leader of the House not only to be sympathetic but to make a definite statement next week on whether the House should have a two-day debate, in view of the anxiety among many people that the Government are channelling funds to organisations to fight the disarmament campaign.
Mr. Biffen: I have already said that I shall arrange for a debate on this subject. It will be helpful to the general political debate ahead of the general election. If more time is needed, that is a matter for negotiation.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As there seems to be a growing problem with the European assembly, and politicians are like any other species in that, when deprived of enough to do, they turn to vandalism, and institutions without power try to acquire power for themselves, can the House have an urgent debate on the curtailment, or perhaps the abolition, of the powers of that wretched and abhorrent institution?
Mr. Biffen: It is an interesting proposition. Given my hon. Friend's somewhat dismissive views of that institution, he might have thought it appropriate to resolve the matter by means of an Adjournment debate one evening.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call each of those hon. Members who have been standing. I hope they will be brief.
Mr. Frank Hooley: When will the House discuss the Spring Supplementary Estimates under the new procedure? Will it take half a day or a whole day? When will the House discuss the findings of the liaison committee on the development of our new Select Committee procedure?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot really answer either question. The first is a matter for consideration, because the resolutions of the House enable such a debate to take place. I have no plans at the moment for a more general debate on the findings of the liaison committee. There might be some advantage in the House reflecting upon those recommendations before a debate takes place.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that, during proceedings on the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill, the case for the Government was put by a Treasury Minister when the intention of the Bill is to pay additional grants to the regional development organisations? Is it not right that an industry Minister should be required to attend the proceedings of the Standing Committee to answer questions from hon. Gentlemen on my side of the Committee? Why is he ducking attending that Committee? Will the Leader of the House make sure that he attends further sittings?
Mr. Biffen: In my opinion, Treasury Ministers are among the elite of administration. I hope that the Committee feels flattered rather than the reverse. I will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to clarify the position of the tax relief which will accrue to banks and other financial institutions for arranging loans for those countries that are rescheduling their debts? Is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Question Time today that the arrangements are still the same. In the third week in January in the financial columns of The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial Times and other publications, it was made clear in a letter from the Inland Revenue to the British Bankers' Association on 20 January 1983 that banks would be able to get tax relief on the loans that were made to countries which were involved in rescheduling their debts? In that event, is it not important that hon. Members should be able to question the Chancellor of the Exchequer more closely on this matter so that hon. Members can assure the millions of people in this country who wish to reschedule their debts that they will get the same kind of tax relief that has beer handed out to the banks?
Mr. Biffen: The point that the hon. Gentleman argued could be central and relevant to any discussion the House has on the Brandt report. Pending the resolution as to when the House might debate that subject, I will make sure that the point is known to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House recall that, about three weeks ago, a merits commission, after dealing with two orders, complained about a lack of evidence from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, although that Committee had endeavoured to provide the evidence it had taken? Does the Leader of the House realise that the House will deal with the English Boundary Commission report on

1063
Wednesday, only a day after the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will deal with it. If it chooses to take evidence from witnesses who have been asked to stand by, the evidence from those witnesses cannot possibly be checked or published in time to be available to the House.
Does that not reflect an unseemly haste by the Government to get the order through, when, with a week's delay, the Committee set up by the House to examine statutory instruments would be able to do its work? Why does not the Leader of the House allocate those two days, in conjunction with the Opposition, to a debate on disarmament, and take the orders the following week?
Mr. Biffen: The business that I have announced for next week shows, not so much undue haste on the Government's part in relation to the Boundary Commission's reports, as a measured generosity of time. Of course I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and I am sure that it would be a legitimate point for debate on Wednesday.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland be proposing any last-minute changes to the Boundary Commission's proposals for Scotland? Can I have an answer to a request that I made last week through the Leader of the House, that the Secretary of State for Scotland should receive a delegation from the villages of Fallin, Plean, Cowie and Throsk, who are to be made the victims of a blatant attempt at gerrymandering?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that the Scottish order is being laid today, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to see what follows. He has raised an important point about his constituents and the most likely course is that the matter will be debated when the Scottish orders are before us. However, I can give no commitment about the delegation, although I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the anxieties that have been expressed.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman describes Treasury Ministers as the elite in this Administration, but how does he define "elite" and why—not so many months ago—was he quite ready to be persuaded to leave them?
Mr. Biffen: I just had an irresistible rush of modesty.

Orders of the Day

  National Heritage Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.2 pm
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill falls into two main parts, as the House will see. The first establishes boards of trustees for the Victoria and Albert and science museums, the armouries at the tower of London and the royal botanic gardens, Kew. It also empowers the Secretary of State to make changes in the funding and staffing arrangements of museums having links with the history and traditions of the armed forces. The second part of the Bill sets up a new commission to carry out certain functions in respect of ancient monuments and historic buildings in England. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to deal with any detailed points that hon. Members may care to raise on the second part of the Bill. I shall deal mainly with the first part of the Bill, which is my prime responsibility, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal mainly with the second part.
  The Victoria and Albert and science museums have, as we all know, a very long and distinguished history. They owe their origins to the deliberations of a Select Committee considering arts and manufactures in 1836 and, of course, to the effects of the great exhibition in 1851. The following year a department of practical art was created within the Board of Trade, and in the same year its museum of manufactures—later renamed the museum of ornamental arts—first opened in Marlborough house. The rapidly growing collections moved to the present south Kensington site in 1857. Although the early collections were predominantly related to the decorative arts, separate science collections developed from the outset, yet within the overall framework of what was then known as the south Kensington museum.
  In 1899 Queen Victoria laid the foundation stone for a new building for the art collection, to be called the Victoria and Albert museum. When that building was completed, the art and science collections were physically and administratively separated and the science museum came into being as a completely separate institution. As the years went by, as the House will know, responsibility for the by then two museums eventually passed to the new Ministry of Education in 1944 and to the Department of Education and Science in 1964, where it is now borne by the Office of Arts and Libraries. Last year there were more than 2·5 million visitors to the Victoria and Albert museum and more than 4·5 million visitors to the science museum. The point is that, in contrast to other national institutions, such as the British musuem, they were part of a Government Department for purely historical reasons.
  Nevertheless, over the years there has been a growing belief that there would be advantages in giving the Victoria and Albert and science museums greater independence from the Government and placing them on a similar footing to other national museums and galleries. This has been a continuous debate over many years, and the previous Government considered the issue carefully a few years ago. It was, in any case, a curious situation under

  1065
  which these two museums were part of a Government Department. It is very difficult to imagine a Department having the knowledge to control and run those two museums in detail. But technically they were part of the Department and were subject to the same rules as the rest of the Department.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is there not a similar anomaly with the four university museums? Although they are public museums, they are carried on the budget of the Department of Education and Science and the University Grants Committee. Is that not a suitable anomaly for correction now?
  Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's point about the importance of the university museums. They have never been part of the Department of Education and Science. Government finance to the universities is channelled through the University Grants Committee, and I understand that it is a well-established principle that the UGC does not earmark money for particular purposes when it comes to university financing. The arrangement seems appropriate, in order to allow the universities the proper freedom to determine their internal priorities. However, that is not primarily one of my responsibilities and that important point should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will consider it most carefully. It is not relevant to the limited number of museums included in the Bill.
  In future, policy for the Victoria and Albert, and science musuems can be laid down by the trustees. The situation will be much more rational. They will have greater freedom to plan and manage the resources at their disposal and to develop their own curatorial and other policies appropriate to such major specialist institutions. That was discussed recently and extensively in the Rayner scrutiny report last year, although, of course, it is not the first time the matter has been raised. When the Government had considered the Rayner recommendations, they took the view that the most appropriate form of independence in this instance was the trustee board model, which is a system that has worked well in the other national museums and galleries, and it seemed sensible to follow that course.
  Granting independent status will be in line with the Government's general policy of keeping at arm's length from its arts bodies—as successive Governments have done—as they do with the Arts Council and other national institutions, such as the British film institute. It will also have other benefits. Until now the two museums have necessarily—under Governments of all political persuasions—had to abide by the rules for the management of Government Departments. That presented considerable difficulties for them, since the normal staffing considerations applying in Departments are difficult to apply in such a specialised context. By relieving them of some of those constraints the Government hope that the new boards will be able to develop longer-term staffing policies more in keeping with the needs of the institutions.
  Of course, independent status will not give carte blanche to manage resources wastefully. Nor will it allow unlimited staffing. The institutions will have to conform broadly to Civil Service terms and conditions of employment and satisfy the Department that their posts are correctly graded and that staffing and other resources are being used efficiently. That is exactly the same
  1066
  arrangement as applies to the existing trustee museums. Therefore, the Bill is emphatically not a licence to do as the boards please. The museums will have their own Votes. However, in future the new trustees—not the Department—will account to Parliament for them. The boards will be obliged to publish periodic reports of their activities, which will be laid before Parliament, and will thus be fully accountable for their actions and expenditure.
  There are, perhaps, two aspects with which I should deal, since they have been raised outside the House at least. The first is admission charges and the second is the position of the staff in the two museums. On the first point, I should like to make it clear again today—as I have done time and again—that the Government do not intend to impose charges for general admission to the main collections of the museums. That is a matter for the trustees' discretion, as it is in all the national museums and galleries. Nor do we propose to change the well-established practice of charging for entry to some special exhibitions and some outstations. I do not want to prejudge any proposals which the future trustees might put forward as part of their policy for good management of the museums. However, as drafted, the Bill confers the power of discretion in exactly the same way as in the other national trustee museums and galleries.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend is raising a matter of prime importance. Does he not recognise that there has been a dramatic change in the attitude of the public towards paying for entry into museums? Indeed, the English tourist board carried out a survey in which more than 75 per cent. of those who were questioned said they thought it would be right so to do. Would it not be right for trustees, first, to have the power to make the charges; and, secondly—this is of the greatest importance—to keep the money and the profit derivable from those entry charges, which they could then use for the dramatic improvement of layout and, if I may put if generally, for publicity, so that many more people would attend better laid out museums and with the advantage that the museums would have more money to spend on their gradual and steady process of improvement?
  Mr. Channon: As my hon. and learned Friend will know, the museums can already charge for special exhibitions and for some outstations. The museums receive the money back through a complicated system of revotes, which I have explained to the House on a number of occasions. The power already exists for the national museums and galleries to charge for general admissions. The Bill has no effect on that. The power exisits, but, of course, any sensible body of trustees who wished to charge for general admission would clearly wish to consult the Government before such a major change took place. I have the feeling that such a proposal would arouse certain feelings in the House and would not be wholly non-controversial. I wish to make it clear again, as I said last year, that the Government have no intention to impel the trustees so to do. The Bill is neutral on the point. It merely puts these museums on the same footing as other museums.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: In view of what the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, will the Minister confirm that the Government are not implying or endeavouring to convey

  1067
  to trustees that they should adopt a different attitude to the introduction of charges from that of the past? I take it that the Minister can assure us on that matter.
  Mr. Channon: I thought that I had already said that. If I have not, I shall say it again. The Government have no intention of imposing on trustees any new duty of that nature. I hope that I have disposed of that point. There is nothing in the Bill that should arouse any fears of that nature.
  On the second point, which is of equal importance, I think the whole House will join me in paying a warm tribute not only to the present directors and staff but to those who have served throughout the history of these great museums, without whose service over many years they would not have attained their present international standing. I should like to tell the House the steps that the Government are taking to safeguard the position of the staff. I hope that this will set at rest any fears that may still persist in any quarter.
  First, the Bill places the new boards under a duty to offer employment to all civil servants in the institutions at the time of the transfer, on terms not less favourable than those already enjoyed. Secondly, pay and other terms and conditions of service, although matters for the new trustees, will continue to be subject to Government approval under the Bill, for both present and future staff. Thirdly, the staff will continue to be members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. Among other things, this means, therefore, that their terms and conditions of employment must be broadly comparable to those in the Civil Service, since this is a general requirement of participation in the scheme.
  Fourthly, there is a long-standing agreement between the Government, the existing national trustee museums and galleries, and the Council of Civil Service Unions. This agreement provides, for example, that, in matters of pay, terms and conditions of service, the staff of the trustee institutions shall be treated for practical purposes as if they were civil servants. This agreement will be extended to the Victoria and Albert and science museums upon the change in status. Finally, the unions representing the staff at present are part of the Council of Civil Service Unions, and this channel offers them access to the national negotiating machinery for pay and other matters. These various steps should ensure that the staff will not suffer adversely as a result of the change to trustee status.
  Until now the two museums have also been served by advisory councils, which will be superseded when the trustee boards are established. I am very happy to express the Government's gratitude to the council members for all that they have done to help with the development of the museums.
  There are still a number of matters outstanding after the Rayner scrutiny of the V and A and science museums. On some of these matters I hope to make an announcement shortly, but most of the matters will be left to the discretion of the new trustees. On a few of them I shall wish to consult the trustees, and in some cases the trustees of other national museums, before reaching a Government view.
  The trustees' general powers should be adequate to deal with any recommendations that might appropriately be referred to the boards for consideration and action. Only
  1068
  one or two points call for specific provision in the Bill—the main one being the establishment of boards of trustees. Other issues to be considered do not need specific provision in the Bill. For example, I announced last August that the Government propose to proceed with the theatre museum, and I hope work will begin this spring. I also announced last August that we hope that the museum of childhood at Bethnal Green will remain in being. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the general support of the House for that. But neither of these two issues is affected by the Bill. Nor is legislation required.
  Mr. Philip Whitehead: I accept that the Second Reading of the Bill is not the appropriate time to make a statement about the remaining Rayner proposals and the Government's attitude to them, but will the Minister accept that it would be inappropriate if the Bill were to go through Committee and pass into law without such a statement being made, as that might materially influence the nature of the amendments that we may wish to move in Committee?
  Mr. Channon: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says and will consider it. I very much hope that what he suggests will prove to be possible.
  To save the time of the House, I shall move faster on some of the other points covered by the Bill. There are two other smaller, but equally important, national institutions, the armouries at the tower of London, currently the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the Royal botanic gardens, Kew, currently the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The prime quality of the collections held by the armouries suggested a status comparable to that of other national collections and a management structure that was similar. The Government propose that it should be accorded trustee status as well.
  With regard to the Royal botanic gardens, Kew, which many hon. Members will feel has an equally distinguished history, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consulted the interests concerned last year on the proposal to place the gardens under trustees. The consultations have revealed a broad and substantial measure of support for this idea. The idea, in fact, is not new. As early as 1838 there was a suggestion that the gardens should be put under trustees, and from time to time the idea has been revived.
  The merits of the matter are clear. Independent trustees are best placed to run an institution of this type and to give the support to the director which he requires in carrying out diverse and important activities in a specialised sector. I hope that as a result of this change the scientific and other staff at Kew and at Wakehurst place will find this beneficial.
  The position with regard to the part of the Bill dealing with armed forces museums is somewhat different. The principal armed forces museums are already constituted as trustee or similar bodies and have the legal capacity to control resources and employ staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence wishes to change the basis on which these museums are funded. This will give the larger establishments the chance to manage their own resources. After the Bill becomes law—if the House

  1069
  agrees to it—this will be achieved by means of a grant-in-aid to cover those staff and running costs which at present are provided out of the general defence budget in one way or another.
  I come now to the other main proposal in the Bill—the setting up of a new Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England. It has been agreed in another place that its title should be changed to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. It will take over work presently carried out by the Department of the Environment, the Ancient Monuments Board for England and the Historic Buildings Council for England. This proposal was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when he was at the Department of the Environment, and has received very full discussion, first, through a consultative document, which aroused a vigorous and constructive debate, and, subsequently, through a major document "The Way Forward", which set out the decision to proceed with the proposal.
  It is proposed to establish in England a commission with responsibility for the management and maintenance of monuments in the care of the Secretary of State; to provide a lively and imaginative presentation of those monuments; to make grants to local authorities, private owners and ecclesiastical authorities for the preservation of historic buildings, ancient monuments and ecclesiastical buildings in use; to co-ordinate rescue archaeological work; and, finally, to advise the Secretary of State on listing, scheduling and taking monuments into care.
  Under the proposals my right hon. Friend would retain responsibility and be answerable to Parliament for the broad aspect of policy, confirmation of decisions on listing, scheduling and taking monuments into care, and for the exercise of all planning functions under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
  There are a number of advantages in setting up the new commission, but I need not weary the House by dealing with them in detail. Debates in another place and elsewhere have shown a wide measure of agreement for the view that the new body should produce a more positive and creative approach arising from the fusion of existing arrangements. I hope that it will exert a powerful influence for conservation in its widest sense. Both sides of the House hope that there will be an imaginative approach to the presentation of our national heritage and the development of commercial and tourist opportunities that they present, and a new approach to the educational use of the heritage.
  When it sees what imagination can be used in museums, historic buildings and ancient monuments, the House must surely agree that there is plenty of scope for imaginative thought that will be to the benefit of the heritage as well as providing an incentive to tourism.
  My right hon. Friend has asked me to stress that the Government's priority remains the preservation of the heritage. If hon. Members are fair, which I am sure they are, they will recognise that the Government, throughout their lifetime, have done their best to achieve that. There is great opportunity to educate and inform through good interpretation of historic sites, and a new commission is an appropriate way of achieving that aim. The commission's great asset will be the immense good will towards the heritage. There will be plenty of scope for private donations, sponsorship, voluntary assistance and so on.
  1070
  Management of the royal parks and palaces will not be transferred to the new commission, although it will have an advisory role at those sensitive sites. The Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England will remain as a separate body, carrying out its important work of recording our national sites. But there will be urgent discussions between the new commission and the RCHM about the relationship between those two bodies.
  As the House will have expected, after being introduced in another place there was a lively and detailed discussion on a variety of points in both parts of the Bill. The Government have carefully considered all the points raised, just as they will consider the points raised in discussions in this House. I doubt that I need to discuss every clause in detail. I shall run through the clauses briefly, almost in shorthand, which I hope will assist hon. Members.
  Clauses 1 to 7 and part I of schedule 1 deal with the Victoria and Albert museum. Clause 1 establishes a board of trustees, which will be appointed by the Prime Minister. Part I of schedule 1 deals with the details of status, organisation and procedure of the board and for the employment of staff. Clause 2 sets out the board's general functions. Clause 3 transfers to the board the objects in the collections and the general equipment for the maintenance and running of the museum.
  Clause 4 provides that the original intentions of donors or testators may still be fulfilled, even though the deeds of gifts and bequests were drawn up before the establishment of the board. Clause 5 deals with the acquisition and disposal of objects by the board. Those important provisions are broadly similar to those that Parliament adopted for the British museum, which are generally thought to have been appropriate during the past 20 years. Clause 6 gives power to lend or borrow objects. Clause 7 makes provision for the board to be financed by money voted by Parliament.
  Clauses 8 to 14, in almost exactly the same words as clauses 1 to 7, relate to the science museum. Therefore, I need not detain the House by discussing them.
  Clauses 15 to 20 and part III of schedule 1 deal with the armouries at the Tower of London, the appointment of trustees and the financing of the armouries.
  Clauses 21 to 26 and part IV of schedule 1, in the same way as the previous clauses, cover the royal botanic gardens, Kew. They lay down the functions of the board that will enable it to take over the activities of the gardens on research in botany, education, care of plants and other objects and admission to the gardens.
  Clauses 27 and 28 and schedule 2 relate to the armed forces museums. Clause 27 gives power for the armed forces museums to receive grant-in-aid support. Clause 28 allows the Secretary of State to designate certain museums by statutory instrument. The museums so designated will be funded solely through grant-in-aid, and the effect of designation is to apply the provisions of the schedule. The staff employed at those museums as civil servants will not be adversely affected by the change in funding arrangements.
  Currently, my right hon. Friend intends to designate the RAF museum at Hendon and the national Army museum in Chelsea. Others may be designated in due course. The majority of service museums, of which there are a large number, are relatively small unit collections, which will not be disturbed.

  1071
  Clauses 29 to 32 and schedules 3 and 4 deal with the commission. They allow it to appoint advisory committees and to make offers of employment to civil servants—the terms of which must be no worse at the time of transfer. The commission can make its own pension arrangements, and the Government have already announced that they will recommend the adoption of pension arrangements by analogy with the principal Civil Service pension scheme.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: On Third Reading in another place it was suggested that the commission's title should be changed to a somewhat abbreviated version of its rather long title. What is the Minister's thinking on that?
  Mr. Channon: I said that the title was to be changed. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's query, but if not perhaps we can pursue it in Committee. I know that there was a debate on the title of the commission and it is to be changed at a later date.
  Mr. Faulds: I know that the Minister said earlier that it would be changed, but it appears strange that it still suffers the old title in the Bill. It is odd that it has not been altered yet.
  Mr. Channon: It has not been changed yet, but it is to be changed.
  Mr. Faulds: Changed to what?
  Mr. Channon: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can deal with that when he replies to the debate. I think that it will be a small change. Names cause most of the fuss in Bills of this nature.
  Clause 30 sets out the purposes and functions of the commission. I need not mention them in detail. Schedule 4 deals with the detailed provisions on functions. It occasioned a great deal of discussion in another place because it is a long, complicated schedule which operates by reference to a number of existing enactments.
  The Government fully understand the problems of studying the Bill because of that approach and will, therefore, provide for the help of hon. Members not only the usual notes on clauses, but a detailed guide to schedule 4, setting out its provisions alongside the existing statutes to which they refer. Copies of the document will be placed in the Vote Office. I hope that that will be of assistance to hon. Members. I know that it was much appreciated in another place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to make the guide available as a departmental publication when the Bill becomes law.
  Clauses 31 to 33 deal with certain management functions of the Secretary of State for the Environment at ancient monuments or historic buildings in England other than royal palaces. There are a few other minor clauses and schedules, with which I do not need to detain the House today. They are largely self-explanatory, and if hon. Members wish to raise points on them they can be considered in detail at a later stage.
  The Bill is designed primarily to offer devolved status to some of our great national collections. It offers a wider framework for co-ordinating approaches to the preservation, conservation and presentation of our ancient monuments, historic buildings and archaeological
  1072
  heritage. From comments outside the House that I have seen, I believe that the Government's desire to provide for the future in this way is widely shared.
  This year will be an exciting period for both the Victoria and Albert and science museums, which particularly concern me. Apart from the fundamental changes in their structure which we are debating today, next month will see the opening of the Henry Cole building at the Victoria and Albert museum and in the summer we shall see the opening of a major new extension of the science museum, devoted to photography, at Bradford. These are two great new developments, building on the existing achievements of these museums. They reflect the highest credit on the directors and staff of both museums. Both museums potentially have an extremely exciting future.
  In my own field in regard to the Victoria and Albert and science museums, and in the wider field dealt with later in the Bill, I hope that the House will feel that the Government are putting the heritage, historic buildings, these two museums, the defence museums, the armouries and all matters covered in the Bill on a sound footing for the future. I hope the House will decide to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  4.31 pm
  Dr. David Clark: We do not wholly oppose the Bill. We think that it has considerable potential. It has many shortcomings. What we can all agree upon is that it is a much better Bill than when it was introduced in another place. Their Lordships made major improvements and knocked an ill-drafted and ill-thought-out Bill into something meaningful that we can use as a stepping stone towards an even better Bill, assuming that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading and there is a full discussion at Committee stage.
  It is important to have a free and frank discussion at this stage. I hope that the Government will show the flexibility that they showed in another place. Although hon. Members on this side of the House may not have the expertise involved in owning and running large houses, many of us know something about our heritage and cultural background and we feel that we can make a meaningful contribution to the debate. It is important to get the Bill right because a great deal is at stake. We are talking about our heritage, something that we must preserve and conserve by definition for the future. Unless we get it right, priceless information, artefacts and so on will be lost. I hope that the Government will take a positive and flexible approach to suggestions and ideas from this side of the House.
  It would not be appropriate for me to deal with the technicalities of the Bill. In parts it is highly technical and complex. There are major issues that it is right and proper to discuss in the House today. I regret that some of the more thrusting ideas and the more grandiose plans which were originally mooted have been tapered down. Although the Bill was tidied up in another place, there was a gradual erosion of some of its more dynamic aspects. Perhaps at the Committee stage we shall consider and reinstate some of the original proposals.
  As the Minister said, the Bill is basically two measures: one deals with museums and the other with monuments, houses, buildings and such matters. I do not quibble at

  1073
  that. To me heritage is not divisible and it is well that we discuss the Bill in its wide sense because it brings home to us the overriding and overall nature of our heritage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) will outline in detail our viewpoint on the museums side. We have reservations on public access; no doubt we will keep coming back to this. We also have certain reservations about staffing. We hope that those can be put right later to everyone's satisfaction.
  The second part of the Bill, which covers our physical or extant heritage, has three aspects. They are, first, preservation and conservation; secondly, interpretive; and, thirdly, educational. I list them in no particular order. In the past we have rightly taken pride in our expertise in preservation and conservation. But we have been sadly lagging behind some of our continental neighbours when it comes to the interpretive and educational side of our cultural heritage. We must change that. We see the Bill as a vehicle to bring about change.
  In an age of increasing leisure with we hope a more educated and discerning population, an increasing number of people will be interested in our culture, heritage and general historical background. That is to be not only welcomed but positively encouraged. That again we see as one of the main purposes of the Bill. In the past we have not got the right balance between education and continuing education. Many more exciting facilities should be provided to increase people's awareness of the richness of their cultural traditions.
  The first important consideration is the title of the proposed new body, to which reference has already been made. The proposed title is the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England. That is useless. It was suggested in another place that the title should be changed to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. That is still too cumbersome to do the job that is required. If the new agency is to be successful it must capture the imagination of the general public and the media. It will not do so with such a long, cumbersome title.
  In another place, after much consideration, the title of national heritage commission was rejected, mainly on two grounds. The first was that it was too wide, and the second that it would be confused with the national heritage memorial fund. I am not persuaded by either of those arguments. No one quibbles about the title of the Countryside Commission although it does not encompass everything in the countryside. We have Nature Conservancy, the Forestry Commission and the Department of Agriculture. There is nothing necessarily wrong in having a wide title.
  Nor do I accept that there will be concern if people confuse the title with the national heritage memorial fund. In informed circles it will not matter, and I do not think it will be generally noticed. For many years there has been a Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England at the same time as an Ancient Monuments Board. If there were to be confusion, it might be caused by those two titles.
  I have tried to find another title. It is incredibly difficult if it cannot be called the national heritage commission. This is the National Heritage Bill so it is amazing that the new body cannot be called the national heritage commission. I have scanned the continental legislation. In
  1074
  Norway the relevant body is called the Cultural Heritage Council. We might consider that title because it would be much better than the title suggested by the Government.
  What is wrong with the simple title "heritage commission"? That is the most suitable suggestion I have heard. It is all-embracing but there is merit in that. We need a pithy, short title, which will be taken up easily in the media and will be easily recognisable by the general public. I stress that if this quango or agency is to be successful it must be seen as a thrusting body. The title suggested by the Government, and even that emanating from the House of Lords is certainly far too long.
  Another aspect that I have not heard discussed elsewhere but which it is right and proper to raise today is the siting of the offices. One reason why we see merit in the new agency is that it will be a public body, independent of any Government Department, and we hope that it will bring a new and dynamic approach to heritage conservation. For that to be achieved, we feel strongly that the headquarters should be located outside London. The new agency is an ideal body for dispersion to one of the regional centres. It would certainly be Labour party policy to consider the new commission as a most suitable candidate for location outside the metropolis, just as the Countryside Commission is in Cheltenham and the Forestry Commission is in Edinburgh. Both of those examples show that location outside London in no way makes such bodies less effective.
  As I live in and represent an area in the northern region, it would not be appropriate for me to suggest a location there, as I might be thought to be pursuing a vested interest. I shall therefore desist from any such suggestion. I propose in all seriousness that the commission should be located in York. That city is well known and much visited, and the National Railway Museum there has been a huge success. The city is rich in archaeological remains and is well versed in these matters. Only last week there was the exciting announcement of the Jorvik Viking centre. We should encourage such developments and I ask the House to take my suggestion seriously.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Why does the hon. Gentleman wish the new body to be dynamic when it is involved in preservation?
  Dr. Clark: As I have tried to explain, there are various aspects of cultural heritage. Preservation is just one. The new agency must realise that we need to apply all the modern technological and scientific techniques to preservation and conservation. In addition, we need to be dynamic because in the past we have not shared our culture and heritage as we should. As a result, we have not served the nation or the disciplines of heritage, culture and history as well as we might.
  York is ideal as it is easily accessible from Liverpool, Manchester and so on, and it is only two hours by train from London with trains virtually every half hour. The suggestion should therefore be seriously considered.
  We very much regret the Government's announcement that the Royal Commission on historical monuments should be without the new commission. It is inconceivable that the new agency could function effectively, as the Minister and I wish, if the Royal Commission is not an integral part of it. I appreciate that the staff are justifiably concerned, but I believe that the body responsible for the paper inventory of our historic monuments and buildings

  1075
  must be part of the new agency. I should say in passing, in somewhat muted tones, that some people feel that the Royal Commission has kept too low a profile in the past. Perhaps it needs more resources, but it is taking far too long to complete the inventory. I certainly believe that it would be helpful to the Royal Commission and vital to the new agency for the Royal Commission to be part of the new body. The records that it keeps are essential to the work of the agency. If the two bodies are not in the same building expensive technological systems and computer terminals will be required, the new agency will be greatly inhibited, and many of the ambitions that the Minister and I share will be dissipated.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) queried my reference to dynamism, but I believe that dynamism is vital. So is funding. May we have a statement about the Government's attitude to the initial funding? If the agency is to get off on the right foot it must have sufficient capital not only to install proper management and financial controls and the organisation essential to its well-being, but to undertake some perhaps rather grandiose schemes to capture the imagination of the general public, just as the national heritage memorial fund did when it was first established. Indeed, that was one of the reasons for the fund's success. I see the Secretary of State nod, so I hope that there will be a statement on that. One thinks immediately of Stonehenge. There is also Bolsover castle. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seems to have disappeared. If a little money were spent on them, such monuments could be very exciting. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Government today that there will be fairly substantial initial capital funding to get the commission off to a good start.
  I should not conclude without mentioning staff conditions and pensions, although I shall not go into detail. There is still great concern about this. I hope that we can give the staff the assurances that they seek. The Minister referred to staff in the trustee museums. As I understand it, they are on Civil Service pensions, but those pensions and conditions will not apply to staff of the new commission. I ask the Government to reconsider that as staff are very anxious about it. I see no insuperable reason why they should not continue to be covered by Civil Service conditions and pension arrangements. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.
  One of the main reasons why the Opposition are inclined to support the new agency is that we believe that the time has come for the whole subject of heritage to be put on a different plane. The time has come to be far more adventurous. I hope that I have made that clear, if nothing else. My experience in the past few years has convinced me that that is possible and that there is no insuperable conflict between the preservation, interpretation and education aspects.
  Hadrian's wall is a good example. It must be one of the foremost, if not the foremost, historic monument north of the Alps, stretching from Wallsend in the east to Silloth in Cumbria. The best preserved stretch is probably that between Housesteads and Steel Rigg. There the wall is 6ft or 7ft high and people can walk along the top. Every time I go there I see the same phenomenon. I see people realising, perhaps for the first time, the traditions and the culture of those days. There is a wondrous sense of
  1076
  timelessness, even for young people. One thinks of Houseman's Shropshire Lad when he talks about Wenlock Edge and mighty Uricon and says:
  "Then 'twas the Roman; now 'tis I."
  That well describes the expression on the faces of youngsters and grown-ups as they walk along the wall 6ft above ground, looking out over the almost devastated wastes of Northumbria and suddenly realising that that was where the Romans believed that civilisation stopped. I must not be too provocative, but out there is Scotland. I shall say no more.
  We have not really capitalised sufficiently on such marvellous monuments as Hadrian's wall. To support my contention I draw the House's attention to the exciting development at Vindolanda which is run by a charitable trust that has been built up by Professor Birley, his son Robin and Robin's wife, Pat. They have done a tremendous job there. One can see youngsters, especially from Tyneside schools, who go there year after year to capture the spirit of the Roman period. That is far better project than the National Trust or, indeed, the Department has ever run.
  I declare an interest in that body—not a financial one—as I am a trustee of it. We can be proud of it. It is not simply an excavation. Youngsters can look and be enthralled by the meaningful interpretive centre. The feature that has come across to me most forcefully is the rebuilt sections of stone wall and wooden wall. They have also built a stone turret and a wooden turret. They are not on the site of the wall, but youngsters scramble up it and one can see that they are reliving that period. They are the Romans of today. Vindolanda has done more to get the value of heritage across to youngsters, especially those in the northern region, than any other institution.
  We must be much more imaginative and even think about reconstruction on site. That is not new. There is the Zanten project in the Rhineland. The Germans are moving a motorway and a railway line to build an archaeological park. We should think about that. There is also the Carcassonne which is a wonderful medieval walled French city that was rebuilt about 100 years ago. We should be doing that here. When anyone goes to China, they always go to the great wall. It has been rebuilt. It is not the original great wall. In my constituency, there is the Roman fort of Arbeia which is probably the best preserved urban site in England. It is a fort that guards the entrance of the Tyne and the east end of Hadrian's wall.
  Mr. Reg Prentice: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. I strongly agree with what he said about Hadrian's wall and the marvellous work being done on the site that he described. Nevertheless, tribute should be paid on the same scale to staff of the National Trust and the Department of the Environment on their many sites in Britain. I am thinking of those staff who look after such sites as Fountains abbey or the stone circle at Avebury. There are many other examples. Perhaps a point of difference is emerging. The hon. Gentleman refers to rebuilding castles, abbeys and other monuments. As he knows, it has been official policy for many years not to do that. I should think that official policy is right and that it would be a great mistake, for example, to build an extension on to Fountain abbey to produce an imitation of what it once was. That would

  1077
  never be valid. Surely it is better to preserve partial remains and look after them with great care than to go in for rebuilding what has disappeared.
  Dr. Clark: Yes. I am willing and eager to pay tribute to the staff of the National Trust. I happen to be a member of the executive committee of the National Trust and I warmly applaud its work. I am also conscious of the admirable work that is carried out by the Department of the Environment. I mentioned the Roman wall from Houseteads to Steel Rigg. That is maintained by the Department which does a first-rate job. I am in no way trying to denigrate the National Trust or the Department of the Environment. I do not for a moment suggest rebuilding Fountains Abbey. I am merely suggesting that, in certain areas, little of most Roman forts remain above ground level, because of their age, even when they have been excavated.
  It is an interesting fact that, once the site has been properly and fully excavated, nothing of historic worth is left. No doubt I shall be pilloried for saying so, but an archaeologist once told me, "I am a vandal. I go in, I examine the earth, I take it away and throw it back." Arbeia, for example, is almost levelled to the ground although it is one of the most perfectly preserved forts in England. The granary at that site is a distinctive feature. It was the centre where grain came in from the Tyne. It would cost £250,000 to rebuild that granary and the walls. That sounds terrible but, as we are dealing with a fort that is in a town where one man in three is out of work, some savings in terms of the unemployment rate could be made immediately. I am not quibbling, but one might also set that £250,000 against the price that one might pay for a beautiful picture.
  If the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) is worried about building on-site, perhaps he will be reassured if I tell him about another project along Hadrian's wall. It is called the Walltown quarry site. About 100 years ago, before we got round to scheduling, permission was given to quarry 40 acres of land on the site of the Roman wall. When we got round to scheduling, there was nothing there so the site was not scheduled. Northumberland county council has bought that 40-acre site which now forms part of the national park. The sight is obscene. There are derelict buildings and huge craters which are gradually being filled in. It hopes to be able to form a major archaeological park on that site, 400 yards of the wall being rebuilt on the site of the wall with mile towers, although there is no wall left because it was removed by the quarrying. I believe that such a project would take off. The county council calculates that the site would attract 400,000 visitors a year. That is quite likely as Walltown quarry is within one hour's travel of Newcastle and Keswick in the Lake District. One can see the potential of such a development. I hope that that is the type of project that the new commission will try to encourage.
  I have discussed that point for longer than I had intended, but it was important to explain how the Opposition believe that the new agency could work. I hope that the House recognises that the Opposition wish the Bill well. We see major shortcomings in it, but we hope that they can be overcome. I hope that the Minister will be accommodating in this regard. We contend that heritage can be adequately preserved by the new body while other,
  1078
  much more imaginative approaches can be made. The two are not mutually exclusive; other countries have shown that.
  We approach the Bill positively and constructively. We may not have the expertise of the grand house that emanated from the other place—we may offer more of the cottage, the stable or the servants' quarters—but we still have a contribution to make. We want to make it because we dearly want our heritage to be shared much more widely.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is to be congratulated as the Bill undoubtedly sets the framework for the future. I shall confine my speech to funding.
  Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of several of my colleagues in the Conservative party and Michael Montague and his team at the English tourist board to consider what should be done for tourism. Almost immediately, they mentioned development of museums and historic homes. Everyone at that meeting—all the officers of the tourism committee and two others, and peers such as Lord Lloyd and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—said that it was essential that museums should now make a reasonable charge for admission. I believe that all those museums that do not charge at present should have certain exemptions for old age pensioners and, most importantly, for students carrying their student cards. No one is suggesting that they should pay. It was also suggested that there could be a free day at the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert and the science museum if the trustees felt that to be right. The trustees of those museums have that power at present.
  It was our unanimous view—we are in touch with all aspects of tourism in this country—that people's attitudes towards charging have substantially changed. Michael Montague told me that they had carried out a detailed survey of the public on this issue and to their surprise found that 75 per cent. of the public were in favour of paying for entry into museums. I am equally convinced of that, and one thing that I can say without fear of contradiction is that it is the virtually unanimous view of all foreigners who visit this country that they anticipate having to pay. They do not understand having to pay at the tower of London, beautiful Leeds castle or motor museums, all of which they regard as museums, but not at the museums we have talked about. There are many small museums which rightly charge for entry. All our historic homes and nearly all the National Trust homes which have been referred to make a proper charge. One pays more getting to and from the Victoria and Albert museum and the science museum than the charge which would be made for entry. A charge of a mere £1 would be reasonable for adults and half price, possibly, for children.
  I believe that we need museums to achieve the best. We have the best body of curators anywhere in the world. They understand, promote and restore brilliantly all the works of art that they can. The British museum and a great many others can never show everything they have. I believe that the curators are virtually above criticism in their presentation of particular shows. We had the Tutankhamun exhibition and the Blake exhibition, which is remarkably successful. Those shows make a charge. In almost every case such shows are promoted brilliantly and the layout is almost first class.

  1079
  Those of us who have been to museums in America to discover their promotional expertise, the layout of the museums and the way in which they sell themselves to the public in order to obtain large sums of money for the museums' benefit, recognise that we are weak in that direction. The Victoria and Albert, the science musuem, the national history museum, the British museum and many others have a great deal to learn about promoting themselves. We want to see them doing that and improving certain features—for example, their lighting, which often leaves a great deal to be desired.
  Our museums sell perhaps one tenth of the publications sold by museums in America and France. There is a vast increase in the amount of money to be made on the educational side—books and postcards. The museums have not been able to do such things because they have not had the money. The curators and staff have had enough to do. They need the money to do these things and I appeal for support direct to the trustees of each of these museums throughout the country.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Neville Sandelson: I shall be brief, because many points have already been made and I do not wish to be unduly repetitive. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this beneficial measure before the House, but, first and foremost, I pay tribute to those in the House of Lords who made unique contributions to the debates and to the noble peers in Committee who dissected clauses and schedules of bewildering confusion and succeeded finally in producing some clarity. The Bill will almost certainly require further amendment before it becomes fully comprehensible. However, the noble peers performed their role in a way which should command respect in all parts of the Chamber.
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) is leaving. Would it be possible to detain hon. Members who have just made speeches for a little longer than appears likely? There might be some comments that one or two of us would wish to make on the arguments.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the point, which is a perfectly proper observation. I told my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Chair that, unfortunately, I have an urgent constituency engagement at seven o'clock.
  Mr. Faulds: That is fortunate for him.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I should have liked to hear the debate. I believe that it is of great importance and it is of interest to me. I apologise to the House.
  Mr. Newens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might it be helpful if hon. Members who want to leave gave way so that possibly controversial points of view could be expressed?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): The three hon. Members have made their points.
  Mr. Sandelson: I take no exception or offence to the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) seeking to leave the Chamber. I disagree strongly
  1080
  with the views he expressed on admission charges. I shall probably refer to them later, but if I do not I am sure that others will.
  Our society has political vandals who would seek to demolish that other House of our Parliament, itself a vital part of our national heritage, rather than repair, reform and maintain it. I know that hon. Members will allow me to conclude this brief insertion in my remarks by saying that such a course would be supremely philistine when one considers the unique and sensitive knowledge possessed by many in that other place on matters such as those contained in the Bill which, for many of us here, tend to be complex and rather remote.
  We are dealing with a measure which commands support from all parts of the House, and I know that we shall consider it in that spirit, desiring only to improve the Bill in Committee. I join others in welcoming the proposed trusteeships which follow the lines of the so-called Rayner scrutiny last year. At the same time, I congratulate the Minister on so firmly rejecting the other suggestions contained in the report to which he referred, such as the levying of an entrance fee to the Bethnal green museum and the cancelling of the Covent garden theatre museum project. Those recommendations over-emphasise financial considerations to the exclusion of social need and functions. We welcome the Minister's assurance about them.
  I wish to see the implementation of the Drew report that dealt with regional museums, albeit with some minor modifications. We would benefit greatly from a unified regional system based on area councils.
  The proposed commission will face a formidable task. Many listed buildings are falling into dilapidation, often because they can no longer be used for their original purpose and must be converted to other uses. Many important monuments are magnets for tourists, but at Stonehenge the facilities can only be described—I hope not exaggeratedly—as squalid and inadequate. We must overcome the appearance of seedy neglect in our historic monuments. Dover castle, which was mentioned earlier, would attract many more visitors if it had up-to-date facilities. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to Bolsover castle as an example of buildings that have been left empty for a long time. The Minister will be aware that that castle is being repaired but that the work is far from completion.
  An especially intractable problem is how to retain intact in the face of increasing costs and declining revenue country houses that contain unique collections. Owners are often compelled to sell their art treasures either piecemeal or completely. More help must be given in the form of conservation arrangements and further tax measures to secure the future of historic collections and outstanding country houses and parkland. British architecture is not only a priceless heritage and aesthetic achievement but an irreplaceable economic asset that must not be dissipated or dispersed. The commission will need a strong and efficient financial structure and strong funding in its initial stages. That would inspire great confidence in many people.
  Lord Avon gave some assurances about the way in which the commission would be permitted to dispose of grants in aid, profits and bonuses, but should not such vital matters be written into the Bill? I hope that we can discuss financial control in Committee. Unless the commission is

  1081
  launched on a sound financial basis with clearly defined powers and duties, there is little point in making such structural changes.
  We need further clarification of the commission's tax status. If, as was suggested at one stage in another place, the commission were to have all the status advantages of a top-class charity, liable only to VAT, that should also be included in the Bill so that we know where we stand.
  We must find a way to enable the commission to give conservation and town scheme grants, although local authorities may refuse to designate a building or area. In many cases local authorities refuse, for a variety of reasons that are often understandable, to designate an area. Sometimes only few local residents are worried about the area, but grants may still be entirely justified and in the public interest. In such cases, the commission should be empowered to make direct grants, subject only to confirmation by the Secretary of State that the area is suitable for designation.
  Although I look forward, with other hon. Members, to making further points in Committee, the commission's accountability to the outside world must be considered. There is always a danger that esoteric groups of academics and experts will become impervious to outside opinion. There is no reason why that should happen in this case, but we have hardly left the starting block. No one wishes to see a commission that is intolerant of lesser mortals and that believes that its values and judgment are beyond serious challenge. The commission will be endowed with wide-ranging discretion in the exercise of its powers, and it can make and implement decisions without parliamentary scrutiny or other checks. By the time that Parliament checks, the damage may have been done. We need the best obtainable expertise on the commission, as well as efficient managerial skills, but we do not wish to create a body that believes at any stage that it is a law unto itself.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: To consider this Bill one must adopt the position of the god Janus—one must look backwards to the past and forward to the future. We are endeavouring to conserve much of the past for the benefit of those who are still to come.
  To consider a key principle of this measure is to recognise in part the need to provide several of our most respected institutions with a more realistic approach to their position. Many hon. Members must believe that the bringing of their organisational structure into line with that already well tried and tested is long overdue.
  Discussion of such matters immediately raises the question of museum charges. It is right that a shaft of light, albeit somewhat dim, should shine again on the subject. As one who has consistently advocated allowing, not coercing, museums to charge, I welcome the opportunity for that. When one considers that similar bodies already have that right, that many charge for special exhibitions and that some so-called outstations expect payment from the visiting public, there should be little controversy. However, it cannot be stressed too often that each museum, if it decides to charge, should be allowed to keep the revenue for its own expenditure plans rather than its being regarded as a Treasury impost.
  It is instructive to reflect upon the metropolitan museum of art in New York, which provides itself with entrance fees when none is directly sought. The instigation of the wearing of a lapel badge to denote that the visitor
  1082
  has made a voluntary contribution—advice is more than readily available about suggested suitable levels—produces the psychological stimulus for the handing over of ready cash. Such an approach in the United Kingdom could be of immense value to the arts. Coupled with that should be a greater tendency to provide attractive and relevant sales opportunities for souvenirs and educational items. Business technique has a definite place in the modern world of the museum.
  To consider the other major principle providing foundation to the Bill is also to recognise the need for organisational structure, in this instance the establishment of the new Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, or whatever its name will become. This is envisaged as being a more effective way of providing for their management and maintenance, a more lively way of presenting their benefits and a more appropriate way of dealing with grants, research and advice.
  As one who has a natural aversion to quangos, I have approached this commission with some trepidation. However, the distancing of this important part of the heritage from direct Government and political involvement has some attractions in long-term stability.
  The amalgamation of various bodies into one overall commission commends itself as a positive step on the way forward—to make use of the title of the Ministry's paper on the subject—to reduce unnecessary organisation, which is something of importance to all hon. Members. However, my acquiescence to this new commission is necessarily given with clear reservations.
  It is appropriate to reflect on whether the new commission should correctly be regarded as the future offspring of the Department of Environment. Many of its properties will have a direct relationship with the Department of Education and Science, through the Minister for the Arts. At the same time, the obvious interests of tourism need to be reflected by consultation on matters with the Department of Trade as the Ministry responsible. Once more, the question should at least be posed, is not the time overdue for a Ministry of arts and heritage that might also embrace tourism so that all these interrelated aspects could receive direct attention?
  Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is one of the recommendations of the Select Committee. It would be interesting to see what sort of positive response there will be from the Government, and how soon we are likely to receive that response.
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Member; this is a subject that I have raised a number of times in the House. All hon. Members should look forward to a positive response from the Government at the earliest opportunity.
  It is appropriate in a debate such as this to mention the immensely valuable work of voluntary effort in protecting our heritage. With this in mind, I pay my tribute to a museum in an old mill, appropriately enough at Mill green in my constituency, and, to return to my Roman theme, the only Roman baths under a motorway, the Al(M) also in my constituency, both of which provide excellent examples of such dedication.
  Earlier, I invoked the spirit of the god Janus and do so again to complete my Roman references. This god was the guardian of doors and gates, and safeguarding those to our

  1083
  heritage, on perhaps a somewhat grander scale, is the essence of the role of this legislation that the Government have rightly introduced today.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. John Parker: I declare an interest as a member of the Historic Buildings Council, a body that has a wonderful record of achievements. Since it was first created in 1953, it has enormously expanded the work of conservation. It started off dealing mainly with historic country houses and went on to deal with their grounds and surroundings. It has now developed in a big way in restoring the ordinary house of historic and architectural interest in conservation areas and special towns. It thus assists the local authorities and the residents of such houses to help put their houses and properties in order, an activity that has become a large part of its work.
  I must put in a word in favour of quangos, which, despite all the criticisms of them, are one of the best British political institutions. For example, the Historic Buildings Council consists of a large number of architects who give their services to that body free, and the Government get the benefit of their advice without paying for it. That and many other bodies make a substantial contribution to the welfare of our country that should not be underestimated.
  To note the various schemes that the Historic Buildings Council has taken up, there are historic towns such as York, Chester, Chichester and Bath which, through the work of the council, have over the years been revived as worthwhile monuments and as a part of our heritage.
  The council has also played a part in our big industrial towns. Much restoration is taking place in Newcastle and Bristol, for example. Victorian buildings in many parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire are outstanding but were covered in soot and dirt. They are now being recognised as real works of art and are being appreciated by their inhabitants when put in order. The important thing is to find a use for these buildings when they are put in good order, which is not always easy. However, much work has been done in reviving much that is worthwhile in our industrial areas as well as in the countryside.
  It is important to fund the new body properly. The success of the National Heritage council has been due largely to the fact that it started off with a considerable sum of money funded to it. This new commission should also have a large sum of money funded to it, as well as having an annual grant, if it is to get started and do a worthwhile job.
  An important point that has not been considered so far is the staffing of the new commission. It was somewhat critically described as being a means by which the Minister could decrease the number of his civil servants, by hiving them off to another body. However, it is important to have a specialist staff for this commission. At the moment staffing for the Historic Buildings Council is from the Civil Service and there are people who work for the council and then leave for another part of the Department of the Environment. This is important because many useful people, when promotion comes along, are lost to the council's work. Therefore, it is important that the new body should have its own method of recruitment. There should be the possibility of staff changing over to the Civil Service, but the commission should be able to develop and
  1084
  create its own experts who will go up its own career structure so that it will become a body of importance that people wish to join, and in which they will be able to have a career. I hope that that point will be borne in mind when we are considering the organisation of the commission. I agree that it should have the same standards of pay, pensions and so on as exist in the Civil Service generally, but no doubt that will be taken care of by the Civil Service unions and the unions representing the staff.
  We must look to the future work of the commission. It must continue making our country worth living in. It is important that our towns should be made so. There is a reaction, with which I sympathise, against much modern architecture. The past 20 years have shown an enormous revival of interest in our historic heritage, partly because people do not like many of the buildings that they see going up at the moment.
  High-rise flats, for example, are very unpopular and much disliked. People look with appreciation at the cottages that were built in earlier periods. It is generally true of our industrial heritage that we want to keep the best of it. Post-modern architecture is improving and we are getting away from the matchbox style that we had 20 or 30 years ago. We need always to think about conserving the best of the past in our towns. We want the high streets of the future not only to be shopping centres but also to contain buildings that are visually worthwhile. Any new buildings should be in tune with those that already exist. The commission must be encouraged to ensure worthwhile surroundings for our towns and villages where people will want to live.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Reg Prentice: I had not intended to speak. However, fascinated by what I have heard, I should like to pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides who have clearly studied this subject over many years. I have nostalgic memories of two periods of my ministerial career when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science and had responsibility for two great museums with which the Bill deals and when I was Minister of Public Building and Works and had responsibility for ancient monuments. At the time I took office at the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, it also had responsibility for historic buildings. However, the late Richard Crossman was keen to have these under his wing in his capacity as Minister of Housing and Local Government. For reasons that I could never understand, he had greater influence with the then Prime Minister than I had, and this subject was transferred across the departmental boundary. I am glad that all that is now in the past.
  Like many hon. Members, I have taken great delight in visiting historic sites and ancient monuments. I have some in my constituency. We can boast the battlefield of Naseby, Sulgrave manor where the gunpowder plot was hatched and the birthplace of Lady Marcia Falkender. We can also boast the great British waterways museum—it is, in fact, a small museum but great in quality—at Stoke Bruerne, which I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of canals and waterways. The museum is maintained with great devotion by voluntary effort. Several hon. Members have referred to the vital importance of voluntary effort in a whole range of subjects with which the Bill deals.
  The staff of what was the Ministry of Public Building and Works—now contained within the Department of the

  1085
  Environment—the National Trust, the National Trust for Scotland and similar bodies, include most devoted, experienced and expert people, to whom a great deal is owed. I was constantly impressed by the age range of these people. On a visit to, say, one of the great castles of north Wales, one would find members of the staff who had been there all their lives. They were devoted to the monument. Their knowledge of it was extensive. Their ability to talk about it was impressive. One would also find among the staff keen youngsters who were anxious to spend a career in work of that type. I recall some of the stone masons working on Fountains abbey and the young trainee gardeners in the royal parks. It was good to see young people wanting to devote their lives to work in these spheres.
  I have much sympathy with the call made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for a shorter and pithier title for the commission. I have no solution. I would have thought that the title of a commission had to describe what it did. I hope that I am wrong, but I reluctantly conclude that it may be unavoidable to have to include the term "ancient monuments". There is no abbreviation. It is also necessary, so far as I can see, to include the words "historic buildings" in the title. This does, however, make the title too long. I hope that someone will be able to solve the dilemma. We want a commission that is recognised and understood and that will gain an increasing reputation over the years. Ideally, it should have a short title to describe exactly what it does.
  Mr. Murphy: I share the concern of my right hon. Friend about the title for the commission. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would like to consider, as I have done, the simple title of the English heritage commission. We are talking about England. We are talking about our heritage. We are talking about a commission. That title seems to sum it all up. It is short and to the point. This will be crucial as people come to acknowledge it as a new and important body.
  Mr Prentice: I assume the point has been reached where the only means of achieving a short title is by using the word "heritage" instead of the more exact description. I feel, on balance, that "heritage" is too wide. It covers many additional things. One is therefore reluctantly forced to opt for the longer title. This is perhaps a Committee point.
  I have sympathy with the idea that the commission should be located outside London. There are always staff problems, of course. I believe that the Labour Government, when I was a member, went too far in much of their devolution planning. One understood the reasons for moving offices outside London, but some of the human problems involved were ignored. It was right that the present Government should reverse the trend. Subject to staff consultation, I hope that a location can be found outside London. I hope that I shall not be considered frivolous if I say, having heard the case for the north and speaking now in London, that there could perhaps be a compromise. Daventry comes to mind as a place located halfway between London and the north.
  A larger question is that of museum charges. I have some experience of this issue. During my period at the Department of Education and Science, the then Minister for the Arts was Lord Jenkins of Putney, as he now is. One of the first actions of the Labour Government when they
  1086
  took office was to amend the legislation and so permit free admission to museums. Lord Jenkins was then able to claim, after only a month or two in office, that he was the only Minister in the Government who had carried out the whole of his manifesto commitment. There are difficult financial problems. If this country was twice as prosperous and if a larger proportion of public expenditure was devoted to these matters, there would still be difficult problems at the margin.
  It seems wrong on balance that the large number of people who visit museums or historic buildings should not make a small direct contribution to what they have gone to enjoy. I understand the arguments to the contrary, and I believe that any such charge should be kept very low. There should be free admission for anyone possessing a student's card. In using the word "student", I include pupils of school age as well as those attending universities and colleges. One has obviously to encourage young people, who are interested, to return again and to learn more about the museum.
  In arguing that the price should be low, I have in mind the family outing involving several children, for whom the low price has to be multiplied. It is my belief, however, that people in work, who receive ordinary incomes, and tourists to this country should pay something towards the considerable cost that is involved.
  Two constitutional points arise. The hon. Member for South Shields paid tribute to the revision work that was carried out in another place. One is always glad to hear tributes to the other place from the Opposition Benches. We hope that they will continue and that all the right conclusions will be reached and eventually lead to a recognition that a two-chamber Parliament is needed. However, I had better not go too far down that path, or I should stray out of order.
  The other constitutional point is that we are creating a quango. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) mentioned that. It is healthy to get rid of quangos if they are superfluous, as some of them undoubtedly were, but it is perfectly healthy to transfer work from part of the Civil Service to a machinery that is more devolved and which, for that reason, has more flexibility and more freedom from all the bureaucracy of the Civil Service. I do not use that word in a pejorative sense, but if something is directly part of the Civil Service it is subject to all the financial controls of that body, and the fact that there is a Minister answerable in Parliament, and so on, leads to more paperwork than one would want in a new devolved authority.
  I wish the new organisation well. We are discussing several parts of our national heritage that are totally beyond price, and it is our duty in this House to be sensitive about what we do to preserve and enhance them.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) speaks with great experience because he had the good fortune to be the Minister responsible for certain of these matters at an earlier stage in his career. Some of us who are as knowledgeable have not had that fortunate opportunity of having been Ministers because of a massive misjudgment of our leaders at various stages, but we speak of course with knowledge as great as that of the right hon. Gentleman—if not greater.

  1087
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned museum charges. I am terribly sorry to see this hoary old chesnut resurrected yet again. It does seem difficult to get it into the noddles of some hon. Members concerned with these matters that the boards of trustees have such powers if they wish to use them, but that the boards of trustees, who know more about these matters than most hon. Members do, do not choose to use them, and I am delighted to have had the Minister's reassurance that this Government have no intention of putting pressure of any sort on the boards of trustees to reintroduce those ridiculous charges.
  The right hon. Member for Daventry was charitable enough to mention Lord Jenkins of Putney as having been the main protagonist in preventing the imposition of charges when a Labour Government came to office. He forgets, of course, that most of the opposition and most of the hard work was done by the honourable yours truly. It is nice occasionally, and necessary, to get these matters on the record.
  The principal consequence of this Bill for the world of national museums is to dispose of an anomaly by bringing those few institutions which have hitherto come under the direct authority of Departments of State into line with the majority of national museums by making their governance the responsibility of boards of trustees, to whom public funds for their support will be voted.
  One great advantage of detaching such institutions from the Departments is to insulate them from those cuts on a percentage basis which, being applied throughout a Department, cannot take account of the very particular services which the public is entitled to expect from its museums. But a board of trustees is in a position to dispose of the funds voted to it in such a way as to do the least damage possible to those requirements. For example, it is common knowledge that the trustee-governed museums were able to cushion the impact of financial stringency in a more rational and responsible and better balanced way than proved possible recently at the Victoria and Albert museum. The man at the Ministry does not necessarily have the knowledge and experience of the man at the museum, and cannot be expected to possess it.
  For those reasons, the devolution of the museums is much to be welcomed, although it will be necessary for us to satisfy ourselves that the career interests of the staffs are fully protected when the change takes place; I am glad that a number of hon. Members have made that point.
  The single major exception to this process of standardisation which would remain after the present Bill is enacted is the Royal Scottish museum, which is of course the direct responsibility, not of the Minister, but of the Scottish Office. However, the Secretary of State announced on 22 July last year that his policy was that legislation would be introduced transferring the responsibility for this museum also to a board of trustees. Perhaps the Government could take this opportunity this evening to say when further action in this regard is to be expected.
  In so far as it substitutes boards of trustees for departmental control, this Bill gives effect to the basic recommendation of the Rayner-style scrutiny carried out by Mr. Gordon Burrett and published in May of last year. But although this principle is endorsed in it, the Bill implicitly rejects—quite rightly so—almost all the other Burrett recommendations, both those which needed legislative effect and those which did not. These include
  1088
  the encouragement to sell national property, whether works of art or collections of books—what a nonsense; that was made in much too light-hearted and irresponsible a way in the Burrett recommendations—and the proposals to abandon the theatre museum project—after all the expectations over the years about that; another nonsense—and the quite ludicrous intention to close the museum of childhood, which met some fairly forceful resistance.
  I gather that Osterley park house and Ham house are safe, and that there is no present danger to those buildings. As far as those two outstations of the museum are concerned, an assurance would be welcome that clause 2(4) will enable the existing arrangements for them to continue, and that this is in fact Government policy. I hope that we can have that firm statement of commitment.
  I am delighted to have had the assurance from the Minister about museum charges. I made a few adverse comments on the matter earlier, but I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) had been able to keep his patience and his seat for a little longer, because I think he would have noticed that his antediluvian attitudes and suggestions, however backed up by some of his hon. Friends and my hon. and noble Friends who have historic properties, are not received with any acceptance by the directors of most of the major museums and art galleries. I wish we could put that nonsense to bed once and for all.
  As parts of a Government Department, the Victoria and Albert and Science museums have been entrusted with administering grants for assistance to non-national museums in financing acquisitions. In money terms, the role of the Victoria and Albert museum is very much the most important, with next year's grant exceeding the £1 million mark. It must be noted that there has been general satisfaction in the world of local museums with the way in which this administrative task has been discharged, in the past, by the small office set up for that purpose in the Victoria and Albert museum.
  As the Bill stands at present, there is no provision relating to any change in the voting of funds for this function, over which the Department presumably continues to retain its control. That would not seem to me consistent with the general policy decision in favour of devolution—that is to say, the placing of an appropriate recipient of the vote between the Government and the adminstering body. As far as the administration is concerned, there seems to be widespread agreement that it is desirable to retain the machinery which has long existed in the Victoria and Albert museum.
  The Government's delay in coming to any decision on how this function is to be exercised in future is perhaps due to the realisation that in the long run it is really illogical for the trustees of a particular London museum to be voted funds for assisting purchases by other, non-national museums, even while accepting that, administratively speaking, excellent machinery for that purpose already happens to be located in that museum.
  The problem is, without disturbing the existing administration, to find an appropriate body as formal recipient of the vote, which is better equipped to act in a trustee capacity on behalf of museums all over the country than the board of a particular London museum is likely to be. It is a fact that an appropriate candidate for such a duty, whether now or at a later date, exists in the shape of the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is already the

  1089
  recipient of voted funds and which has an increasingly close relationship with regional museums. I understand that the commission would in principle be ready to accept that responsibility and I hope that that decision will soon be arrived at.
  I should like to take this opportunity to remind the Government that it is hoped to see tabled some Government amendments which were envisaged towards the end of the Third Reading debate on 15 February in another place and reported at c. 167–169. Those relate to the bringing up to date of certain provisions to be found in previous legislation relating to transfers of the ownership of objects between national museums—The National Gallery and the Tate Gallery Act 1954 and the British Museum Act 1963. The Government accepted the desirability in principle of making those amendments but wished first to be certain that they would come within the Bill's scope. I cannot conceive any genuine difficulties arising as to scope, especially as the provison for repeal already in the Bill at the beginning of schedule 5, which I think is desirable, has no direct relevance to its scope.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) commented on the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. The Government have announced that the Royal Commission is not to be brought together with the commission, which may cause difficulty for the commission over the national monuments record. That record is primarily a vast photographic record of historic buildings and ancient monuments, architectural drawings, aerial photographs and archaelogical records. The commission needs not just "access" to the national monuments record but to have the record itself in the same building. For historic building and ancient monument inspectors it is the essential tool, used many times each day, providing original photographs and books which they cannot do without.
  The national monuments record has been housed with the inspectors since 1948. They are the principal users and have made a major contribution to building it up. Its administration was transferred to the Royal Commission only in 1964. If the national monuments record and the commission were not housed in the same building, it would be necessary for the commission to have a complete copy of the national monuments record, with its million or more photographs and half a million drawings and records. The library would also have to be duplicated, as would all recordings.
  Are the Government prepared to pay for that fairly expensive operation? In the long term, computerisation and electronic transmission may help, but considerable investment would be needed and the results might not be satisfactory. In any event, the Royal Commission should be the academic, research, publishing and recording arm of the commission. They work in the same field, so why on earth keep them apart? It is a complete illogicality.
  It is not altogether clear whether it is intended to give the commission responsibility for the preparation of lists of buildings of historic or architectural interest. I understand that the listing will continue to be done by the Secretary of State but that he will be given power to accept lists prepared by the commission. If it is the Government's intention to split the preparation of the lists between the commission and the Secretary of State, it would be most unfortunate and I hope that that is not the intention. There would have to be two sets of staff, one at the commission and the other in the Department of the Environment, one
  1090
  proposing and the other disposing, no doubt according to different interpretations and priorities. The result would be a bureaucratic mass of red tape which could only delay the listing of buildings, particularly in urgent cases.
  The listing issue highlights the scope for muddle and duplication between the new commission and the Department of the Environment. That is what my hon. Friend was suggesting when he said that there are many aspects of this that we are not too happy about. If the commission is to be effective it must not be tied to the apron strings of the Secretary of State, nor must there be a need for a residual shadow commission within the Department of the Environment whose only role in life will be to filter, question and generally delay the work of the real commission. If I may say so, that implies that the commission must be given the powers to get on with the job and not have to seek permission for virtually everything from the Secretary of State.
  The key powers that the commission needs for historic buildings are powers to buy buildings without the Secretary of State's specific permission, to start compulsory purchase proceedings and to do urgent works to buildings in need of repair. Under the Bill—scheclule 4, paragraph 3, page 44—the commission will be empowered to buy buildings but only with the Secretary of State's permission and then only outstanding buildings. Those restrictions are a formula for inertia and delay. The commission would not, for example, be able to organise a demonstration project for the rehabilitation of, say, a row of cottages, since they would not be outstanding.
  Inevitably—I do not want to be too uncharitable—someone in the Department of the Environment will have to receive, and advise the Secretary of State on, every request for acquisition, doubtless in accordance with some policy of his own. So even the power to acquire voluntarily would be shrouded by bureaucratic restraints. Since the new body is to be accountable to Parliament for the way in which it spends its money, why deny it the freedom of action that it needs to move quickly in urgent cases?
  The new commission will not have powers to serve repairs notices for urgent work on unoccupied buildings. Instead, it could only do so if the Secretary of State specifically authorises the commission to do so—schedule 4, paragraph 17, page 50. In other words, where the commission wants to get urgent repairs done to a building it will have, first, to request the Minister to make the authorisation, secondly, wait until he does so, thirdly, serve the notice, and, fourthly, wait at least seven days before doing the works. That can only prolong the process and make it subject to inevitable bureaucratic delays; that really will not help the commission in its work.
  The commission will be entirely without any compulsory purchase powers and the alleged justification for that, say the Department of the Environment officials, is that it is undesirable for non-elected bodies to have such powers. But wait a minute—if that is so, it is difficult to understand why it applies only to bodies concerned with historic buildings, since a large number of similar bodies have such powers, notably the Nature Conservancy Council and the urban development corporations set up by the Government only two years ago. All compulsory purchase powers are subject to a semi-judicial confirmation process involving the Secretary of State anyway, so it is difficult to sustain any objection of principle, as certain officials have tried to do, to the new body having those powers.

  1091
  Finally, and I hope the House will bear with me, I want to mention repair powers. The situation would not be so bad if the repair powers themselves were effective and well used, but, as everyone who knows anything about this subject is well aware, they are not. The Department of the Environment has been far too complacent about the need for early legislation to improve them and apparently refuses to take this opportunity to upgrade them. It claims that the new commission must be given time to settle in under the existing powers before any moves are made to change them. If the result is that a further 10 years of departmental inertia are allowed to pass before legislation is brought forward, many important building types will have been decimated, the commission will have become widely discredited by then and will be at a severe disadvantage in making the best use of them.
  Although I have expressed a number of reservations to the introduction of the Bill, I must say that in principle, and with a good deal of admiration for the Minister's work and that of his colleagues behind the scenes, I welcome this change in the responsibilities for historic buildings and sites and the introduction of the trustee board system for the Victoria and Albert and the science museums. Those matters are long overdue. The two Ministers have a marvellous chance to do a first-class job with a Bill that has already been immensely improved in the other place. I think, knowing both the Ministers concerned, that they will work with some assiduity to see the Bill on to the statute book in order to do this enormously important and valuable job in the retention, administration, repair and conservation of our heritage. I wish the Bill well, with those reservations.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: One of the problems of speaking late in a fairly short debate is that most of what one wanted to say has already been said. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) has dealt with some of the points that I wanted to raise about the role of the commission.
  I am also totally opposed to the reintroduction of any charges for our national galleries. One of the most delightful tasks that I had when I came to the House in February 1974 was to support the in-coming Labour Government on the abolition of charges. We spent quite a lot of money on putting in turnstiles, but, thank goodness, they were never used. The real reason why I oppose charges is that many people have left their collections to the nation, sometimes stipulating that they should be freely available. It is totally wrong that we should then impose charges.
  It is a terrible record, but it is to the Government's credit although I believe that the money was left by the late Charles Clore, that at long last the Turner gallery is being built, as an extension to the Tate gallery. When Turner left all his pictures in about 1830, they were supposed to be put on show to the nation. I assume that he meant them to be freely available. I hope that when the gallery is finished—I look forward to it—charges will not be imposed.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) put in a plea that the commission should have its home in York. I think that York does well already. If we are to move it out of London, why not put it in the ancient capital of
  1092
  England—Winchester? I do not represent Winchester, but it is a good spot. Salisbury, too, would not be a bad place. It could come to the ancient Isle of Vectis, which does have Roman remains, but I do not think that I can persuade the Government of that, certainly while it is under Liberal administration.
  If charges were to be envisaged, we should look at the example of London zoo. The zoo is now desperate for money because it cannot attract the public. The entry cost for a family is between £6 and £8. If there were a charge of £1 for adults for the V and A and half price for the kids, that would amount to £4 altogether for a family. There would also be the travelling expenses. That is a sizeable sum of money. Once again I plead against imposing charges. I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking that it is not part of the Government's policy to introduce charges now.
  I welcome clauses 1 to 28, which deal with the establishment of boards of trustees and the trustees for armed forces museums. I originally had doubts about the establishment of the commission and wrote an article in that vein. The dealings that I have had with the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board have always been satisfactory. The way in which our monuments have been maintained is a credit to them. The way in which they have dealt with applications for financial assistance to repair buildings of historic interest is also a credit to them. Their job is very much in line with the job carried out by the ordnance survey. We have paid tribute to the other place, which also had the common sense the other day to stand up for the ordnance survey.
  Nevertheless, I accept that, among the bodies that are most concerned with our heritage, such as SAVE and the Civic Trust, which we hold in high regard, there is a general feeling that this is a forward-looking move. The new commission must be soundly and adequately financed, I hope on similar lines to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I played a small part in the discussions before it was set up. I am delighted at the way in which it has been financed. Extra money has been given to it. It is performing a worthwhile role.
  The new commission must also possess an efficient administrative structure and have a clear understanding of its duties. I hope that it will be able to deal with grant applications on its own without Department of the Environment interference. I am told that there are still uncertainties about schedule 4, which is complex enough to read, but that most other grey areas have been dealt with in the other place.
  The hon. Member for Warley, East referred to the listing of buildings, to which I should also like to refer. Is that to remain with the Department of the Environment or to be handed over to the commission, or will the Department of the Environment act on the advice of the commission, which I think is the right way to proceed?
  About four years ago I helped to establish a building preservation trust in my constituency. We have continually come up against problems when we have been anxious to restore properties in conservation areas, some of which have been derelict for many years and which have been only just kept in repair. The owners have been most unco-operative and for odd reasons do not seem to want to do anything about it. We have been unable to acquire the property. We have gone to the local authorities, which have been sympathetic and have served repair notices on occasions, but that has not produced the desired result.

  1093
  They did not feel able to go the whole way and serve a compulsory purchase order. One property has been empty for 25 years and is in a prominent situation in one of the main streets of our town.
  The reluctance of the local authorities to serve a compulsory purchase order is largely a result of experience, when they have finished up without the backing of the Department of the Environment inspector and have faced substantial costs for taking such action. I understand that the new commission will not be in a stronger position and will still have to rely on the Department of the Environment or the local authority to serve repair notices or to see that they are carried out, or to serve compulsory purchase orders.
  I shall give another example, which is tragic to me. A property in my constituency was converted into flats. The one remaining tenant wrote to the building trust that we set up asking us to intercede and saying that he was prepared to put up some money if we could acquire the property and restore it. I visited the property, which has a preservation order on it. It had a marvellous staircase, among other attributes, but the roof was collapsing and slates were coming off almost daily. In the flat where the tenant was living the damp was penetrating to an alarming extent.
  I begged the local authority to carry out urgent repairs and at least to put tarpaulins on the roof. It thought that the house was beyond repair and refused to do it. The matter finished up with the Department of the Environment inspector, who agreed that the building could be restored. Three days later it was consumed in flames. I had suspicions about that, but that was the end of that building. Had we only moved a little quicker, it could have been saved and restored and now it would probably be put to proper use.
  The other day I went to the Wedgwood factory at Stoke. After much campaigning I am delighted that Barlaston hall is being restored for use as residential accommodation, probably due to the efforts of bodies such as SAVE, Country Life and others. It can be done. It is such a shame that the process is so prolonged. I agree with the hon. Member for Warley, East that we do not act quickly enough. If we are not careful we shall set up the commission without the teeth to deal with the problems that we know to be around. In five or 10 years' time we shall give the commission those teeth, but it will be too late. Too many properties have gone already and too many will pass by the wayside. I cannot see why the commission should not be given powers similar to those of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Urban Development Corporation. If we cannot persuade the Minister to change his mind on that point, I predict that too many buildings of value will be lost.
  I welcome the clauses on redundant churches. I hope and pray that the commission will succeed where others have failed. In my constituency, St. Thomas's Church in Ryde has remained empty since 1956. If the commission can have a salutary effect on the church society trust, require it to hand over the funds that it is sitting on and allow the building to be put back into proper use so that we can display the fantastic collection of china that was left by the late Mr. Brigstock, I should be delighted, as would many of my constituents. If the commission is to be successful it will need a strong chairman and chief officer, both with vision, at the outset. I hope that much care will be taken over those appointments.
  1094
  I wish the Bill well, but I plead that this golden opportunity to improve and strengthen the present procedures is not wasted.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), I welcome the Bill, but I wonder whether it has sufficient teeth to do the job that it sets out to do as well as it should he done. Despite the admirable work of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, most people with any knowledge of ancient monuments and historic buildings have been concerned for some years about the problems of preservation, maintenance and general care.
  Britain has a heritage of incomparable value. Unfortunately, it is not fully appreciated. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke of Hadrian's wall and some of the best known monuments in this country. I recognise the immense importance and value of such monuments. However, less famous sites have been neglected and frequently vandalised. It is impossible properly to maintain all the sites, or to man them in the winter or even throughout the summer for the whole day. What will the new commission do about those monuments? I am worried that the more dynamic qualities of the new commission may not bring any improved benefits to the lesser known, more isolated and less exciting monuments that must be preserved.
  The effect of the Bill on public service manpower will be to reduce the number of staff working in Government Departments by about 3,000. It may be that those people have made no contribution to the preservation of our heritage, but they will not be replaced. I have strong doubts about the wisdom of that. Does it mean fewer custodians at a time when we do not have a sufficient number of them? I am worried by the fact that some of the less spectacular monuments and houses may be vandalised and disappear. Adequate grants must be made available if that is not to be the case.
  We all know of monuments and houses that have been destroyed, demolished or otherwise lost. To some extent, the introduction of entrepreneurial enthusiasm may do a great deal for some of our monuments, but we should not allow ourselves to rely on such flair for the preservation of our entire heritage. I hope that the Minister will consider the necessity of providing a safety net if other monuments are not to suffer.
  I am worried about the concept that monuments and museums should be self-financing. Our heritage must be open to all who live in this country. I welcome foreigners and hope that they will see our heritage. It would be a great pity if tourists were attracted to sites of importance, yet some of our people could not afford to visit them. Many of those who are unemployed, on social security or in one-parent families will not visit museums if charges are made. It is not sufficient to say that the loss is that of those who decline to visit such places. The loss is to our nation as a whole. If significant numbers of our community fail to appreciate the importance of our heritage they will treat it with scant care be and inclined to vandalise it. They will then fail to give their services and help towards preserving it.
  As part of the educational process it is important that we should make every citizen aware of our heritage. If that is to be done, the charges must be removed. It will not

  1095
  always work, but if people can gain free access to museums, historic houses and ancient monuments, they will buy books, pamphlets, postcards and mementos. It is better to get money back in that way than to deter people from entering the sites in the first place.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said about families visiting places where the charge is £1 a head as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), who has now left the Chamber. That is a heavy charge for a family. With travelling it could mean that a family must spend £15 or £20 to make such a visit, and many families will not be persuaded that they can afford such sums. If they do not visit the sites, the loss will be to the community as a whole.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Many people make voluntary donations when they visit places such as the Victoria and Albert museum. There are collection boxes. There are friends of the museums, who give substantial sums of money. Money comes from those sources.
  Mr. Newens: I entirely agree. Many groups of people come together and contribute to the maintenance of sites. It is important that we should provide the initial education that is necessary to stimulate their interest.
  There has been a considerable growth of concern for our heritage in recent years. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that that growth had been expressed in voluntary efforts to preserve and maintain establishments. For many years I have been involved in seeking to persuade people to preserve historic buildings, especially windmills. Just before I came to the House in 1964, I mounted a campaign—which failed—to save a rare post windmill at Moreton just outside my constituency.
  When I came to the House and spoke about windmills, several hon. Members regarded the subject as a joke, but now, 20 years later, the community's attitude has changed. Twenty years ago, windmills were being swept away with little concern. Today, the climate has changed. I know of several cases, some in my own county of Essex, where groups of people have come together, raised money and worked hard to maintain and restore these attractive buildings.
  A range of historic buildings have been preserved. I was impressed when I visited Harwich some years ago to see the tremendous amount of work that had been put in to restore the redoubt. It is a fantastic achievement. That shows what voluntary effort can do.
  The commission must help to stimulate the concern that will lead to more voluntary effort. The attitude taken by the new commission, especially in its early days, will be vital to nurturing and encouraging the growth of concern for our heritage. On that basis, I wish the new commission well.
  The Minister has a very well deserved reputation of concern for our heritage—to which I pay tribute—but I hope that he will take account of some of the comments that have been made from both sides of the House. Above all, the commission must be adequately funded. If it is funded and given support, and if it has the dynamic leadership that we all hope for, it will do much to increase appreciation of our heritage and its long-term preservation for future generations.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), whose concern for the heritage and for historic buildings was evident. I was particularly interested in what he said about the need to welcome foreigners to our shores. No fewer than 11 million people visit Britain each year. I learnt that statistic while taking part in a broadcast about the Elgin marbles this afternoon with Miss Melina Mercouri. She said that 5·5 million people went to Greece each year and that 11 million come to Britain. I assume that she has her statistics right. A large proportion of those 11 million are attracted by our arts and culture. They come, for example, to see the live arts, the theatre, concerts, the ballet and opera, as well as our heritage, our museums and our buildings. London is among the arts capitals of the world. Indeed, I would say that it was the arts capital of the world.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister has introduced the Bill, which will strengthen in particular the Victoria and Albert and science museums. They are two of our greatest institutions. It gives them independence and puts them on a footing that will enable them to enhance the service that they give to the public. They are two of our top attractions. However, it is important that we should attract more foreigners and British tourists to our second tier of museums and historic buildings. There is too much concentration on the favourites. There are some other extremely worthwhile and interesting things to see that are unduly ignored.
  The tourist industry confers great benefits and generates a lot of employment. I should like to see it dispersed more not only between London and the provinces, but within Greater London and the south-east. I live just outside Hampton Court palace and in the summer I see hordes of tourists there in the morning and I see tourists here at Westminster in the afternoon. I wish that they were more dispersed.
  Hampton Court palace is a remarkable place. The Department of the Environment maintains the building and looks after the two royal parks, Bushy park and Home park. The Department does a fine job, which is widely appreciated. I pay tribute to it for what it has done over the years, under successive Administrations. It certainly keeps the parks in very fine order and they are greatly appreciated not only by visitors from further afield, but by my constituents. Bushy park, which is next to Teddington, Hampton and Hampton Hill, is the local park, as well as being a park of national importance. Hardly a month goes by without my being asked to take up some query in connection with those royal parks. They are most beautifully kept.
  My constituency is second to none in its appreciation of the heritage. There is a high average intelligent quotient locally. A large proportion of people like to go to the museums we are discussing tonight. And within the constituency's boundaries there are other buildings of interest, apart from Hampton Court palace. For example, there is Marble Hill house and park; Orleans house; the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall, where all our Army bands are trained. Long may Kneller hall and its bands flourish, because they are an important part of our national tradition. There is also Strawberry hill, the home of Horace Walpole, and now a Roman Catholic teacher training college. It is a building of great interest.

  1097
  There is another important building that is not exactly a historical building of great beauty, but which is nevertheless important. I refer to the stadium at Twickenham rugby football club.
  People enjoy those local buildings and facilities, but they also enjoy going to great national museums, such as the British museum, which attracts between 3 million and 4 million people per year. The Victoria and Albert and science museums are now to have a constitution similar to that of the British museum. It is noteworthy that, since the British museum has been free to charge, it has never imposed admission charges. The Victoria and Albert, and science museums are unlikely to do so. As far as I know, nothing has been said in the debate about whether Kew gardens will charge under its new constitution. At present, Kew gardens charges an entrance fee of only a few pence. It is such a small sum that I doubt whether it covers the cost of collection.
  Mr. Whitehead: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the entrance charge for Kew gardens, which was for many years a nominal penny, has now increased to 15p is a step in the wrong direction and that there may be further steps in that direction?
  Mr. Jessel: I expect that the hon. Gentleman has checked the figure of 15p, and I accept it. However, 15p is not likely to deter many people from visiting the gardens. I do not feel strongly one way or the other about charges. I was astonished when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) sought to compare London zoo with national museums, such as the Victoria and Albert. A large proportion of those who visit zoos are young children, because animals are especially interesting to them. Although one would wish the same to be true of art treasures in our great national museums, that is, at least for a considerable proportion of young children, more of a hope than a reality. Although many go to the museums, the proportion is not as great as the proportion who visit zoos.
  We are not surprised when we are made to pay perhaps 8 or 10 francs to enter the Louvre in Paris. Foreigners visiting the National Gallery are quite astonished that they have to pay nothing. That is not true of the Louvre or the Prado at Madrid.
  Of course it can be said that the tourist trade is somewhat price sensitive, and that if the cost of a holiday that includes cultural aspects becomes significantly cheaper or more expensive it will probably have a substantial effect on the number of tourists to Britain, with consequential effects for the amount of employment generated in Britain. However, the entrance fee to an art gallery or show is a small factor in the cost of a holiday in Britain, compared with the cost of the air fare, hotels and any possible fluctuations in price due to currency changes. Not many foreigners will be deterred from coming to Britain because of a charge of £1 or so.
  Therefore, there is a conflict between the reasonable wish that such people should contribute something to the cost and thus enable our institutions to make more purchases of art objects and the desire not to squeeze out families who might find it difficult to afford the £1 for each member.
  That is a serious dilemma. When the issue last came up eight or nine years ago, it generated so much heat that I doubt whether it was worth all the fuss, and it is probably better to leave it as it is.
  1098
  I have some other points to make. First, will the new body be able to take on the handling of blue plaques, which are at present administered by the Greater London council in Greater London, if it is decided to abolish the Greater London council? Will the new body be able to cope with that?
  Secondly, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the educational importance of art galleries. The whole House would endorse that. The presentation of our heritage in our museums has improved out of all recognition within the past 20 or 30 years and, in particular, in the past decade. The museums now put up vivid and effective descriptions of what people want to know which can be understood quite easily. In that way they are fulfilling their educational role. It is improving every year and will continue to do so.
  Thirdly, I have raised the issue of hoarding by museums on previous occasions. Certain of our museums such as the National gallery display all they have, but other museums do not as they have more than they can show. They say they keep things in store partly for academic or collecting purposes. They say that if they have those items students or experts can see them, and that therefore the practice has some value. I believe that that is of limited value. 'The whole point of a work of art, whether it is a live performance or an object, is that it can be perceived. If an object is not on show it cannot be perceived or can be seldom perceived and is therefore largely wasted. I should like to express the hope that all museums, whether they have a constitution run by trustees, as envisaged by the Bill, or any other type of constitution, will set about trying to ensure that as many of their works of art as possible are not hidden away or hoarded in cellars, but are lent: or somehow put about so that people may see them.
  Recently, some hon. Members had the opportunity to meet representatives of the Manchester art gallery, which has an excellent arrangement for lending those works of art that it does not have room to display to firms and companies in the area which pay a small fee to hire them. These works of art have to be displayed in places where a large proportion of the employees are able to see them. Some of the firms involved have set up works committees to help choose such works of art from the stock of Manchester art gallery. That is a splendid arrangement as it gives a great deal of pleasure. One would like to see it imitated all over the country. Will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting that idea to other museums, including those named in the Bill, to see whether they can imitate the excellent example of Manchester?
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute a few words to the debate. I apologise for my absence for a large part of the debate. I was present earlier, but since then I have been serving in Committee. I have some important points to make, first, about museums, secondly, about churches and, thirdly, about the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England.
  I welcome the Bill's proposals for museums and support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) about bringing treasures out from museums. Too few museums do so. I applaud the growth of travelling exhibitions. I hope that we shall see more such exhibitions. To the museum and art world, imposing charges is like showing a red flag to a bull. I am

  1099
  glad that the Bill preserves the power to charge, although, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, there is no change in the exercise of those powers and no obligation on the museums to use them. I suggest that the powers should be used to improve museum facilities and to make them more interesting and exciting. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) echoes that sentiment. I am not surprised at that, because he and I had the opportunity to visit the space museum in Washington last year. A visit to that museum, to the Sir John Soane museum or to the Dorset county museum, which is near my home, shows what museums can offer in excitement and educational opportunities for the young and the not so young.
  My second point relates to churches. I have long held the view that the parish churches of Britain are an untapped treasury. They show the history of communities and are there for all of us to see. When churches become redundant they can, under the Bill, be taken over by the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England. The communities that are responsible for parish churches could do very much more to prevent their becoming redundant. Every parish church is of historic importance, and every one of them deserves to be made to live, not in the way that they lived in the past, as religious centres, but as community buildings which provide not only a place for religious services but other facilities for the community.
  Thirdly, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if he wants a really unpleasant mnemonic, the commission might be called CAMHIBE.
  Conservation is important, as is preservation. There is a difference between the two, as has been said in another place. Preservation is a defensive word which means that one is concerned to ensure that an item is not destroyed or does not disappear. Conservation—taken from the Latin word—implies that positive steps are taken to make the monument or building actually live. I should like an amendment to clause 30 to provide that both conservation and preservation are the responsibility of the commission.
  My second point about the commission relates to the importance of advisory bodies. Many scholastic bodies in the community were worried about the form in which the Bill appeared. My right hon. Friend has done a good deal to allay some of those concerns. One of the main worries about the Bill is that the commission, according to schedule 3, paragraph 9, "may constitute committees". The commission is a managerial body which has the task of managing our monuments.
  The commission will not supply the necessary fund of learning for the conservation and preservation of monuments. It will have to consult and will need advisory bodies. It is not sufficient to say that it may constitute committees. An obligation should be placed upon it to do so. I do not say that simply for the sake of having committees. Not many of us wish to create unnecessary committees. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept that the scholarship to be found in our scholastic bodies is important to the preservation and conservation of monuments.
  Machinery must be established whereby the fruits of that scholarship can be applied to maintaining the buildings. A consultative council should be established on which not only scholars and archaeologists, but all those
  1100
  interested in national heritage can have a voice as an integral part of the new commission. It should be statutorily required to appoint such a body to offer scholarly and expert advice. If my right hon. Friend can introduce an amendment to the Bill to meet that point, he will do much to assuage scholastic concern.
  My next point relates to the process of consultation and the timing of the bringing into being of the commission. I hope that the Minister will mention that when he replies and say how the scholastic bodies will be consulted. How does he intend their input to be used by the commission? It is a highly technical area. Centuries of learning depend on the monuments. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will recognise that those go together.
  I am happy to give my general support to the Bill and look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Christopher Price: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber at the start of the debate, but I have been here for a large part of it. I felt that I should make a few points as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which has produced a report covering the subject. I shall not say anything controversial. Unlike Lord Jenkins in another place, I shall not even mention the Elgin marbles. However, there is a great deal in the Bill dealing with the disposal of works of art. I hope that the Bill—
  Mr. Faulds: I wish that my hon. Friend would resist the temptation to be so reticent about the Elgin marbles. It is necessary that a voice should be heard in Britain saying that we are not all behind the extraordinary chauvinist selfishness over the retention of particular objects that are of unique, historic, national or religious significance to other countries. It really is time that we welcomed the fact that the world is changing. The Third world countries and the colonial world that used to possess the objects that we borrowed, stole or bought are entitled to the return of a limited number of what are, to them, nationally important objects.
  Mr. Price: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I might have made similar remarks to his, but the Elgin marbles belong to the British museum, which is not covered by the Bill. I have strong feelings about the Elgin marbles, but I do not intend to vent them now.
  Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend is modest.
  Mr. Price: The Minister has not yet responded to the Select Committee's report. We make no complaint about that, because a good response is better than an early response. I hope that he will view the Bill as the first step towards the formulation of a Ministry of Arts, Heritage and Tourism, as the Committee recommends in its report. The logic of the Bill goes towards everything that we said in the report about bringing together under one Ministry the responsibility for all the arts and all the heritage in Britain. I hope that the Minister takes that point seriously.
  I welcome the provision to appoint trustees for the science museum and the Victoria and Albert museum, which is a logical step. Again, it fits in with everything that the Committee recommended. I hope that the Minister has learnt the lesson of Mr. Burrett and the theatre museum.
  I am apprehensive about the Rayner studies into areas of the arts. I had hoped that the Minister had, during the

  1101
  Rayner study of the children's museum and the theatre museum, learnt that there are real dangers in applying the Rayner strict value-for-money accountancy procedures in an area of the arts and heritage where it is impossible to take the strict view of efficiency and productivity that is taken in other areas.
  The present Priestley study in other areas also worries me. A young accountant has been brought in and, although he may be an extremely good accountant, we do not have any real confidence that he will treat the matter properly. I hope that, having put the bodies under trustees, and having set up a commission, the Minister will allow them to do their jobs without too much further ministerial interference.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It has been a good and full debate, in which all of the contributions from both sides of the House have materially advanced what we all want to do today. This is a fairly rare occasion, and we must try to improve the Bill that began in another place—perhaps, for once, fairly appropriately given its membership and procedures. It was possible for Lord Avon to come forward more often during Committee, Report and Third Reading with various amendments and responses than would have been possible had the Bill begun here. Consequently, the House is having an opportunity to examine the matter.
  I congratulate the Minister on his successful attempt to widen the hegemony of the Office of Arts and Libraries in taking responsibility for the Bill and, in a way, becoming the sort of Minister for the arts, tourism and leisure that the Labour party wishes to see established.
  The wide responsibilities dealt with in the Bill require a spokesman in the Government of the day with access to, and the power to punch a weight in, the Cabinet. The Minister has punched his weight in or out of Cabinet, and has been extremely successful. He has moved matters forward—for example, the strengthening of the Museums and Galleries Commission under Sir Arthur Drew. It is one small step towards the museums council that the Labour party wishes to be established. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to that. There are one or two problems about my hon. Friend's proposals, and I shall return to them later.
  It has already been put to the Minister that this is not the whole debate that we should be having today. The Drew report has not been implemented. The 1,500 or so provincial museums still do not know of their destiny after the deliberations within the Office of Arts and Libraries have been concluded. Nor have we had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has just mentioned, a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the funding of the arts. My hon. Friend made a characteristically modest speech. Some time in the course of this Session, which may be the last Session of this Parliament, we should have a debate on the response of the Government to that most important report. It would perhaps be our criterion for progress and co-operation on this important Bill that we get an undertaking that these other matters will be debated in the House.
  This is essentially two hinged Bills, themselves bolted to the responsibilities of four Ministries. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who opened for the Opposition, spoke eloquently about the latter part of the Bill. I echo everything that he said about the right of
  1102
  public access and public enjoyment of our historical heritage. My children, like his and many others, have walked Hadrian's wall, visited Vindolanda and seen what can be done by an imaginative process of preservation and conservation, to take up the point just made by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker).
  The proposed commission—let us call it the English heritage commission instead of having an absurdly long title that will not even make a satisfactory acronym—should be devoted to those important purposes.
  In the few minutes available to me I want to refer to the part of the Bill that deals with museums. The reason why our noble Friends in the House of Lords and my hon. Friends here have approached the Bill with a certain scepticism is that it has been under the shadow of the Burrett exercise and the Rayner proposals. Mr. Burrett took a drubbing from the Select Committee later and some of his more controversial proposals have been dismissed to the point of no return.
  The general comment of the Museums Association on that whole exercise ought to be echoed on all sides in the House. It said:
  "we deplore the application of commercial criteria of cost-effectiveness to museum activities without proper consideration of the fundamental purposes of our national museums and an understanding of their fiduciary responsibilities to the collections and to the public."
  There are some extraordinary remarks in the report; for example, it proposes that if the public dare to write in for information or for an estimate for an article, the reply should be "polite but terse", so halving the time spent on giving that kind of access to the public. That was a fundamentally misguided approach to access and enjoyment of the museums service.
  There is also the unhappy proposal of Mr. Burrett for the closure of the museum of childhood. He said:
  "The loss would be more to public pleasure than to essential knowledge and scholarship."
  If it is a loss to public pleasure, it is a loss to us all. It is a loss essentially to the national heritage and to those who treasure it, not least the people of Bethnal Green and the many thousands of schoolchildren who visit that part of London.
  There are people within the academic world who take the view that perhaps the public are seen too much in museums and that there should be a more academic approach to exhibitions. Sir Roy Strong, the director of the Victoria and Albert museum, has excoriated that kind of approach. He quoted the director of another museum who began a recent review in The Times by stating that
  "exhibitions had no right to be staged unless they advance art historical knowledge."
  I echo what Sir Roy Strong said:
  "Of course, art exhibitions can and should advance art historical knowledge but such exhibitions, maintained and paid for by the taxpayers, should not be art historical ego trips. There is nothing wrong with delighting, informing, even irritating an informed public. Too often, however, one has seen them used as vehicles by scholars to bring together indifferent works of art that they were too lazy to go and see."
  We have to inform and entertain the wider public. We have to bring them into the museums. One of the tests that we shall apply to the Bill will be to see that that is done a tradition that has been picked up and followed through by the museums that we are discussing. The position of the armouries at the tower of London also has to be strengthened.

  1103
  I speak as one whose children take a particular delight in visiting the science museum. There one sees what open access has done. The many small exhibitions give constant delight to those who flood in and flow through that museum. Sir Roy Strong has achieved similar success with the Boiler-house project, a remarkable innovation at the Victoria and Albert museum. I do not want to see any departure from that. When I deal with the principle of charges we shall see where the danger lies.
  I shall refer to a few difficulties that my hon. Friends and I see in the Bill. None of us would oppose the transfer of the two museums and the armouries to trustee status. That is right. One of our prime concerns will be equality of treatment with the other museums that have trustee status. As has been mentioned by several hon. Members, there are still considerable staff worries about the nature of the transfer, to which we shall give the fullest airing in Committee. Schedule 1(5) says that there should be no less favourable conditions of employment and it offers arbitration by an independent tribunal where there is a dispute about the favourable conditions. We want to know what the exact consultative procedure will be and also what will happen to employees who prefer to be on secondment from the Civil Service or who choose to leave because they do not regard the offered conditions of employment as satisfactory.
  In another place the amendments put forward by my noble Friend Lord Jenkins were rejected, but it is a matter to which we shall have to return. Assurances that were conveyed by the Earl of Avon on representations about the matter are still awaiting clarification and legal advice. We shall refer to that in Committee because it is inappropriate for the Second Reading debate.
  The appointment of trustees for the Victoria and Albert museum and the science museum is to be by the Prime Minister. Curiously enough, that will not be the position for the armouries. We have two major reservations. The first is on the issue of patronage. Amendments that were put forward in another place to allow the trustees to elect their own chairmen were rejected, but it was accepted that a chairman who resigned, presumably on an issue of principle, would be allowed to stay on for the rest of his term as a trustee. Some Opposition Members believe that appointments by the Prime Minister are not necessarily always right nor are they always made with the best interests in mind of the service or artistic endeavour that is under consideration.
  Recently we have seen sad examples of what happens to gifted and courageous individuals who may temporarily be against the grain of Government policy. When their appointments came up for renewal they have found that they have not been renewed. I want to give one or two examples. There was the dismissal of the six regional health authority chairmen, the removal of Sir Richard O'Brien because his view of the Manpower Services Commission was not that of the Government, the removal of Richard Hoggart as vice-chairman of the Arts Council, the removal of Professor A. H. Halsey from the Social Science Research Council and, most recently and notoriously, because it concerned directly the Secretary of State for the Environment, the removal of Sir Ralph Verney from his distinguished chairmanship of the Nature Conservancy Council.
  1104
  Similarly, individuals have been appointed recently who may not be regarded as the best qualified people to fill the positions in question. There was the appointment of Mr. Leigh-Pemberton to the Bank of England. Not all quarters, including some sections of the Conservative press, wholeheartedly approved that gentleman's outstanding qualifications for the post. The Daily Telegraph, having attacked the appointment in its editorial and been somewhat dismissive of it, could find only one thing to say in his favour in its City column, which said:
  "He may have that independence of mind so valuable in a central banker that comes from Eton and Oxford, from possession of a country estate and the Lord-Lieutenancy of Kent".
  To borrow a phrase from my noble Friend Lord Annan, if I may so describe him, we wish to see not just the great and the good but sometimes the lesser and the better as chairmen and trustees of these bodies. That is more likely to happen if the trustees themselves can elect a chairman whom they regard, on merit, as best able to represent them and their interests and the interests over which he is charged to preside and as being in a position to resist Government pressure on any issue that may arise regardless of the political complexion of the Government. One thinks, for example, of what may happen if—heaven forbid—the next Government decide to impose museum charges. A chairman of trustees might stand out against that as being wholly against his remit. We would not wish people holding that view to be removed or debarred from appointment as a result of the procedures in the Bill.
  Mr. Jessel: Why should that happen in the next four years when it has not happened in the last four years?
  Mr. Whitehead: The Whips are murmuring "Very good" to encourage the hon. Gentleman, but I have just read out a list of the various dismissals and refusals to reappoint in recent times. The Government have followed a policy of naked patronage in many of their appointments. I do not wish to be partisan as I wish the Bill well, but that is one of our central reservations about the untrammeled exercise of Prime Ministerial patronage.
  Mr. Faulds: Is my hon. Friend aware of the unfortunate rumours that a certain person is being considered for the chairmanship of the board of trustees or even just as a trustee whom public and private pressures earlier removed from the possibility of involvement in the national heritage commission? Does he agree that the lady in question would be most unwelcome in any position on the board?
  Mr. Whitehead: I think that I know the identity of the person to whom my hon. Friend refers. If it is the person who I believe is now actively canvassed as a possible trustee of the Victoria and Albert museum, one would certainly wish to examine closely her record in preserving the national heritage in the stately home into the possession of which she recently came. I say no more than that at this stage.
  On the appointment of trustees generally, Lord Eccles and Lord Annan were defeated three times in another place when they tried to introduce proposals for what would in effect have been a more managerial board. Lord Annan entertained the other House at length with stories of how Lord Sainsbury had taken off his coat, rolled up his sleeves and in two minutes on the back of an envelope entirely revised the British Museum shop and its selling policies.

  1105
  It was suggested that the trustees should be more like the board of directors of a company. To improve on that, it would also be necessary to bring into the board of trustees the director and perhaps three or four curators and senior staff of the museum, but that proposal was strongly resisted by the same individuals. It is extremely hard to press-gang people on to a board of trustees if they have no desire to be so co-opted, so we shall not be considering the proposals in that light. We shall, however, be considering two other matters.
  First, why should only the leisured—those, perhaps, like the noble lady to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred—be free to accept appointment to trusteeships of this kind and the onerous duties involved because there can be no remuneration for the task? I find the arguments advanced in another place against remuneration for trustees wholly unconvincing. We have now reached a stage in our public life when, if we are to bring in people widely representative of that public life and not perpetually the same people, however eminent or qualified, we must widen and improve the conditions to encourage people to take such posts. On the museum circuit, if I may so describe it, the same people—Lord Annan and Lord Eccles are obvious and eminent examples—are appointed to one chairmanship after another because they have the weight, the independence and the expertise to undertake the task. We wish to see a wider form of trusteeship.
  Secondly, in committee we shall seek to bring in what I would describe as the consumer voice. Somebody should be appointed or elected to the board of trustees who genuinely represents the consumers concerned. In the last three years, thanks to the initiative of Sir Roy Strong, the number of friends of the Victoria and Albert museum has grown to nearly 3,000. Why should not a trustee be elected, appointed or nominated from among them? There is no reason why that should not take place. It would follow the precedent established by the British Film Institute which allows two member governors to be elected from among the 14,000 members with voting rights. That has greatly increased interest in the BFI and in the way in which it is administered, and it has greatly increased the number of people prepared to pay membership subscriptions and to participate in that way. I am told that neither the Science museum nor the armouries has any objection in principle to following Sir Roy Strong's initiative. I wish to see the friends of the Victoria and Albert greatly strengthened. Many more people might come in from a wider section of the community if there were a trustee representative. We shall return to that in Committee.
  I wish to deal briefly with certain other serious matters. We need further undertakings from the Government in Committee—or today if the Under-Secretary has time—about the retention of profits. The museums should be able to keep what they earn not from charges for general admission but from overall sales. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) was quite wrong about the popularity of museum charges, but I shall return to that later. Nevertheless, the museums should be able to raise money and to retain what they earn in as uninhibited a way as possible. Will the Victoria and Albert museum and the Science museum have all the advantages of the trustee museums that already exist? Will they be able to run trading companies, perhaps especially linked with the out-stations, covenanted to pay their profits to the
  1106
  trust and thus not liable to corporation tax? That has been very successful over the years for the Ironbridge trust and many other such bodies. Will they be able to claim back VAT charged on exhibitions and otherwise? VAT refunds are now to be authorised for contracted-out services in relation to the National Health Service, as the Secretary of State for Social Services told us the other day. If inducements of that kind are good enough in the effort to break up the National Health Service, they should be good enough for our museums and for the protection and better subvention of our heritage.
  What will be the relationship of the museums in their new role with Government Departments? It seems a curious anomaly, for example, that the science museum has to turn to the Stationery Office, which has the copyright on the museum's photographs and makes a charge for reproduction. Surely we have now reached the point at which matters such as copyright should be entirely made over to the museums concerned.
  I shall now deal with the serious issue of charging. We give due notice that we shall introduce amendments in Committee that will define special exhibitions in relation to the amount of out-of-house material that is included, and we shall try to withdraw from the trustees the right to levy general charges for general admission. The Museums Association and others have discussed that matter many times. It is worth quoting what the Museums Association said in its response to the Rayner inquiry. It said:
  "It must be borne in mind, however, that should charging be introduced at these two museums, it will put immense pressure on the other national institutions to follow suit and it will be difficult for the Government to preserve a neutral attitude on this matter … special arrangements should be made for scholars, educational parties and old-age pensioners … the introduction of charges causes a marked drop in attendance figures initially, which may make it necessary to embark on additional exhibitions and other attractions to woo back the visitors".
  I do not want to see that deterrent effect in our museums. All the museum directors with whom I have discussed the issue accept that for special exhibitions a charging policy may be feasible, but they believe that the deterrent effect of general charges upon those people whom they most want to see coming in to widen the appreciation of our museums would be great. They give as an example the disincentive, thanks to the Law Lords' decisions against the Greater London council's transport policy, the recent virtual 100 per cent. increase in transport fares in London. The fall-off in attendance at museums after that increase was considerable. If one puts turnstiles on the gates and tries to make a few bob out of school children, many people—my children are a case in point—will not make the necessary trek across London and will therefore not enjoy the facilities of the museums.
  Mr. Murphy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that several of my right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned exclusions for people who are still at school, students and the elderly. I also mention the possibility, if there were museum charges, of a free day one day a week as is the case on the continent.
  Mr. Faulds: The cattle.
  Mr. Whitehead: A free day would be an absurd piece of tokenism. Perhaps it would be better than nothing, but it would be no more than a gesture towards the type of policy that I want and the type of people that I want to be encouraged to go. If we had the charges which the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West said that the English

  1107
  tourist board proposed, those charges, even if they were only levied seasonally, would come precisely when the tourist season was at its height and when the school holidays were on. They would make it difficult for families that made the trek to museums at that time of year.
  We want the assurances that were given in another place and which were given again here today made doubly sure in Committee. We should also like assurances about disposal. With Rayner's shadow hanging over us, we must re-examine those clauses that deal with disposal to see how informed opinion within any museum can be involved before any disposal takes place. In that respect, we must see how the Museums Association's code of practice can be observed in the letter and in spirit.
  We want the pastoral role of those eminent national museums clearly defined and strengthened. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East talked of the commission and the possibility of implementing a role that would lead to the enhancement and financing of provincial museums. That is central to any discussions that we have on the Drew report. Whatever the Minister says in Committee, we want to see entrenched in this Bill the pastoral role of the Victoria and Albert museum and the science museum. If a decision that will be presented to the House is being made in the Office of Arts and Libraries—I hope coterminously with discussions in Committee about the commission and what powers it will have—we need to have real assurances in the Bill about the role of the Victoria and Albert and science museums with regard to the provincial museums and their duties as regards circulating exhibitions and the provision of expert advice to provincial museums made quite clear. That is not the case now.
  In an intervention which, alas, was not followed up by a speech, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) mentioned university museums. We may be told that that issue is out of order in Committee. That is not so on Second Reading as these are the responsibilities of the University Grants Committee, which is independent of the Department of Education and Science. As we are dealing with institutions that are already the responsibility of different Government Departments—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for the royal botanic gardens which has hardly been mentioned today—we can examine the parlous state of university museums and ask whether if they already have a semi-national status and, according to the Standing Committee on museums and galleries in 1976, are "steadily deteriorating", some steps ought now to be taken through the mechanism of this Bill or otherwise to give some of them national status. I recollect the opening lines of a rather good poem by my old friend James Fenton about the Pitt-Rivers museum at Oxford. It went:
  "The Pitt-Rivers museum is closed 22 hours a day
  And all day on Sundays".
  That describes the impression that I retain of some university museums that are strapped for money and feel that, in the present austere financial climate that affects universities, it is simply no good looking to the UGC to honour its responsibilities to expand institutions that have a semi-national role. We shall return to that issue in Committee as well, provided that the rules of order allow it.
  1108
  We should also carefully examine the divisions of responsibility in and policies of some of the service museums. The issue has been raised briefly in another place. I should like to return to the responsibility for the RAF museum at Hendon. When I take my children there, I am completely confused by the different policies in different pavilions of the museum. One is charged in some and not in others. I gather that there are three overlapping sets of trustees, yet the institution is under the overall charge of the Ministry of Defence.
  We must deal with that issue because I do not believe that any Bill that deals with the service museums and makes them extremely useful proponents can leave such circumstances entirely unchanged.
  We can make a good Bill better in Committee through care and scrutiny. There is no opposition to the commission on this side of the House. Nor is there any opposition to devolved status although, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, we want to devolve the commission as well as responsibilities to the museums. We believe that the commission should go to another part of the country. The Bill should be made less permissive and more prescriptive in some respects if we are to keep what we cherish in a national heritage open and accessible to the public in a lean, mean time. The Minister has tried to help in that respect. I pay tribute to him for it. We shall help him in Committee. If sometimes with the poet he is tempted to say
  "Save, save, oh! save me from the Candid Friend!"
  I fear that he will have to bear with us. We shall be candid, but in the long run we shall be friendly. Moreover, we shall go all the quicker if the Office of Arts and Libraries can get us another debate on the Rayner and Drew proposals and on the report of the Select Committee. Having said that, I wish the Bill well.
  7.18 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): It is a pleasure to reply to a debate in which there has been such a unanimous welcome for most of the principles contained in the Bill. There has been, quite rightly, some critical comment on some of its practical aspects. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) made a number of precise and penetrating points, as we would expect. I am sure that he would not expect me to tackle many of them in the comments that I am about to make.
  I thought that the hon. Member's suggestion about widening trusteeship through representatives of friends of art galleries was interesting. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will take note of it. It seems to have a potential to widen the commitment which in the end will determine how successfully a museum might be run.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of particular points, one of which was on financing. He will know well the complications involved in the retention of sums of money between one year and the next. We have an arrangement whereby museums may spend during the year income in excess of that which has been estimated in the Vote. They may have unspent balances revoted to them in a subsequent year. It applies to receipts including those from admission charges to some outstations and special exhibitions.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts

  1109
  recommended changes in this arrangement. The Government are considering the Committee's report in full. I add, as a reply to other Members who asked when there would be a response to the Select Committee report, that the matter is still under full consideration, but I expect that there could be a report on the matter during the spring. I cannot be more precise than that.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts described the development of the commission proposal when he opened this debate. He said that I would say more about it. It may be of interest to the House to know a little more about how these proposals were developed and put in the Bill. They were outlined in a consultation document published in November 1981 by my right hon. Friend now Secretary of State for Defence but then Secretary of State for the Environment. This put forward ideas for changes in the organisation of responsibilities for ancient monuments and historic buildings. It left many questions open, quite deliberately, since the Government wanted to take advantage in an open-minded way of the comments and views of interested bodies.
  The House should recognise that the degree of consultation that the document provoked—if that is the correct word—was substantial. Over 300 responses to the consultation document were received. That shows the enormous interest those proposals have engendered. During this consultation period Ministers and departmental officials had meetings with representatives of a large number of academic and learned societies. The House might be interested to know that among them were the Ancient Monuments Society, the British Academy, the Council for British Archaeology, the Georgian Group, SAVE Britain's Heritage, the Society of Antiquaries and some related societies, the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings, the Victorian Society, the local authority associations, and so on. It included the Civic Trust and most of the major organisations which hon. Members would have expected would wish to contribute to a proposal of this kind. I doubt whether any exercise that my Department has undertaken in recent years has been undertaken on such a wide scale with the interested parties seeking to commit themselves not just to comment but to constructive criticism.
  We were then, on the basis of all this advice and comment, able to publish in June 1982 a document, "The Way Forward", which provides the basis for the proposals in the Bill. The Bill is largely based upon a long period of consultation on some exact proposals put forward in the White Paper and we have tried hard to answer some of the questions raised during the consultation exercise. There was particular anxiety, for example, that the proposals were an attempt by Government to commercialise the heritage.
  Let me pick up a point raised by one or two hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) who was anxious to establish that there could be certain sites, particularly on the heritage side, which could suffer if the plum sites were able to drain off much of the available resources and public interest. The Government's first priority—I am sure that the House will share it—is to preserve and protect monuments for future generations. This will also be the commission's first priority. There is no question of neglecting sites at which receipts are less than costs, or of endangering popular sites by encouraging
  1110
  over-visiting. Relatively few Department of the Environment sites could fund themselves from the numbers of people who happen to visit them.
  There are ways of improving public enjoyment of heritage sites and at the same time increasing revenue from them without introducing any insensitive or undesirable elements, over-commercialising, as hon. Members might describe it, or detracting from the historical or cultural interests of the monuments. That is fairly evident, from what hon. Members have said of their experiences not just in this country. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) rightly spoke of the remarkable work being done in his part of the world. Hon. Members know that there are ways of improving access and enjoyment of our heritage without destroying it and that must be our duty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) drew attention to the obvious distinction between simple preservation and conservation. There must be a creative view of preserving the heritage by developing it for enjoyment without destroying it. We are talking about passing our trusteeship of what we have inherited to future generations, but doing it with all the expertise and technology available in the scientific work of preservation, while at the same time ensuring that access is improved and has a regard for the people who visit as well as for the sites. I hope that those principles will find favour in the House.
  Although "The Way Forward" was a decision document rather than a consultation document, there has been a considerable response with more than 90 bodies and individuals making further comments. We hope to have taken into account most of the comments in the detailed proposals in the Bill. I can assure the House that our minds remain open, as they should be, to any helpful and constructive suggestions. One such, I note, has been in relation to the naming of the commission, which is always a popular subject for offerings. I welcome the suggestions by the hon. Member for South Shields, and I shall refer to them later. I can assure the House that all these matters will be discussed in Committee. We want to establish an organisation which will have a firm foundation for the future.
  Let me deal next with the scope and functions of the commission. At present the directorate of ancient monuments and historic buildings within my Department has a wide remit covering maintenance and management of royal parks, royal palaces and some 400 monuments in the Secretary of State's care; the protection of scheduled monuments and the co-ordination and financing of rescue achaeology; the list of historic buildings, including the accelerated listed resurvey—I shall have another word to say later about the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about listing—and the provision of grants for the repair of ancient monuments and historic buildings and for work in conservation areas.
  Not all these functions are to be taken over by the commission. The Secretary of State would retain responsibility, answerable to Parliament, for the broadest aspects of policy, including resource allocation—I shall return to this—for confirmation of decisions on listing and scheduling and taking monuments into care; and for the exercise of all planning functions under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
  May I amplify the point about listing which was raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight? The relationship between the Department and the commission is important

  1111
  and crucial. He is right to observe that, after the completion of the relisting survey, which is now well advanced, the commission will be taking over the residual matters and will be in the advisory role to the Department of making recommendations on listing of the buildings and the procedures. As the "The Way Forward" makes clear, in the interests of completing the survey expeditiously—it should be well under way by the time the commission is established—there might be advantages in allowing those administrative tasks to remain in the short term within the Department where the expertise would be established.
  Once the relisting survey is complete, the residue of such work would be transferred to the commission. That is broadly the way in which we expect listing to be operating when the commission is in being. The Secretary of State would remain responsible for taking decisions affecting the private rights of individuals. I hope that the House will recognise—compulsory purchase and acquisition were raised—that listing has important planning connotations and that the Secretary of State retains those rights in his planning function.
  Furthermore, the Government announced on introducing the Bill that they had decided that the maintenance and management of the royal parks and royal palaces should not be transferred to the new commission. The decision reflected the Government's view of the importance of these sites in national life and the important security issues which they raise. I know that that is a matter which has greatly interested the House recently. They reflect the need for Ministers to remain directly answerable for activity in this sensitive royal preserve.
  The vast bulk of the remainder of the work I have described will, however, become the responsibility of the commission. It will be building on the work of the Historic Buildings Council for England and the Ancient Monument Board for England. I am sure the House would wish me to pay tribute to the many people who over the years have made a major contribution on those two bodies to the preservation of this important part of our national heritage. These people give up a great deal of time to make a major contribution to work in this field. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) paid tribute to those who work in the voluntary sector. These bodies will be subsumed in the new commission but I am sure the foundations they have laid will prove invaluable for further work. Some hon. Members criticised the creation of quangos, but I must argue that subsuming two into one should be regarded as taking two to quango.
  The range of the commission's activities will be wide, providing advice to the Secretary of State on the scheduling of ancient monuments and on applicants for scheduled monument consent. It can acquire monuments or take them into guardianship, give grants for the repair of monuments and for archaeological investigations, and manage the Secretary of State's monuments on his behalf.
  There are corresponding activities on the historic buildings side. The commission will be involved with the Secretary of State's functions of listing buildings in the manner that I have just described. It will take over the payment of historic building and church grants for outstanding buildings and for buildings in conservation areas and town schemes.
  Besides what we might call those casework activities, the commission must develop its own policy ideas and
  1112
  press them on the Government when it sees a need for action. It will apply its energy and ideas to achieving improvements in the presentation of monuments and buildings. Hon. Members made some sound suggestions about that. The latter is an area where it is generally agreed that there is clearly room for improvement.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) mentioned Stonehenge, where improvement is not only desirable and necessary but long overdue. Such improvement will, without unworthy exploitation, enhance visitors' enjoyment of monuments and increase revenue.
  The commission will reinforce those individual functions as the central and expert adviser in its area, drawing on the expertise of the inspectorate of ancient monuments and historic buildings, including the ancient monuments laboratory and the central excavation unit, and also the professional and industrial staff in the works organisation, who have built up a unique expertise that is highly valued in the heritage and conservation world.
  The hon. Member for Warley, East made a characteristically well-informed and accurate speech. He raised several points, some of which I hope to answer now and others that I hope will be answered in due course. The Government have said that the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments and the commission that we are proposing to set up should be separate. The Royal Commission has an academic and scholarly independence that we should preserve. In another place, Lord Adeane promised full co-operation with the commission in practical matters, including arrangements for access to the national monuments record. The Royal Commission has plans of substantial technological importance to provide additional access, but they will be necessary only if the Royal Commission moves from where it is presently sited. The new commission will decide that matter, but access will improve with the agreement of the Royal Commission.
  The hon. Member for Warley, East asked about the Secretary of State's acquisition of properties. The Secretary of State must consent to acquisition, because properties are expensive and have major resource implications. They also often involve planning procedures. However, the Secretary of State will be largely responsible for funding the commission and must therefore be involved in decisions that affect its long-term resource needs. The hon. Gentleman asked about repair notices and the commission's powers of compulsory purchase. Despite what he said, such powers, which interfere with the rights of individuals, are rightly reserved to an elected body, such as a local authority, or to a Minister. That is why it is right that the Secretary of State should reserve that power.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the Victoria and Albert museum, the theatre museum and the Bethnal green museum of childhood. Clause 2 refers to
  "the building known as the Victoria and Albert Museum".
  Clause 2(2) mentions the Victoria and Albert building and "other premises". As the theatre museum and the Bethnal green museum of childhood are integral parts of the Victoria and Albert museum, there is no need to mention them separately in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Warley, East also asked about the Royal Scottish museum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made an announcement about its future status. The statement has been the subject

  1113
  of consultations relating not only to that museum but to other aspects of museum development in Scotland. My right hon. Friend is not ready to bring forward legislation on this matter, and I cannot say when he will see fit to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) asked about the display of museums' goods and suggested that they were guilty of hoarding. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must see some truth in that allegation. However, I must inform my hon. Friend that there have been improvements. Museums are making wide use of loan schemes that give them the opportunity to display the items that they have in store. National museums and galleries are displaying more of their acquisitions, and the loan schemes give them the opportunity to buy the many items on offer.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) asked about the prospect of long-term careers in the new commission. Expertise must be made more permanently available. That is not the case in the Civil Service, where there are rapid changes. The commission could provide opportunities to many dedicated people who do not see much prospect for a career in such a service. We should encourage them to believe that the commission will establish long-term careers for young people who are dedicated to this science.
  Almost all hon. Members asked about the funding of the new body. People are concerned, rightly, that the heritage should not lose out because of those proposals, and the Government agree. They have stated clearly in another place the basis of the commission's financing. The grant in aid of the new commission will be separated into administrative costs, grants and expenditure on the care of monuments owned or managed by the commission. Virement of funds into the administrative budget will not be permitted, but other virement will be possible.
  It has also been agreed that carryover from one financial year to another of unspent funds that have been committed but not spent on grants will form part of the financial regime. It has further been agreed that an increase in income resulting from the presentation of heritage sites brought about by the commission will not automatically lead to a reduction in its grant, and that private donations and other such income will not be taken into account in the negotiations on the grant in aid.
  The commission's overall financial responsibilities will be substantial. No detailed calculations have been made, especially about administrative needs, but based on existing expenditure the commission might have a grant range of £40 million to £50 million at the outset. That significant grant in aid expenditure should be sufficient in its initial stages.
  Anxiety was also expressed about tax. The Government have decided that the commission should be treated analogously with the National Heritage Memorial Fund in being given, by statute, tax advantages similar to those enjoyed by a charity. That would include the tax benefits that can be obtained through covenanting donations to a charity. The necessary statutory provisions will be included in this year's Finance Bill.
  I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Commission since its establishment in 1908. It is owed a great debt for its detailed and scholarly work during the years, and for the technological developments that it is introducing to improve still further public access to its data base, the national monuments record. The Government have
  1114
  concluded therefore—I referred to this briefly in response to the hon. Member for Warley, East—that it should continue as a separate independent entity, as was announced by my noble Friend Lord Avon on Third Reading in another place.
  The name of the new commission was touched on by a number of hon. Members., but although there are many candidates for different names, there are not many that fit the bill. A title that includes the confusing word "heritage" would cause confusion, for example, with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, whose work I know every Member admires. These are some of the difficulties that we have. On the other hand, references to ancient monuments and historic buildings produce rather a mouthful.
  We may find that there is further discussion on this topic as the Bill proceeds through Committee, as the hon. Member for Warley, East has made clear. For the time being, the Government have agreed to a change of the title to Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and we intend to amend the Bill accordingly, which answers the points raised today. I have no doubt that in Committee eloquent and active minds will be brought to bear on this problem and will come out with further suggestions, and I wish them well.
  An organisation of the size of the commission, with its variety of responsibilities, will offer an attractive career to many of those now working in this area. There are staff who are dedicated and have a great professionalism, and they have deservedly gained a high reputation over the years. I hope that many of them will see the establishment of the commission as an opportunity to develop their skills further in a specialised environment.
  The Government are firmly of the view that the commission should decide on its terms and conditions of service with reasonable flexibility within the overall constraints of a body largely financed by the Exchequer. There is not for the commission the precedent of existing trustee museums, which makes it appropriate for the staff of the trustee bodies set up by the Bill to remain on terms and conditions virtually identical to those of the Civil Service. The commission as an executive agency w ill need freedom to operate in what it sees as the most efficient way.
  However, the Government have the interests of staff closely at heart, as is shown by the requirement in the Bill that offers of employment should be made that are no worse, taken as a whole, at the time of transfer than existing terms and conditions. Offers will be made to staff identified by the Secretary of State. It will, as I have said, be for the commission to decide on its terms and conditions of service, including its pay and pension arrangements, subject to this "no worsening" provision. The Government have already announced in another place that they intend to recommend to the commission the adoption of an unfunded pension scheme "by analogy" with the Civil Service one, including index linking. Matters such as organisation and location will also have to be an early concern of the new commission's management when appointed.
  There has been some preliminary discussion with the trade union side, although it has not proved possible so far to get down to detailed negotiation. This is difficult in any case in the absence of representatives of the commission's management, who will have to take the final decisions. We have, however, decided to carry on with further

  1115
  discussions with the trade union side on the basis of seeking to develop proposals on terms and conditions of service that can be recommended to the commission. We hope that those discussions will be arranged very shortly.
  I have dwelt at some length on the detail of the commission, as I know that it was raised by the hon. Member for South Shields. It is a matter of great concern and there should be no doubt that in making these changes we seek not only to protect the existing staff but also to offer opportunities that are comparable in pay and conditions to those that they currently enjoy.
  I am grateful for the patience of the House, as I felt that I should dwell at some length on the commission, what it seeks to do and how we should set about that. In the Bill we have provided an important step forward—all are agreed on that. There seems to be some doubt on the Labour Benches about whether the step is far enough, and there are questions about certain details, but there is unamimity in the House and outside that what is proposed is crucial to our heritage.
  I have implied that we respect the demand for adequate financing to ensure that the commission is successful. We strongly support the view that conservation and not just preservation should be the creative way in which we view the future. Heritage, after all, is a national issue, and it demands a national commitment if it is to be preserved and held in readiness for the future. The House has given a national and broad welcome to what is contained in the Bill and I trust therefore that it will allow the Bill to continue in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  National Heritage Bill [Lords]

    NATIONAL HERITAGE [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to establish four Boards of Trustees of, respectively, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Science Museum, the Armouries and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to make provision for grants to armed forces museums and to establish a Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (1) any sums required for defraying or contributing towards the expenditure of the Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum or the Board of Trustees of the Science Museum,

    (2) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown for defraying or contributing towards the expenditure of the Board of Trustees of the Armouries, the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Commission or the governing body of any institution which has as its object or as one of its main objects the collection, exhibition or retention of articles relating to the history and traditions of some section of the armed forces of the Crown,

    (3) any expenses of a Minister of the Crown which are attributable to the Act, and

    (4) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported without amendment.
  7.44 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Ian Sproat): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The purpose of the Bill, as the House will know, is to give effect in United Kingdom law to certain requirements of the protocol amending the 1960 Eurocontrol convention and the multilateral agreement on route charges—both signed on 12 February 1981—and to enable the Government to ratify the protocol and agreement that were presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last October. Most of the provisions of the protocol and agreement can be implemented under existing legislation, in particular under the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act 1962 as amended, and now consolidated in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. If enacted, the Bill will amend and add new provisions to the 1982 Act.
  The principal change made by the protocol is to transfer back to member states the formal responsibility for the provision of air navigation services above 25,000 ft. It will also enable Eurocontrol to expand and strengthen its role as the focus for co-operation between member states in the future development of air navigation services in addition to continuing with tasks ranging from basic research and development to the training of controllers and engineers.
  The transfer of formal responsibility for their upper airspace back to member states should make it easier for states which have held back until now to join the organisation. This will be beneficial both to them and to us. The transfer of responsibility for the whole of national airspace to Eurocontrol would have resulted in an enlarged bureaucracy with supranational powers which would have been costly in manpower and money.
  The amending protocol has been signed by the current seven member states—Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Republic of Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and by Portugal, which will become a full member when the protocol is ratified.
  Associated with the amending protocol is a new multilateral agreement on route charges, which has also been signed by Austria, Spain and Switzerland as well as by the eight states which signed the protocol. This replaces the previous agreement, which signified the intention to set up a common charging scheme, and codifies the system for collecting charges for en route navigation facilities and services which resulted.
  The main effect of the Bill will be to enable the United Kingdom to play its part in the strengthening of the machinery for the enforcement of claims on behalf of Eurocontrol.
  Clause 1 provides for the enforcement and recognition in the United Kingdom of judgments given in foreign courts and determinations by administrative tribunals in respect of route charges for air navigation services.
  Clause 2 makes alterations to the existing immunities and privileges of Eurocontrol.

  1117
  Clause 3 makes a textual amendment to the definition of the Eurocontrol convention to make it clear that it covers all amendments to the convention made with the agreement of the contracting parties.
  Clause 4 gives the title, commencement and extent of the powers of the Bill.
  We are co-operating with the other member states to make Eurocontrol an efficient organisation adapted to the needs of the civil aviation community. The Bill enables us to play a full part in this process and I therefore commend it to the House.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The measure has been considered carefully and in detail both on Second Reading and in Committee. The Opposition take the view that the changes should not increase costs to airlines and hence ultimately to the consumer—the air traveller. We take the view also that there should be neither unquestionable support for supranational organisation, regardless of the consequences for efficiency in our national interests, nor, on the other hand, unquestionable support for a narrow, go-it-alone nationalistic approach to such an international service as air traffic control.
  There are those who see the arguments merely on one side or another, but the Opposition are prepared to support the measure, which seems to strike a balance between national interests and continuing, necessary, international co-operation. We also welcome the strengthening of enforced powers. I feel sure that the British Government will continue to seek that balance, combining the necessary increase in efficiency and cost and passing that on to the consumer.
  I trust that the Government will continue to scrutinise the new arrangements carefully as they operate and that the cost savings will be achieved and passed on in lower charges. I support the Bill as seeking to achieve a reasonable balance between all the considerations involved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  Currency Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported without amendment.
  7.50 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The purpose of the measure is essentially to improve the management of our currency in two ways; first, by rendering more logical the rules governing changes in coinage, to which clause 1 refers; and, secondly, by rendering, it is hoped, more logical the rules governing the fiduciary note issue, which is covered essentially in clause 2. The final part of the Bill has an even more esoteric purpose, with which I do not think I need to detain the House.
  We had a useful discussion about the Bill in Committee. I venture to believe that there was agreement on both sides that it was a modest but sensible proposal which would make sense of some arcane procedures which were urgently in need of revision and enable the currency to be handled in a more logical manner in future. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Economic Secretary said on Second Reading that the 12-sided threepenny piece was a remarkably ugly object. That is a disgraceful thing to say. It is one of the few corns that earned the affection of the British people. There is no coin, with the possible exception of the golden sovereign, whose passing has been mourned so much. It has always been one's hope that a similar standard of design in coinage would be achieved again, to improve on the present deplorable level.
  During the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) wished the Bill a fair wind, as I do myself. My hon. Friend looked forward to criticising it in depth in Committee, but so far from its being criticised in depth, it was not criticised at all. The implication that all hon. Members must accept is that the Bill is uncontroversial and that it is useful in bringing together the ways in which the currency needs to be managed. I take the same view. I am therefore happy to accede to the request that the Bill should be given its Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  Currency Bill

    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

    MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

    MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Aerospace
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Tom McNally: The Government have rightly emphasised in recent years the importance of high technology industries as the way ahead for this country. It has been argued time and again that unless we move up market and compete at the highest ranges of technology there is no future for us as an industrial country. That is why I make no apology for bringing before the House the question of the British aerospace industry. I adopt a certain regional slant in what I argue because it would be impossible, within the terms of an Adjournment debate, to cover all aspects of British aerospace. If those connected with a particular company or a particular section of the industry feel, on reading this debate, that they have been neglected, it is not neglect on my part but necessity in terms of the time available to me.
  It is important to say that we expect all Government Departments dealing with the British aerospace industry, and especially the Department of Industry as the main sponsoring Department, to give some idea of where it wants the industry to go and how the Government can best help it in that direction. The successful aerospace industries of the world have had a good and healthy working relationship with their Governments.
  The reason for the regional bias in my speech is that the north-west has a concentration of aerospace industries—British Aerospace itself at Woodford and Chadderton, near my constituency, at Chorley and at Preston. Although I may concentrate on their problems, I hope that the Minister accepts that I am talking from a regional background but with a suspicion that some of the problems I raise may not be untypical in other parts of British Aerospace. I shall obviously concentrate on the British Aerospace company, although, if the Minister wishes to comment on a favourite hobby horse of mine, the relationships between British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, or on Rolls-Royce policies in terms of international co-operation and development, the House would, I am sure, be interested.
  I am always left with the suspicion that if the Japanese had two companies of such international repute as British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, they would row in the same direction with a greater vigour than sometimes seems to be the case in respect of those two companies.
  One factor that British Aerospace does not have to search for is international confidence. Whatever we may debate in the House about the merits and demerits of the Falklands conflict, there is no doubt that British Aerospace products and British Aerospace workers performed magnificently during that crisis. British Aerospace factories provided a round-the-clock modification and support service for aircraft and defence systems engaged in the south Atlantic. I take particular pride in the work done at British Aerospace, Woodford. A local paper rightly called those involved the unsung heroes of the Falklands crisis. The Harrier proved itself a superb and versatile aircraft in hostile conditions, as did the Rapier, Sea Wolf, Sea Dart and other missiles, as well as the Nimrod, Vulcan and Victor aircraft. We were only in that position because Governments of both parties had had the wisdom and foresight to back earlier developments by

  1121
  British Aerospace. It is important that, in the midst of a world recession, the Government should keep their nerve in respect of an industry that cannot operate year to year and that has to have the time span and the perspective of five to 10 years' planning ahead.
  Aerospace is an industry that is extremely vulnerable to the loss of skill and design capability. Short-term decisions which might appeal to the Treasury on grounds of financial expediency could put in danger our prospects of being able to maintain our world standing in both military and civil aircraft. That market is enormous.
  On the civil side, market analysis up to the year 2000 identifies about 2,300 aircraft in the 150-seater airbus category, about 1,600 in the BAe 146 type feedliner, and between 4,500 and 5,000 in the commuter jet and turboprop market, such as the HS748, the HS125 and the Jetstream. British Aerospace is to be congratulated on ensuring that it has the product range in all these markets throughout the period.
  I want to mention, in particular, the success of the airbus. Too often talk of international co-operation remains just that—politicians' rhetoric. Airbus has turned rhetoric into reality. It was not long ago that the pundits were predicting that the United States would have a total monopoly of the world wide-body market, yet today, even in recession, Airbus Industrie has kept its grip on about 50 per cent. of the market, supplying no fewer than 43 airlines. That success affects not only British Aerospace itself, but a multitude of suppliers, who benefit from the new machine tools being installed and the new equipment being commissioned.
  It is therefore necessary to express concern about the Government's intentions on the A320. I know that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) asked a question a couple of weeks ago about this matter. This is just one of a number of projects that I shall list this evening which the Government have somewhere in the machine, but at the end of which are British Aerospace workers and a design team who want a clear idea where they are going.
  I suspect that the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) may wish to intervene on the subject of the BAC146. There is an early-day motion about the Far East tour that was recently undertaken by the 146. The tour covered 58,000 miles, and some 20 countries. I understand that the visit involved 98 demonstration flights and contact with 31 airlines. In my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, I have often heard criticism of the sales effort of British industry abroad. That criticism cannot be levelled at British Aerospace in trying to get the message over about the 146. I would draw the attention of any airlines considering buying it to what the chairman of Dan Air said:
  "Dan Air has chosen the BAC146 because of its unrivalled economy, efficiency and quietness."
  I was pleased to see in the Financial Times that Dan Air has today announced the first two scheduled routes on which it will operate the BAC146.
  I shall say a brief word about military development. Again, we see the paradox that, although the industry believes that it behaved marvellously and performed excellently in the Falklands, within the industry there is the need to see a clear way ahead. It is what the Society of British Aerospace Companies has called a release from
  "the annual saga of cash limits associated with the defence budget".
  1122
  I realise that some of these questions about the defence budget and the military aide do not come specifically within the Minister's terms of reference, but I come back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. It is no use the Ministry of Defence having one view, the Department of Agriculture having another view, and the Department of Industry having a third view. I hope that, as a representative of the lead Department, the Minister will bang heads together in Whitehall to ensure that such an important industry is not left in the air about important decisions.
  The Minister will know that our rivals are using defence procurement, in particular, to underpin high technology industry. I have referred to the Society of British Aerospace Companies, and it may seem strange coming from that source, but in its 1981–82 annual report it drew attention to the French Government's eighth national plan and the importance that that plan attached to research and technological development. The report says:
  "The publication of such a plan … gives added weight to the Society's submission to the Prime Minister that a similar plan should be evolved for the British Aerospace industry."
  I hope that the Minister will comment on that, and give his Department's general approach to research and development.
  I hope that the Minister will give the Government's attitude to the development of two projects on the military side: the agile combat aircraft and the air-launched anti-radar missile—ALARM. Many people at home and abroad are looking at the Government's attitude to those projects as an acid test of their commitment to support aerospace as the cost-effective spearhead of advanced technology. A positive decision on the ACA would have an immediate effect on the employment opportunities and prospects in the aerospace industries. As many as 40,000 jobs have been mentioned, right through to the early 1990s. Being at the forefront of high technology, this scheme involves employing over 6,000 graduates and training nearly 2,500 apprentices.
  A failure to proceed with the ALARM project would, I am told, put in danger at least 800 jobs immediately at Lostock near Chorley, but, more important, a failure to proceed with a system that has already demonstrated considerable advantages over its American rival would cut off the British industry from participation in a market which will provide substantial employment over a 20-year span. From the point of view of the opportunities offered by investment and the needs of the industry, we are talking of spans of five, 10 and 20 years.
  Without being too ideological on the matter, aerospace is an industry that needs a political consensus in this House, and least needs to be turned into a political football. It needs across-the-floor agreement on its future. It is encouraging that that has happened over the past few weeks in the lobbying of Ministers. There have been all-party motions, and delegations, although often separated into party groups, have been singing the same song in unison to Ministers. Whatever the next few months may bring politically, I hope the aerospace industry will feel that we are trying to develop in this House a consensus that will give the industry five, 10 and 15 years in which to plan. Early decisions and a commitment by the Government are necessary.
  I emphasise again that I do not plead simply on behalf of one big manufacturer. I know from my own constituency of Stockport that if British Aerospace is

  1123
  doing well, it is feeding many smaller companies and industries. A recent report in the Financial Times suggested that if the ALARM project went ahead, no fewer than 500 British companies, many of them in the highest level of high technology, would be involved in the project. Failure to proceed with ALARM and ACA would leave the field open to our prime competitors. In such circum-stances, the industry would rapidly and irrevocably be reduced to the status of subcontractors.
  I argue, both on the civil and military sides, that in the 1990s we shall have to purchase a whole range of replacement aircraft and weapons systems. The question before the Government and the country at the moment is whether in the 1990s, as is the case today, British Aerospace will have the product range to enable the Government of the day to buy British, or whether, because of tardiness, miscalculation or over-caution now, we shall have to buy American or Franco-German in the 1990s.
  I understand that, under the rules of the House, I could speak for another two hours, but that is a temptation that I shall resist. However, before I sit down I should like to narrow my remarks to some points that affect my constituency where the same arguments pertain. There are decisions which only the Government can take but where the delay is putting uncertainty into the factories and could ultimately cause redundancies and the break-up of teams of skilled workers. The first is the decision that is being awaited from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Coastguarder. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been to British Aerospace, Woodford, but it is well worth a visit if only to see the 748 line.
  Without a doubt that has been the most versatile and dependable aircraft produced. The old Dakota is the nearest to it in aeroplane history. It is a war horse that has performed dependably all over the world and it is amazing that, because of the skill and ingenuity of the workforce at Woodford, it has not become a museum piece but has found new roles as technologies improve and as what can be tacked inside an aircraft has grown smaller. With the introduction of new technologies it has been found to be the ideal maritime reconnaissance plane for medium and small maritime powers.
  At the moment Britain uses the Nimrod. Frankly, that is a little like hiring a Rolls-Royce for panda car duties. The Nimrod is an excellent aircraft and I can understand that the Ministry of Defence rather likes the £9 million that it takes out of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food budget for that reconnaissance work and I can also understand that there is some training element in such work, but, as the present flurry with Denmark over fishing demonstrated, our fishery protection service needs its own air surveillance capability, which can be provided by the Coastguarder.
  It is well known that the sales effort of British Aerospace is partly restricted by the fact that when it demonstrates the aircraft abroad the first question it is asked is whether Britain, as a maritime power, operates the Coastguarder. It weakens the sales drive to say that the Government have been considering the matter since 1981.
  I understand that British Aerospace is trying to sell the 748 to Egyptair with the possibility of follow-up sales of the Coastguarder to the Egyptian air force—a classic package which has been stalled because the Overseas Development Administration is unsure about aid and trade
  1124
  provisions and because the Export Credits Guarantee Department is being over-cautious about insurance cover. I hope that if this matter has not been cleared up already it will be soon. At the same time, apparently, Fokker and the Dutch have come forward with a generous aid and insurance package. It is the old problem—do we play cricket and let others play karate? There is the market and the opportunity but we have an over-cautious approach to making a sale. Will the Minister consider whether other Departments have the drive and purpose that his has for giving our high technology industries a fair chance?
  Another area in which we need real drive from other Departments to give British Aerospace's initiative a helping hand is the imaginative development of the 748—the advanced turboprop. The fuel price escalation has made the advanced turboprop, as against the medium size jet, a possible market winner. As hon. Members will know, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade reported to the House last Monday that discussions with our European partners to obtain the liberalisation of European regional routes had again failed. Being the doughty fighter that he is, the Under-Secretary promised that he would go back into battle, albeit next June. If he were to succeed and we were to achieve a relaxation of European air routes and stop the over-concentration on capital-to-capital flights, it would not only be to the advantage of regional airports such as Manchester international; it would also mean that the European market would require 60 to 70-seater passenger aircraft. I congratulate British Aerospace on its initiative, because if that market became available the ATP would certainly be the right aircraft to exploit it.
  Finally, I ask the Minister about the future of the Nimrod programme, which I know that his colleagues are pondering. Again, we need an early decision. It is a two-stage decision. First, Woodford could well use the maintenance and refurbishment work which is at present being carried out—not altogether effectively because Woodford's help is occasionally needed—by the Royal Air Force. Would it not be better to have a return-to-works programme for the Nimrod which is at present in service in the RAF? I know that Ministers are considering that, because the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) led a delegation to the Minister of State on 2 February. However, we have nearly reached the end of February and the workers of Woodford would like to know what sense of urgency there is in the review that was promised to the right hon. Member for Openshaw and, most importantly, when they can expect a decision.
  How far have discussions gone on the reopening of the Nimrod line? I do not think there is any doubt that, in both its maritime and its early warning role, the Nimrod was a great success. I understand that within the RAF, after the experience in the Falklands and elsewhere, there is a strong pressure for more Nimrods to be ordered. In addition, there are signs that there are Governments in the world who, if the Nimrod line were again working, would consider purchasing them. That is a worthwhile project and the amount of investment that it would need compared with some earlier projects is relatively small. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues to put their thinking caps on. There should be an early decision on the return-to-works programme and a hard look at whether there is more life in the Nimrod programme.
  I realise that I have covered a number of Departments for which the Minister has no direct responsibility, but I remind him that he is a Minister in the Department of

  1125
  Industry and that it is his responsibility to maintain an effective British aerospace industry. Our rivals, competitors and collaborators have shown that the key to success is a close working relationship between the industry and the Government. An alarmingly large number of decisions about the British aircraft industry are sitting in the pending trays of various Ministers. With regard to the future of the aerospace industry in the north-west, we need to know about the agile combat aircraft, the ALARM system, airbus, Nimrod and the Coastguarder. That is quite a shopping list, but it shows how much is caught up in the Whitehall machine. The logjams need releasing so that aerospace can start to plan ahead. Prevarication will not help us survive in a high technology world. Literally thousands of jobs are at stake. The spin-off into supply industries is enormous.
  The question is not whether the Government will need those aircraft and systems—they will need them—but whether the aerospace industry will be in a shape to compete for the orders in the 1990s and beyond. It is that commitment, not just in words but in deeds and announcements, to the high technology industries of tomorrow that I seek from the Minister. Decisions now could avoid a crisis in the aerospace industry. Delay will make it inevitable. For the north-west in particular delay would perhaps be a mortal blow to our hopes of industrial recovery led by the high technology industries.
  I realise that the Minister will not be able to give me firm replies on all the points that I have raised, but I emphasise that he and his Department must accept the responsibility to knock heads together in Whitehall and to get over the message to the Treasury and other Departments that aerospace needs a long-term perspective and a close working relationship with the Government, and needs to know where it is going and how far it has the support of the Government and the House in an endeavour that is crucial to this country's economic and industrial survival.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) on having the good fortune to be able to press the Minister on the subject of the aerospace industry and to raise in particular the problems that affect Greater Manchester. I, too, should like to take this opportunity to press the Government to take a series of decisions that are vital to British Aerospace, to the whole of the greater Manchester area and to our constituencies.
  I am sure that the Minister is aware that the British Aerospace division in Manchester is divided between two sites—Chadderton to the north-east of Manchester and Woodford in the south-east. They are a substantial distance apart. One area is given over to machining and small fabrication, and the other to final fabrication and a great deal of design work. In some ways it is sad that the two factories are so far apart, because it means that one has to look at them as two separate units when considering their overheads. However, although they are two separate units in terms of overheads, they are interdependent in terms of machinery, equipment, the runway and other facilities.
  Unfortunately, over the years the viability of Woodford has gradually been reduced. It has continually slimmed down the number of people working there. The overheads in terms of the payroll and administrative costs have
  1126
  reached such a point that, although the work at Woodford has been reduced, its viability is in doubt. There is real concern there and at Chadderton that, unless the right decisions are taken quickly by the Government, the viability of the whole operation in Manchester will be in doubt.
  I stress that the operation has a key role to play in terms of the lead that it gives in technology to the whole of the Greater Manchester area. When one goes round other factories in the Greater Manchester area, it is surprising to learn how many people serve their apprenticeships or worked for some years in the aerospace industry at one of those factories. They took their skills with them and gained by them. Many would be only too pleased to have the opportunity to return to the aerospace industry where they could continue to use those skills.
  There was a long-standing tradition in the Greater Manchester area that people moved from one firm to another. Unfortunately, because of the recession, most people now do not move from one firm to another, but move out of the industry and out of engineering. The industry has always played a key role in the Greater Manchester area. It is important to the area that it should continue to do so, not just for the jobs, but for the spin-off that it provides to the whole area.
  The specific problem at the moment for the people of Woodford is that, whereas 10 months ago they were working frantically on orders for the Falkland Islands campaign, there is now a shortage of work. Work is short on the design side for projects that would go on to the shop floor in 12 months time or further ahead. The people there have lobbied Members of Parliament, and through them Government Departments, extremely effectively. I pay tribute to the way in which Derek Woods, from the management side, and Bob Burns, from the union side, have taken great trouble to ensure that all Members representing the north-west have been well briefed. There have been many deputations to Ministers, all with the united purpose of ensuring that there is continuity of work at Woodford, which ensures the continuity of British Aerospace in the Greater Manchester area.
  In some ways the things for which we are asking are fairly small. It is important to put them into the context of the viability of the factory. As the Government demonstrated during the Falklands crisis, that factory is an essential part of the national effort. Unless the relatively small Government decisions are taken quickly, the viability of the factory will be put at stake. There is a danger of redundancies. All the evidence in the Stockport and Greater Manchester area is that when redundancies take place it is extremely difficult to rebuild the skilled, dedicated labour force in the factories.
  The length of production of the HS748, the continual updating and modification and the way in which the factory found new alternative uses for it were remarkable. Many countries, including third world countries, would be only too pleased to purchase more of that aircraft, but cannot do so because of the general financial difficulties that have been imposed upon them. There are difficulties in getting credit. Although the future of the aircraft does not stretch into infinity, if general world liquidity were to improve there would be many more orders for the 748. It would be helpful if the Egyptian contract could be secured, because that would ensure that the line continued for a little longer.

  1127
  The aeroplane has a specialist coastguarder role and other countries have shown a great deal of interest in it. The key question is always the same: if it is such a good plane, why have the British Government not ordered it? An order from the Government would open the door for a stream of orders for the 748 in its coastguarder role.
  We have been told for nearly 12 months that the Government have been considering the position. It has been suggested that someone else could purchase or set up a facility, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would then hire. All the possibilities have been considered. The real answer is for the Government to give a clear commitment to buy some of these aircraft. That would ensure good prospects for the 748. Other points to consider include a little more money for the updating, the possibility of a new engine and the design work that would accompany that, which would prove helpful.
  The Nimrod has been mentioned, with the possibility that more of the refurbishing and refitting could return to Woodford instead of being carried out by the RAF. That would be helpful. An important question is whether the line could be restarted. An order or orders from the Government could lead to export orders.
  A factor that is important for British Aerospace—although it would not directly involve Woodford—is the development of the airbus, particularly the A320, and the desirability of getting design work. As a result of the way in which British Aerospace is able to move work around, some of the design work, either from that project or from one of the others, could come back to Woodford. That would ease the problem of the lack of continuity of design work in that area.
  It is unfortunate that the French have sometimes shown a little more enthusiasm and drive than we have. Hon. Members know that in the end the French got more of the work in the package. The British Aerospace industry wants to get more than the wings. If we could have more drive and enthusiasm from the Government for the A320, there would be a good chance of our getting more work than just the wings. That would be extremely helpful in ensuring the security of work at Woodford and Chadderton for the next 10 to 15 years.
  I plead with the Government to look at the number of key decisions which it is in their power to make. Satisfactory decisions would make all the difference, and ensure that the factory does not have to talk about redundancies, but can, instead, become enthusiastic about carrying forward new technology and proving that the British Aerospace industry is a world beater.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: I contribute to this debate on the future of the British Aerospace industry to draw attention to the importance and dedication of British Aerospace. I also commend the Government for their determination to denationalise the industry, a policy promise that was speedily and highly successfully carried out.
  In my constituency both the aircraft and the dynamics groups are represented at Hatfield. In both, the record of management and work force in terms of expertise and skill is a highly enviable one. I will briefly touch on two projects for each of the two divisions.
  1128
  With regard to aircraft, the 146 is proving to be, as forecast, a superb plane which needs every encouragement in the difficult world economic conditions. The Government's decision to purchase it for the Queen's flight has been warmly welcomed.
  In addition the airbus has been highly successfully developed, and the A320 will deserve the support it should receive.
  With regard to dynamics, the Sea Eagle is proving to be, also as forecast, a fine missile for the benefit of our nation's defence. The Government's decision to purchase it was correctly applauded. Added to this should be ALARM, which everyone who has had the privilege of being connected with this development firmly believes to be of key future importance to the United Kingdom.
  In my constituency workers for British Aerospace are rightly proud of their involvement with the future of the British Aerospace industry. My constituency, which contains part of that industry, is equally proud of its close association with this fine example of British success.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Like other Opposition Members, I welcome this opportunity to question the Minister more closely about British Aerospace. As the Minister knows, my union is the major union in the industry, but I should like to go slightly wider that just aerospace. The Technical Administrative and Supervisory Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers is the largest single union in the aerospace industry, with some 45,000 members in the major companies. In 1981, TASS published a booklet entitled "The Future of British Aerospace", which was followed in February 1982 by a memorandum on why the Government should support the A320 and the RJ500. Since their publication, the industry has been subjected to even more uncertainty. The major companies, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and British Airways have suffered and are still suffering from job reductions. Last Monday, AUEW-TASS called a forum of senior representatives to discuss the effects of the Government's policy towards the industry and the problems that are growing as a result. I should like to point out some of the comments made by the senior representatives. Before the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) leaves the Chamber—
  Mr. Murphy: I am not leaving.
  Mr. Ross: I am glad, because I should like to refer later to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
  TASS called a forum of senior representatives on Monday to discuss the very serious problems facing the industry. At the centre of our argument is the view that, with the present difficulties in the Western world's economies, it would be madness on the part of Government not to support the aerospace industry in Britain by direct involvement. We see that support primarily coming through recognition that the aerospace sector is vital to the British economy and for employment, investment and exports. In addition, it can act as a vehicle for high technology engineering developments.
  TASS argues that there should be a national aerospace strategy with co-ordination between aircraft manufacture, engine manufacture and the carriers as one of its main components. These would primarily be British Aerospace,

  1129
  Rolls-Royce and British Airways. Co-ordination would ensure that programmes such as the A320 and RJ500 were pursued in a mutually advantageous way so that the finished product would be available to a carrier such as British Airways with some degree of certainty. That is certainly not the case at present. Such actions would ensure that the industry developed positively, and would be able to match international competition, particularly from the United States.
  There are key projects, whose importance the Government must recognise. Some do not, at this stage, conform to the flint-like policy of Government that insists on commercial viability, but how can they in the present depressed state of the West's aerospace industry? Having a stake in the future is vital and I am sure that the Minister would agree with that. Failure to act now will without doubt see Britain's independence and major role in the industry become subsumed in that of the United States of America.
  TASS would like some comment from the Under-Secretary on some of the following points. On the A320, Britain in true style was sceptical of the chances of success for a European independent consortium to challenge Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas. Arriving in late 1979, we gained a 20 per cent. stake in the two airbuses, the A300 and the A310. That stake confines us in the main to the manufacture of wings. The A320 has been discussed for some time and its launch has been delayed at least two years. It is forecast that there is a market for about 3,500 of this new type of aircraft. Delay after delay has meant that both McDonnell Douglas and Boeing have been able to step in with derivitives of existing aircraft that will be interim measures leading to the development of the new generation 150-seater.
  Along with my TASS colleagues, I have taken part in a number of visits to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. We have argued with him about the need for a final decision on the A320 project. We are advised by the Department that the problem lies with British Aerospace. We were told that its plans are not specific and detailed enough. We have met with Sir Austin Pearce, the chairman of British Aerospace, and have suggested to him that he should get his finger out and make it clear to the Department of Industry exactly what he wants by way of design specifications, financial support, and launch support. He has made it clear that the Department of Industry has asked for so many plans and so many specifications, which it has been given almost immediately, that he does not know what the Government intend. The Under-Secretary has a responsibility to say how the Government see their role in the A320 project.
  McDonnell Douglas has annnounced the production of a DC-9 Super 83 which will be available in 1985. Boeing will have the 737–300 series available in 1984. British Airways has announced that it may place an order for up to 20 of either aircraft for delivery in 1985–86 to replace the Tridents and the 1–11 jets. A further 10 aircraft may be ordered in the late 1980s. Because of the delay in producing the A320 it will not, according to the deputy chairman of British Airways, be considered initially, but perhaps later. Imagine the concern that must be raised in the minds of the employees who are presently looking forward to the A320 project for job security.
  We will continue to argue, as the French have argued, that the A320 should go ahead with Government support. Failure to do so will cause Airbus Industrie to lose its
  1130
  competitive edge over the Americans. The Under-Secretary smiled when I mentioned the French. When it comes to supporting industries, the French have one or two things to show us. Although we are discussing the aerospace industry tonight, the Under-Secretary should remind his colleagues in the Department of Industry of the way the French have outmanoeuvred them with regard to support for the Timex company in France, which is presently threatening 1,900 jobs in my constituency.
  The problems to which I have just referred were brought to my attention by the employees at British Aerospace. They are concerned about the Government's failure to back research and development on military aircraft. They said that the A320 development had been stalled due to Rolls-Royce indecision on the development of the RJ500 engine. They also made it clear that they wanted support from the Government for the 30 per cent. demand by British Aerospace to ensure that it is involved in the building of the wing.
  The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield mentioned the HS146, which is a very successful aircraft. Unfortunately for those Rolls Royce workers who attended that meeting, both the HS146 and the HS125 have American power units. If there had been more support for British Aerospace, not only would we have built the aeroplane itself but we might have been involved in the engine building. We cannot walk away from that.
  The RJ500 engine was developed by a consortium of Rolls-Royce, Pratt and Whitney and the Japanese and was intended as a power plant for the A320. Development engines have been produced and have run with few, if any, problems. However, because of the uncertainty in launching A320, little work is now being done on the project. We need more forceful comment from the Department of Industry to make Rolls-Royce take the RJ500 more seriously. If the A320 were to be launched now, it is unlikely that the RJ500 would be available before 1988. Faced with that, Airbus Industrie is considering the General Electric engine CFN56/4. Rolls-Royce does not have engines on any of the airbuses. If the A320 is launched, it will remove any uncertainty and Rolls-Royce can go ahead with the RJ500.
  Representatives of Rolls-Royce raised those points when we spoke to them. They made clear their concern that the successful aircraft should not have American power units. They said that Rolls-Royce is becoming an offshire supplier for the American airbus industry. Unless the Government, with their European colleagues, make a concerted effort to create a home or European market, Rolls-Royce will be entirely at the behest of the American market.
  The representatives said that there had been heavy redundancies within the company and that, without Government interventions and decisions about the RJ500 and the A320, morale at the company could disappear. They said that Rolls-Royce has the technology but not the cash, while the Americans have the cash, but not the technology.
  The GEM engines power the WG30 Westland helicopter and, potentially, the EH101 consortium venture with Agusta of Italy. But problems have developed in the sale of the GEM engine and its operation. Failure by Rolls-Royce or Westland to supply or buy GEM engines will have a major effect on the Leavesden plant of Rolls-Royce. In addition, funds must be made available for Rolls-Royce to continue development of the GEM engine

  1131
  series. The representatives suggested that we must push for development beyond the GEM60 to the GEM70 if the company is to remain competitive.
  My colleagues in Ferranti, especially those in Scotland, say that there is little British avionics in the AV8B—the new Harrier project. Yet again, a major project being developed with the skills and expertise of the engineers and work force of British industry is being sold abroad. The avionics package that should have come the way of British industry is not to be. Britain is well placed to provide the latest in avionics development. We must ensure that, wherever possible, British avionics should be standard fitment in British or collaborative developments. Yet our colleagues in the industry make it clear that they do not believe there to be any determination by the Government to ensure that.
  My colleagues are worried about the AV8B. It emphasises the folly of handing over British initiatives to foreign manufacturers. There is a danger that AV8Bs supplied to Britain could have American avionics—despite the assurances given when the designs were sold. The same applies to the airbus. The prime reason for arguing for an increased share in airbus manufacture and assembly is that more British equipment would be fitted.
  My colleagues also raised the problems involved in the military area. While the Government have agreed to fund the agile combat aircraft as a one-off demonstrator, the future is far from clear. It would help the industry if the Minister tonight explained the Government's commitment to that aircraft. Replacements for the Jaguar will be required, and these should be British made and not bought from America. Pressure on the Government to support the ACA into production is essential to prevent the project being dropped.
  British Aerospace Dynamics has a major interest in weapons, as do Lucas Aerospace and Marconi. As the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield said, HARM and ALARM are vital to the industry. Given the requirement for weaponry, decisions by the Government must be taken in the best interests of the industry and those who work in it. We shall continue to lobby the Government to ensure that those systems and companies are supported.
  While our colleagues are committed to the present programmes, they are also concerned as engineers and designers to look beyond them to ways of using their skills in other areas when there is no further commitment to the military programme. It should be put on record that, although they are involved with weapons aiming systems, these need not be used only for weapons. The same laser systems could be used to guide blind people. They are also worried because the BAe146 does not have a British Aerospace power unit.
  I could refer to many more projects and areas than those that I have mentioned. They all demonstrate that their success or failure is firmly in the hands of the Government. If they chose to, they above anyone else could inject the necessary cash and stimulus to ensure that the industry blossoms and grows. The Government have allowed many other industries to collapse. They must not be allowed to do the same to the aerospace industry. Already the warning signals are there, with programmes of job reductions across the industry. The constant demand for commercial
  1132
  viability is an unreal requirement in the present climate and illustrates the arm's length policy of the Government towards the sector.
  The Government should be anxious to secure a long-term defence programme, geared both to military requirements and to the needs of British industry. There must be closer liaison between British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and British Airways, and closer European collaboration on a partnership basis. These points have been made by those who work in the industry and are concerned about its future. They demand that when a Labour Government are returned to power there will be renationalisation so that there will be closer links with a Government who are concerned to ensure the future of the British aerospace industry.
  8.53 pm
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) for initiating the debate. The subject is of great importance to British prestige and to the economy, from the point of view not only of the aircraft themselves but of the engines. I have a constituency interest, there being a Rolls-Royce factory in East Kilbride.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) that the Government should congratulate themselves or that we should congratulate the Government on the denationalisation of the industry. That is no answer to the problems. In fact, the opposite is the case, as I shall show.
  In the past, the whole aerospace industry has been a tribute to British industry. From very early on, Britain was in the vanguard in the development of the industry. We have only recently lost that position. There are many examples of aircraft with which Britain led the world—from de Havilland up to the development of the Comet and culminating in Concorde, which I still believe is a wonderful technological achievement.
  Nevertheless, we have lost out and in recent years we have had to concentrate on two areas and to some extent to decide whether our future lies in the manufacture of aircraft or engines. In a sense, there is a indivisible bond between the two. Aircraft and engine production must be considered together. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) mentioned Westland helicopters and its partner Agusta of Italy with the EH101 and the Gem engine and referred to the possibility of a new series of engines developing from the GEM60 to the GEM70, and so on.
  As a Rolls-Royce devotee, I am sorry to say that that company has not been to the fore in trying to develop a new series of engines for those helicopters. I have seen mock-ups of the EH101 helicopter, which is excellent. It is not, however, the British company or even, surprisingly enough, the British Government who are dragging their feet. It is the Italian Government who have been slow to respond to the demands of Agusta to make good their part of the financial responsibilities involved. Only last week, I spoke to a member of the Italian Parliamant who undertook to convey to the Italian Government the view of Westland Helicopters that the Italian Government should now move in this.
  There is no doubt that American aircraft manufacturers have a great advantage over ours. There are advantages of scale in the production not only of aircraft but of engines. Rolls-Royce engines are in the big league of aero-engine

  1133
  manufacturers, competing with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Pratt and Witney and General Electric. I have rather mixed the firms there. Aero engines in America are developed mainly by Pratt and Witney and General Electric. Those companies have the great advantages of being parts of conglomerates so that losses in one sector can be offset against profits in another—an advantage not enjoyed by Rolls-Royce.
  Clearly, we in this country should be examining aircraft procurement for both civil and military aircraft and engines on the basis of Government involvement. We cannot be continually put at a disadvantage to the Americans. They are the biggest producers both of aero engines and of aircraft. We cannot continue to be at a disadvantage in those markets because the British Government refuse to involve themselves in aero engine development and aircraft production for what they consider to be sound commercial reasons.
  If we are not careful, we shall be relegated not just to the second, but to the third or fourth division of aircraft manufacturers and aero engine developers. That is what will happen if we do not accept the challenge which is evident in America and if we do not become involved as a nation in those two activities. It is getting to a late stage. Those of us who are involved in the discussions with British Aerospace, Westland Helicopters, Rolls-Royce and, to some extent, Sud Aviation in France, must realise that the American share of that market is enormous. While at one time I thought that we had to make a choice between remaining in the forefront of airframe production or aero engine production, I now tend to the view that they are so interwoven that we cannot choose to divorce ourselves from the one and cling to the other.
  The Government must make a clear commitment in this regard. They must decide whether the technology that we have developed over a long time is worth investing in for the future. There is much anxiety among British aircraft and aero engine designers that the Government are not serious in their desire for us to continue to be in the major league in those two activities. I am led to believe that a shortage of skilled aeronautical engineers, both for engines and for aircraft, is developing. That does not augur well for our future.
  I counsel the Minister to convey to his senior colleagues the great fear of the workers. It is not limited to the workers as it permeates from the shop floor up to the management—not the other way round. These two interchangeable and interwoven industries are essential for the future of Britain as a high technology nation. They will contribute both to the welfare of the many thousands of people who are involved in those industries and to the nation as a whole. When one considers the spin-off that develops from that type of high technology, it is not difficult to imagine the way in which investment in those industries produces substantial dividends both for the future of those industries and for the industries that are related to them. It would be provident for the Minister who is to reply to tell his senior Ministers that there are those of us with constituency interests not just in aerospace, but in the development of aero engines, who consider that continued investment by the Government is one of the best safeguards for the future not just of aeronautical engineering but of all forms of engineering and of continued developments in high technology.
  1134
  The world is only at the beginning of high technology. There are tremendous developments to take place, and it will be as well that we do not lose our place before we have even begun.
  9.6 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): When the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) first secured his Adjournment debate he was assuming that that is what he would have, but he has had an omnibus debate.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Ominous.
  Mr. Butcher: The debate, as he said, has been all the better for that. I should like to thank the hon. Members for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) as well as the hon. Member for Stockport, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who have all made valuable contributions to policy-making at the Department of Industry. The hon. Member for Stockport, South gave a reasoned and comprehensive study of the British aerospace industry. I use that term generically. He said, quite rightly, that the industry—if I may mix my metaphors—is a locomotive industry. It pulls through all types of technology not specifically confined to designing and flying aircraft. It develops, as a byproduct of its product development, a number of state-of-the-art production techniques, in which the Department of Industry is highly interested and which we try to sponsor actively through robotic programmes, flexible manufac-turing systems and alternative manufacturing techniques.
  Before we go on our tour d'horizon of the impact of new technologies, the hon. Member for Stockport, South and other hon. Members will expect me to deal with matters that rightly interest all hon. Members present, such as the future of their constituents and individual projects within the component parts of the British aerospace industry.
  Uniquely among the European aerospace industries, the British industry has three distinct and vigorous components: the airframe sector, the aero engine sector and a sector specialising in avionics and equipment. We must also not forget the important contribution which the industry makes to guided weapons and, most recently, satellite technology. While most of those sectors have undoubtedly been adversely affected by the recession, the industry remains resilient and innovative. I shall come later to the point that the hon. Member for Dundee, West made about the TASS documents.
  The industry's turnover represents about 2 per cent. of GDP; its employment of 185,000 accounts for over 3 per cent. of manufacturing employment. The industry is strongly export-oriented, tribute to which has been made by many hon. Members this evening. Exports represent approximately 50 per cent. of the industry's output. In size, the British industry vies for second place with France, after the United States of America, and it is significantly bigger than the established German and emerging Japanese industries.
  However, I do not wish to belittle the uncertainties that face the aerospace industry and that have been voiced during the past hour. The hon. Member for Stockport, South described the crossroads at which the industry now stands. In a moment I shall explain the role that

  1135
  Government can play in helping the industry to position itself to take advantage of the opportunities beckoning in the last 20 years of the century. The aerospace sector is in many ways a breeding ground for other technologies that will be significant for the entire United Kingdom productive sector. I have in mind the use of advanced production techniques, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned at the beginning of the debate.
  How then do the Government see their role? In the first place, they continue to give substantial support to research and development, and 36 per cent. of the Department of Industry's research budget is allocated to aerospace and space research and development. There is a clear inter-relationship with the substantially greater research and development programme funded by the Ministry of Defence. The objective of research and development must be the maintenance of a technology base that will enable British companies fully to exploit anticipated commercial opportunities. The opinion of the House could coalesce round that thought, and we could have some agreement. In the past, the boffin in the lab has been a little too remote from the salesman.
  The second element of Government support for the industry is launch aid. We recognise that development costs for major aerospace projects are now enormous, and that there are problems in aerospace because of the long lead time between expenditure on development and positive cash inflow from the sale of developed aircraft. In those circumstances, and reflecting the fact that other Governments give comparable assistance to their industries, the British Government are in principle ready to give lauch aid to meet part of the development costs of civil projects.
  However, such launch aid is not a substitute for normal commercial judgment. The Government are effectively taking an investment in the project, and must therefore be satisfied that it will yield an acceptable real rate of return. This matter has bedevilled the debate on the airbus. There has been much disinformation about the A320, some through inspired guessing and some from those who are perhaps in a fixed position on the matter. If hon. Members examine the guidance for real rates of return for other corporations, they will find that 5 per cent. is postulated. That should be seen as reasonable.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: How does the Minister account for the fact that the French—leaving aside the Americans for the moment—have cottoned on to two real winners in the Caravelle and the airbus?
  Mr. Butcher: Britain has not been too bad at cottoning on to real winners. Two or three projects mentioned this evening were real winners. We have managed to keep a balance between commercial advantage and public sector procurement, which the French have not done in all cases. The A300 and A320, and the Caravelle, were great successes, but we have matched them historically. The theme of this debate is that we must match it for the rest of this century and beyond.
  In some parts of French public sector policy, especially that which forces research and development to pull through demand rather than the other way round, they have come a cropper. There is evidence that in information technology and telematique technology they may already be coming a cropper. Perhaps that is a matter for another
  1136
  debate, but the Department of Industry is most anxious to ensure that we work with the grain of the market and use it to bring through leading edge technology. Occasionally that requires a little cajoling or pushing along.
  The Government are not averse to that and we have announced many schemes to do so, but in the aerospace industry we have to walk the tightrope between straight commercial benefits as projected by the companies that wish to apply for launch aid, and the simple granting of public sector support because we have a hunch that it might work. That way lies potential disaster. Launch aid is not a substitute for normal commercial judgment. A company will not generally wish to hazard its shareholders' funds on a project that is likely to prove an uncertain investment. Making civil aircraft is not an aim in itself; it is a commercial activity that needs to be judged against the normal criteria of profitability.
  It has been suggested to us that aerospace projects will never satisfy the criteria as I have described them, but this is not the case. The Government were able to announce last year support totalling £41 million towards the Westland W30 helicopter project. We have every reason to believe that this will be a successful investment. I shall return to this point in response to the hon. Member for Stockport, South and to the hon. Member for East Kilbride and to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield.
  With regard to international collaboration, another facet of the response to the increasing cost of aerospace projects has been the need for more people to enter into collaborative ventures in civil aircraft. A prime example of this is the Airbus Industrie consortium in which British Aerospace is a full partner, with a 20 per cent. share.
  In the aero engine industry, Rolls-Royce and its Japanese partners continue discussions with American counterparts on a new engine development for the proposed 150-seater airliner. In the helicopter industry, the EH 101 development is a unique example of international collaboration between the Governments and industries of the United Kingdom and Italy, although, as we have been reminded tonight, we have to keep a close eye on that.
  It is a characteristic of many of these adventures that Governments are brought into the role of underwriting, to a greater or lesser degree, the obligations that participating companies assume towards one another. The British Government accept such a role, which need not involve direct Government financing. We naturally wish to assure ourselves that such international projects are properly structured and commercially viable.
  I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Stockport, South that decisions taken today, including public purchasing decisions, will have effects long into the future. I should like to examine first the civil side of the industry. The short-term outlook for British manufacturers is not encouraging. World air transport is not growing at anything like the rate we saw a few years ago. Financially stretched airlines are becoming more and more reluctant to take on new commitments and the new aircraft market is overshadowed by substantial numbers of available secondhand aircraft.
  Regrettably, Governments cannot buy their way out of these problems. Reference has been made to the role of public purchasing in the civil sector. It is easy to say that the British Government should insist that British Airways buys British-built aircraft with Rolls-Royce engines. However, successive Governments followed that policy in

  1137
  the post-war period with the result that our industry concentrated on building aircraft so specifically tailored to British needs that they could not find a wider market. The Viscount and the BAC 111, I would concede, are excellent aircraft and have done very well. The civil side of the British aerospace industry was tempted to concentrate on technical excellence at the expense of the exploitation of commercial opportunities—a point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West when he compared the technological content of British aircraft with some American aircraft. My goodness, do the Americans not occasionally get the business?
  I note the concern of hon. Members about recent publicity suggesting that British Airways is looking to American manufacturers for its immediate replacement requirements. I assure the House that no decision has yet been taken. A range of possibilities will be open to British Airways, depending upon the dates at which new aircraft types will be available and the pace at which British Airways will need to phase out elements of its existing fleet.
  I return to the controversy of the A320—
  Dr. M. S. Miller: The Minister mentioned that the development of the airframe industry depended on commercial projects and that, unless people made profits, a project would not be viable. We have no objections to that. However, the projection of making a profit on a project in the aircraft industry has to be taken over a much longer term. Those who involve themselves financially have to undertake that involvement over a longer period of years than is usually acceptable in the financial world. Should not the Government make that clear to people? Should not the Government take an interest by underwriting it to some extent?
  Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman has given the House a truism. It is, of course, a long-term effort that may require long-term financing. We are particularly mindful, in looking at launch aid decisions, that we must see a return on capital. If we do not, we do a disservice to the applicants for launch aid. The mistake in the past has been to take largesse but then to become divorced a little, but by a crucial amount, from market projections. We wish to see the British aerospace industry not merely surviving but thriving.
  I should like to establish my own credentials by pointing out that my constituency recently lost 1,000 workers at British Aerospace, Bitteswell. That was not a happy experience. I did not enjoy facing those men after they had lost their jobs. Some of them are now getting together to try to remedy the situation through a cooperative development.
  I have also in my constituency a Rolls-Royce factory which I visited last Friday. There is no doubt that Rolls-Royce is an excellent company with leading edge technology that has to consider carefully its plans for the future. Rolls-Royce will survive. It will be agreed that the company must thrive because it has excellent products. It is a question of getting the market for those products by one means or another.
  If the hon. Member for East Kilbride will allow me, I should like now to dive back into the A320 controversy. At this time of night, when some of us have already missed two trains, that is perhaps a dangerous endeavour. I should place it on record that British Aerospace has applied for
  1138
  launch aid but that the evaluation of the project has been delayed by the absence of a suitable engine. We feel that the commercial viability of the A320 may depend on the ultimate availability of a new technology engine. However, at the end of last year, General Electric and SNECMA put forward proposals for a derivative engine which might, in their view, be suitable to launch the A320. The airbus partners are now considering whether to seek the reaction of airlines to this proposal. The airlines' response would be an important factor in the decisions taken by the three Governments involved. At this stage, I cannot say when it will be possible for the British Government to take its decision on launch aid.
  The Government have not refused, as recently suggested in correspondence in the press from a gentleman not unconnected with the hon. Member for Dundee, West, to back the A320 project. Until the market potential for the aircraft, initially powered by a derivative engine, has been properly explored, it will not be possible to complete the assessment of the projects prospects of commercial viability, which all three airbus partner Governments 'wish to consider before committing themselves to the programme.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Under-Secretary of State not take on board the fact that we do not wish to be merely involved in the consortium to build the airbus A320? We want Rolls-Royce to be involved in a consortium to supply the engine. It is not good enough for the Under-Secretary of State to say that the Government are standing back waiting for the consortium concerned to consider what the new American engine might be. We want the RJ500 on the A320. That is where the Government have a role to play, not only in the aircraft but also in the engine.
  Mr. Butcher: I am sure that all hon. Members would be delighted if we could "write in" the RJ500 as a specified power source for the A320. Our difficulty in this House is that we do not manage the company. The company must get its collaborative act together. Then it has to get its application for launch aid appropriately packaged. We are not unsympathetic to either of those two ventures. There are signs that the RJ500, developed with vigour and imagination, is an excellent engine. It appears to have a market of huge proportions. Naturally, we hope that this engine will have the impact that a number of its illustrious predecessors manufactured by Rolls-Royce had in the past.
  In answer to specific questions about the HS748 and the agile combat aircraft, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will allow me to progress a little, and not allow this debate to generate into an ad hoc Question Time. It is already a somewhat strange Adjournment debate.
  I come back to the impact of Government decisions and the interrelationship between Government Departments. The maritime derivative of the successful 748 aircraft is manufactured at Manchester. I add my congratulations to the Manchester plant, in that 350 have been sold in a 20-year period. However, the Coastguarder has yet to break into the market, and I know that the fisheries departments, as part of a continuing review of the cost and operational effectiveness of the fisheries protection service, have been looking at the feasibility of employing a smaller aircraft for its offshore protection work. This task, ironically, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is currently performed by RAF Nimrods.

  1139
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained in reply to a recent question asked by the hon. Member for Stockport, South, the Coastguarder is among the aircraft that are being evaluated by the fisheries departments and has a number of features that make it attractive for this type of requirement, including an excellent field of view, a spacious fuselage to accommodate, for example, additional tactical avionics, and a low-wing configuration, making the aircraft particularly stable and manoeuvrable at low speeds and altitudes.
  No decision on the fisheries departments' requirement has been reached. However, my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, have a large number of factors to weigh in reaching his decision, and I know that the industrial importance of a first sale for the Coastguarder will feature in his assessment, bearing in mind the value of such a reference order for the export prospects of the aircraft. Nevertheless, British Aerospace will be well aware of the need for the Coastguarder to be competitive in price and operational terms in relation to the other aircraft under consideration.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Those are the arguments that we have heard from Government Departments for the past nine months. They tell us that the matter is under consideration, and that it is a very good aircraft. We want to know when the decision will be made. Can the Minister give us a time scale? Will it be one month, two months, or is it something on which we shall never get an answer, no matter how hard we push?
  Mr. Butcher: As a result of this debate, I dare say that various Ministers will be clamouring for copies of Hansard for their late night reading. I can give an undertaking that my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Agriculture, among other Ministers, will have certain passages in this debate drawn to their attention. Unfortunately, I do not have the cheque book that the hon. Gentleman demands. The taxpayers have the cheque book, and their representatives in Government will be responsible for the timing of the orders. I, like the hon. Gentleman, would be impressed if decisions were taken quickly on some of these matters, and I am sure that he would not expect me to hazard a decision tonight that is rightfully theirs. May I go on? [An HON. MEMBER: "You are doing well".] If the hon. Gentleman tells me that I am doing well, I suspect that I shall be in trouble tomorrow morning.
  In view of the constantly escalating costs of military hardware, we must take steps to reduce costs. That argues for more collaborative projects of the Tornado type and I commend the initiative of British Aerospace in exploring the scope for an advance combat aircraft using the basis of a Tornado partnership. I do not expect my colleagues
  1140
  in the Ministry of Defence to be in a position to take early decisions on the agile combat aircraft. The Government will first need to see the results of the experimental aircraft programme which will lead to greater confidence in future decisions and, by reducing risks, will smooth and accelerate progress in later development programmes. Those who saw the agile combat aircraft at Farnborough will have been impressed by it. The company has taken the initiative and it appears to be a most attractive aircraft. We hope that it is up to specification and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence will keep a close eye on it.
  A detailed evaluation of the options for meeting the Royal Air Force's requirements for a defence suppression weapon, including the HARM and ALARM solutions, is in progress and is proceeding to schedule. It is likely to be a few more weeks before it will be possible to express a view on the ultimate selection. Here again, however, the industrial implications of the decision, including the national interest and the technologies involved, will be taken fully into account. That has been a constant theme of hon. Members' remarks this evening.
  I have taken note of the comments of hon. Members on Nimrod. This is complex. The RAF must decide the balance of what is to be done in-house and what is to be sourced outside by way of refurbishment work, and the prospect of opening up production lines will depend on what orders can be attracted, particularly for the enhanced version.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield has, as before, vigorously placed his case before us on Sea Eagle, ALARM and the 146. I commend him for his pugnacious defence of his constituents' interest. The hon. Member for Stockport, South has drawn the attention of the House to his concern for those who live not just in his constituency but in Greater Manchester as well and the impact of what we hope will continue to be a thriving aerospace industry on the infrastructure of Greater Manchester and, thereby, on the social structure and the well-being of the local communities.
  British Aerospace, Woodford, has been rightly commended. It has been the unsung hero, but tonight it has become the sung hero, of the south Atlantic. I listened carefully to what was said about the HS748 and Egyptair and I shall pass these points on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. It is important that we do as much as we can, by public or private means, to ease logjams—another theme of the hon. Member for Stockport, South.
  With that over-lengthy response, I commend the obversations that have been made by hon. Members tonight for the reading of other hon. Members.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o' clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Magistrates Bench
  Magistrates Bench
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  European Commission on Human Rights (Compensation Cases)
  European Commission on Human Rights (Compensation Cases)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Employees (Audiometric Surveillance)
  Employees (Audiometric Surveillance)
TRADE
  Publications (Exports)
  Publications (Exports)
  Cuba
  Cuba
  Video Recorders (Imports)
  Video Recorders (Imports)
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Cut Flowers
  Cut Flowers
  Ships (Exports)
  Ships (Exports)
  Merchant Fleet (Laid Up Tonnage)
  Merchant Fleet (Laid Up Tonnage)
  Arab Trade Boycott
  Arab Trade Boycott
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  Shipping (Earnings)
  Shipping (Earnings)
  Air Route (Scotland)
  Air Route (Scotland)
  Germany and Japan
  Germany and Japan
  European Community (Video Cassette Recorders)
  European Community (Video Cassette Recorders)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sentencing Policy
  Sentencing Policy
  Drug Offences (Statistics)
  Drug Offences (Statistics)
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Mr. Choudari Rajnalvee
  Mr. Choudari Rajnalvee
  Television (Subtitling)
  Television (Subtitling)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Deaths in Custody
  Deaths in Custody
  Care and Reception Centres
  Care and Reception Centres
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Probation Service (Trainees)
  Probation Service (Trainees)
  Terrorist Organisations
  Terrorist Organisations
  Boundary Commission for England
  Boundary Commission for England
  Nuclear War (Casualties)
  Nuclear War (Casualties)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Educational Standards
  Educational Standards
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  King Edward Village
  King Edward Village
  International Monetery Fund (Interim Committee)
  International Monetery Fund (Interim Committee)
  Defence Forces (Deployment)
  Defence Forces (Deployment)
  Afghanistan Refugees
  Afghanistan Refugees
  Wales
  Wales
  Truro
  Truro
  Falkland Islands (Minefields)
  Falkland Islands (Minefields)
  Departmental Staff (Disabled Persons)
  Departmental Staff (Disabled Persons)
  Health Authorities (Financial Support)
  Health Authorities (Financial Support)
  European Community (Budget Contribution)
  European Community (Budget Contribution)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Ambassadors
  Ambassadors
  Bangladesh
  Bangladesh
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Allowances)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Allowances)
INDUSTRY
  Mail Users Association (Report)
  Mail Users Association (Report)
  Private Telephones
  Private Telephones
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
TRANSPORT
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Consultancy Fees
  Consultancy Fees
  Traffic Boundaries (Newcastle)
  Traffic Boundaries (Newcastle)
  A390 (Speed Restriction)
  A390 (Speed Restriction)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Rents
  Rents
  London Borough of Hackney
  London Borough of Hackney
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Local Authorities (Special Urban Problems)
  Local Authorities (Special Urban Problems)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
WALES
  Light Bulb Manufacturing Plant
  Light Bulb Manufacturing Plant
SCOTLAND
  Inner Urban Areas Act 1978
  Inner Urban Areas Act 1978
  Farm Price Review
  Farm Price Review
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Giant Hogweed
  Giant Hogweed
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
  Royal Pardon
  Royal Pardon
  Department of Agriculture (Land Holdings)
  Department of Agriculture (Land Holdings)
  Fisheries Protection
  Fisheries Protection
  Western Isles (Enterprise Zone)
  Western Isles (Enterprise Zone)
  Mr. James Alexander Burns
  Mr. James Alexander Burns
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Dental Auxiliaries
  Dental Auxiliaries
  Partially-sighted Children (Staff Training)
  Partially-sighted Children (Staff Training)
  Matrimonial Homes (Scotland) Act
  Matrimonial Homes (Scotland) Act
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Disablement Benefit
  Disablement Benefit
  Foster Children (Allowances)
  Foster Children (Allowances)
  Rate Bills
  Rate Bills
  Single-parent Families
  Single-parent Families
  Industrial Injury
  Industrial Injury
  Health Services Acts
  Health Services Acts
  Census
  Census
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Industrial Noise
  Industrial Noise
  Health Authorities (Joint Financing Scheme)
  Health Authorities (Joint Financing Scheme)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Drugs Cost
  Drugs Cost
  Coastal Flooding (Sussex)
  Coastal Flooding (Sussex)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk and Beer (Prices)
  Milk and Beer (Prices)
DEFENCE
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Industrial Civil Servants
  Industrial Civil Servants
  Aircraft Movements (Scotland)
  Aircraft Movements (Scotland)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Youth Training Scheme (Travel Expenses)
  Youth Training Scheme (Travel Expenses)
  Bar Staff
  Bar Staff
  Industrial Noise
  Industrial Noise
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Income (Taxation)
  Personal Income (Taxation)
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Capital Outflow
  Capital Outflow
  Employee Profit-Sharing Schemes
  Employee Profit-Sharing Schemes
  Manufacturing Industry (Capital Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Capital Investment)
  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Economic Management and Control
  Economic Management and Control
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Unemployment Costs
  Unemployment Costs
  Widow's Tax Allowance
  Widow's Tax Allowance
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Argentina (Debts)
  Argentina (Debts)
  Pound Sterling
  Pound Sterling
  International Debt Problems
  International Debt Problems
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Building Societies (Report)
  Building Societies (Report)
  "Think British" Campaign
  "Think British" Campaign
  £1 Coin
  £1 Coin
  Economic Recovery
  Economic Recovery
  Manufacturing Production
  Manufacturing Production
  Budget Representations (CBI)
  Budget Representations (CBI)
  Special Drawing Rights
  Special Drawing Rights
  Contingency Reserve (Pay Settlements)
  Contingency Reserve (Pay Settlements)
  European Community (Contributions)
  European Community (Contributions)
  European Community (Membership Costs)
  European Community (Membership Costs)
  Personal Income Tax Allowances
  Personal Income Tax Allowances
  Oil Prices (Budget Judgment)
  Oil Prices (Budget Judgment)
  Pensions (Clawback)
  Pensions (Clawback)
  Output and Gross Domestic Product
  Output and Gross Domestic Product
  Crude Oil Prices
  Crude Oil Prices
  Prices
  Prices
  Taxation (Grants and Allowances)
  Taxation (Grants and Allowances)
  Capital Expenditure (Suffolk)
  Capital Expenditure (Suffolk)
  Share Option Schemes
  Share Option Schemes
  Fiscal Measures (Employment Effects)
  Fiscal Measures (Employment Effects)
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Business Start-up Scheme
  Business Start-up Scheme
  Budget
  Budget
  Rail Commuters (Tax Relief)
  Rail Commuters (Tax Relief)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Duchy of Cornwall
  Duchy of Cornwall
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Family Spending Power
  Family Spending Power
  United States Citizens (Taxation)
  United States Citizens (Taxation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Gas Supplies
  Gas Supplies
  Farm Grants and Subsidies
  Farm Grants and Subsidies
  Arwen 37 Anti-riot Gun
  Arwen 37 Anti-riot Gun
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875
  Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Disarmament: Geneva Negotiations
Lord Mayhew: 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 progress has been made in the Geneva disarmament negotiations.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, only limited progress was made in the first three rounds of the negotiations because the Soviet Union insisted on trying to justify its monopoly in INF missiles. In the fourth round of the negotiations which began on 27th January Ambassador Nitze has our full support in his efforts to explore any solution consistent with NATO's principles of balance.
At the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks the United States has called for very substantial reductions and proposed a reduction of one-third in the number of warheads carried by the superpowers' strategic ballistic missiles involving cuts of over a half in the number of ballistic missiles themselves. The Soviet Union has put forward heavily qualified proposals for less radical cuts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, may I ask whether he recalls that last year the Soviet and American delegates to the intermediate range talks agreed on a compromise proposal for deploying 75 missiles on both sides? Was it not regrettable that the American and then the Soviet Governments rejected this? Can he say whether the British Government supported this admirable proposal and, if it is revived, whether they will support it in future?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to informal discussions and an informal agreement which it was said had been reached between the United States and the Soviet INF negotiators at Geneva in mid-1982. If I am correct that that is what the noble Lord was referring to, it is for the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union to comment about ideas which were exchanged informally between Ambassadors Nitze and Kvitsinsky. What we know for certain is that it was later on in the year that the Soviet Union simply broke off the talks.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Minister whether in the process of these negotiations at Geneva our representatives or representative ever asked the representatives of the Soviet bloc what their
824
intentions are? Although we have some information, derived from the 1917 Revolution, that they seek to create a Communist world, we do not know whether their intentions have ever undergone a change in a more peaceful instead of militaristic direction? Are these questions ever asked? If we were asked in return what our intentions are, would we put all the cards on the table?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think I can answer both parts of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by referring to President Reagan's statement which was made on 22nd February, two days ago, in a speech in the United States. In it the United States President made it clear that in the INF talks the proposal for the zero option is not a take-it-or-leave-it offer and that, above all, the United States negotiator has instructions to explore any solution consistent with the alliance's principles of trying to achieve a balance. I think that is a very fair outline of the United States position. Let us hope that we will be able to discover the real intentions of the Russian position as a result of that clarification.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree, even if the intermediate range missiles were cut down to 75 on each side, that, bearing in mind that the Soviet missiles have three warheads, this would make a difference to 235 to 75, so there would not be parity.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if that were to be the case, my answer is, Yes.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he can tell us what is the real intention of the Soviets? Everybody seems to use that phrase but we do not know what it means. We speculate. It is ridiculous.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the intention of the NATO Alliance is to achieve balanced and verifiable reductions in arms so that all the peoples of the whole world can live in greater security and, therefore, with a better prospect of peace. It is that about which we are trying to get agreement with the Russians.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is it not likely that in the process of seeking a balanced reduction in arms—and all of us would welcome a move in that direction—the Russians have undergone a change? May there not be some change of which we should take advantage? Undoubtedly something is happening in Russia now that is more to our advantage than was the position perhaps five months ago.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree that this is possible. That is what we are trying to explore.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the more flexible attitude on both sides in the Geneva talks, may I ask the Minister, first, whether it would not be desirable that in public utterances one sought areas of agreement rather than of disagreement and, secondly, whether it would not be reasonable, when balancing the nuclear forces for both sides, to include those of France and the United Kingdom.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is that I believe the United States President's speech of two days ago precisely falls into the noble Lord's category of trying to find areas of agreement. My answer to the noble Lord's second question is, No.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on that point of finding areas of agreement, to what extent would it be true to say that there has been a shift in Soviet policy on two aspects? The first is on site inspections of weapons systems and nuclear test sites. The second, as reported in today's Times, is the banning of chemical weapons. Do the Government feel that this is a realistic and genuine advance? Will the noble Lord be good enough to comment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these are of course confidential talks and, although on behalf of the Government I give your Lordships' House as much information as I can, the talks in Geneva in both INF and START are confidential. Therefore, on the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I do not think that I can help very much. So far as chemical weapons are concerned—weapons which of course we destroyed in this country 10 years ago and which the Americans have retained only in a limited stockpile—we know that the Soviet Union have developed a large, modern chemical force which is not matched at all on the NATO side. Let us see whether the intentions which we hope for on the Soviet side regarding these frightful weapons are going to be matched by deeds.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the very last point that the noble Lord the Minister has made, perhaps I may ask this question: Would he agree that while it is generally acknowledged that the major participants are the USSR and the USA, and that, as he has just said, the Soviet Union have a massive preponderance in these horrendous weapons over all else and all others, it is therefore vital that these talks should not break down? Also, would he agree that the great role that Britain can play is trying to achieve that and maintain the negotiations, show patience—because the prize is so worthwhile—so that something realistic will emerge in the end to make a contribution to the slow crawl back to sanity for all the nations involved?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on that question. This is why the Government were most anxious to draw the attention of the House today to President Reagan's statement of two days ago, which we believe shows both patience and persistence.

Scottish Criminal Trials: Defence Facilities
3.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they
826
consider that substantial improvements in the administration, and cost, of criminal justice in Scotland could be achieved by providing the defence with advance copies of the Crown precognition in jury cases.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Government have considered this Question. As a result, we consider that such a practice would not result in substantial improvements in administration and cost. However, for the past three years procurators fiscal have been under instruction to make available on request to defence solicitors statements of witnesses whose evidence is regarded as formal or technical and to discuss the evidence available to the Crown.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his reply will cause surprise among practitioners in Scotland, albeit practitioners in Scotland are conscious of the fact that the introduction of such a practice could give rise to minor problems? Does he not accept that they strongly believe that it would enable defence lawyers both to avoid unnecessary and expensive preparatory work and also to enter into agreements with the Crown so as to reduce the areas of dispute at the trial, thus achieving real and substantial savings in costs, particularly to the legal aid fund? Does he agree that such savings could be achieved? Does he not think that it is time, then, to introduce an experiment by the Crown and take a fresh initiative by introducing this practice experimentally in the High Court?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am naturally in entire agreement with the noble and learned Lord's wish to dispense with unnecessary and expensive preparatory work, particularly by defence lawyers. However, the noble and learned Lord will remember that this matter was fairly fully considered by the Thomson Committee in their second report and the instruction which has been given to procurators fiscal is intended to get the benefits of the practice without the difficulties to which he has referred. Finally, may I say that we are keeping this matter very much under review. I hope that in due course we shall be able to issue a consultation paper setting out the difficulties and possibly, by study of them generally in Scotland, advancing consideration of the problem.

Interest Rates and Industrial Recovery
3.17 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the progressive reduction of interest rates is a prerequisite for industrial recovery and what action they have taken to secure international agreement on this objective.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, reductions in interest rates which do not endanger sound financial conditions make an

827
important contribution to industrial recovery. I believe that this is widely understood internationally. It is also recognised that countries must secure the monetary and fiscal conditions which make such reductions possible without causing inflation. At the recent IMF Interim Committee meeting chaired by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the committee noted in its communiqué that,
"high real interest rates detrimental to the process of recovers could be generated by market expectations regarding Government borrowing requirements".
Lord Beswick: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I congratulate him on somewhat shifting his emphasis in the reply to the Question that I put as compared with two or three years ago, when he used to maintain that the high interest rates were a major weapon in the Government's armoury and desirable on their own account? May I ask him: is it not essential now for a renewed and greater effort to get international agreement on this matter? Is it not a fact, according to the BIS report last month, that the total international net credits now stand at over £980,000 million; that much of this was money borrowed to pay interest on money already borrowed; and that very little of it has gone into really productive investment? Would he not also agree that we shall never get real stability in the world unless that vast amount of debt yields an interest relevant to some increased production and not to some RPI?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the matters to which the noble Lord refers were the subject of extensive debate in your Lordships' House recently on an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lever of Manchester. We had a most interesting and valuable debate on that occasion. I do not think that it would be right for me to traverse that ground again.
It is always tempting to believe that problems can be solved simply by international agreement. In the case of interest rates, however, they are a reflection of the domestic policies followed by individual countries, and in order to get interest rates down it is necessary for those domestic policies to be right. What is important—and I am sure the noble Lord will take encouragement from this—is that a consensus is emerging, and has been expressed at successive summits, that sound economic policies will lead to a reduction in interest rates, which, in turn, are necessary for economic recovery.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, failing an international agreement on the lowering of interest rates, which I personally do not regard as really hopeful in present circumstances, will Her Majesty's Government explore the possibility of securing credit for British industry for the purpose of the reconstruction and renewal of industrial equipment at concessionary rates of interest?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I note that he, too, thinks that the prospects of international agreement on these matters, as distinct from the consensus to which I was referring, is
828
somewhat remote. So far as the second part of his question is concerned—namely, the provision of finance at lower rates of interest by way of subsidisation—that is a suggestion which has been considered on many occasions. The cost of such subsidisation has to be met by somebody. It would be met by the Exchequer, and that in turn would increase the borrowing requirement, which would in the end push up rates of interest outside the favoured section.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not extremely difficult for world interest rates to come down? The American economy has, I think, a budget deficit of 180 billion dollars a year, with fairly low inflation and very high interest rates. In those circumstances, is it not true that the American economy is not going to come out of recession, and consequently the economies of the rest of the Western world will not come out of recession, either? Is this not something that worries my noble friend?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is not for me on this occasion to debate the merits of the policies followed by the American Administration; but the position in fact is that if one puts undue weight on monetary policy and insufficient weight on fiscal policy, one may end up with interest rates higher than they might otherwise have been. This matter has been brought to the attention of the American Administration by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by others on numerous occasions. One is glad to note that the American Administration now realise the perils inherent in the very large budgetary deficits they have been running.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said that much depends on national policy. If one accepts that, may I remind him of what he told me on 8th July 1981? May I ask him whether he will bear in mind what he told me on that date, when interest rates were 12 per cent.? He said:
… we must look forward to a continued reduction, which will be followed in due time by a fall in the rate of inflation." [Official Report, 8/7/81, col. 698]
Could he have been more wrong than that? We have had a fall in inflation and the base rate is still 11 per cent.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am always happy to find that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, reads my speeches, and I am sure the House will share his satisfaction in the Government's very great achievement in bringing the rate of inflation down below 5 per cent.—the lowest figure at which it has stood for 13 years. So far as rates of interest are concerned, the rates now are lower than the 12 per cent. to which the noble Lord referred, despite the recent increase. But it is perfectly true, of course, that rates of interest are affected by international considerations as well as by national considerations. We would hope to see, on a longer term basis, a continuing reduction in interest rates in the world generally and in this country.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the very interesting criticism he has made of the American financial policy—that they have paid too much attention to monetary policy and too little attention to fiscal policy—might apply to this country?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords. In the first place, I do not criticise the policies of other Governments although from time to time I do draw attention to what I may regard as errors in those policies, in the same way as I draw attention to what I regard as errors in supplementary questions. We ourselves have always made it clear that one needs a mix of policies and that one needs to follow a sound financial and fiscal policy as well as a sound monetary policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers to these questions have shown an astonishing degree of complacency? Is he aware that a very large proportion of British industry is very heavily indebted to the banks and is finding it very difficult, with rates of interest at their present level, to discharge its obligations? Further, is the noble Lord aware that no amount of rescheduling of these loans, the interest on which is a grievous burden on industry, from short term to medium term to long term is going to get rid of this problem? Is he aware that there is a very grave crisis in British industry as a result? And is he further aware that as a result of the disastrous policy followed by the commercial banks there is very little confidence any more in the perspicacity of bankers generally?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, I fear, is confusing two entirely separate issues. The first one is the domestic situation in the United Kingdom. The other matter that he touched upon is the international monetary problem associated with countries with large deficits and large borrowings. So far as the domestic situation in this country is concerned, nobody is more aware than we are of the very great problems facing British industry, but those problems will be solved only when we can get the rate of inflation down—and, indeed, we have reduced it significantly—and with that reduction in the rate of inflation we will achieve a reduction in the rates of interest which will be of long and enduring benefit to British industry. That is the objective for which we must aim.
So far as the other issue is concerned, the debt problem of many of the developing countries is a matter of very great concern. I made it quite clear when I was speaking in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lever of Manchester, whose speech on this matter was of very great interest indeed, that this was a problem one needed to view with great concern, but not with alarm. The really important thing is that up to date the international community, particularly working through the IMF, has succeeded in avoiding default by these countries.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I finally ask the noble Lord this question: if he finds it possible to congratulate himself on the Government's achievement in coming down to 11 per cent. base rate, may I ask whether he will re-read the words of Mr. Disraeli, who reminded us of,
"the sweet simplicity of the 3 per cent."?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord because he is simply quoting words that I myself used in a speech in your Lordships' House recently.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord please tell us what is the difference between the rates of interest of our contribution and the millions that we have just loaned the Argentine and those which British industrials have to pay?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a matter which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Strikes: Essential Public Services
3.31 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many other countries have withheld the right to strike from those employed in essential public services.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, a number of countries have legislation which restricts the ability to strike of employees in essential services, including the United States, France and Italy. However, it is not possible to give a total figure because the nature and the extent of these restrictions vary greatly from one country to another. Most countries withhold the right to strike from the police and the armed forces, and in some cases from public servants, but there is no common pattern to the legislation which governs other essential services.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his very interesting Answer, may I ask whether he can tell the House what the Government are doing in regard to preventive measures for the future in regard to strikes in essential services? Can we draw any comfort from the experience in Western Germany?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government are considering the question of strikes in essential services very carefully in the light of recent events. We shall not hesitate to take any measures which we are convinced would be both effective and beneficial. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State's mind is not closed on this. We all wish, I think, that our trade unions followed the example of Germany where trade unions exercise voluntary self-control in all essential services.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, when the Minister mentioned other countries why did he fail to mention the Soviet Union?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are a number of other countries which I did not mention for very obvious reasons, of which the Soviet Union is one.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this Question constitutes a serious source of confusion unless one distinguishes between the temporary withholding of the right to strike under "cooling off" and permanent

831
withholding under mandatory statutory arbitral provisions? Will my noble friend the Minister also agree that the experience of other countries does not readily transplant over here to us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that other countries have their own organisation and their own statutes which apply to the circumstances of those other countries. It may be that they will not, as he says, readily apply in this country. However, it is correct that we should take a note of what other countries do to see whether that could be applicable in this country in the different circumstances we have.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, instead of outlawing strikes in essential public services, might it not be wiser to try to establish agreed pay determination procedures of such a kind that will mean that those employed in those services no longer have reasonable cause to take industrial action?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is certainly one option which my right honourable friend will consider. As I explained, his mind is not closed on this. It comes down in the end to what are essential services. A lot of people fall into that category.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is an abuse of industrial power—they have been behaving very well lately. But supposing that the men in the power stations, who are only a handful compared with the total population, by turning a few knobs decided to stop the trains, stop the factories, plunge thousands of homes into darkness and have demented housewives unable to cook. Does not my noble friend agree that it is high time that we had an agreed disputes procedure between nationalised boards and their employees—
Lord Molloy: We have, my Lords.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, it does not have the force of law, but it should have, to prevent strikes in the public utilities and public bodies.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there have been laws to prevent strikes, but the fact is that they have not been used very often. That is why Section 4 of the 1875 Act was repealed. But I think that my noble friend's imagination runs away with him. We would all hate the hypothesis to which he refers, but we hope that union leaders, employers and workers will use common sense.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, if the Government should go along the path of removing the right to strike, it would be accompanied by protection for those workers involved in the wages field, so that no worker, as happens now in the health service, can go home with less than the supplementary benefit rate?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that really is going quite a long way down the road of one proposition. I can assure the noble Baroness that if my right honourable
832
friend has any ideas in that direction which he wishes to incorporate into the law there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss it.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned for a short time (or may be adjourned, subject to the progress of business) at approximately seven o'clock.

Criminal Trespass on Residential Premises Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to create an offence of trespass on residential premises in England and Wales; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

British Shipbuilders Bill
Brought from the Commons: read a first time, and to be printed.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a strict consolidation Bill. The pilotage legislation was last consolidated so long ago as the Pilotage Act 1913. Few amendments were made to that until the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 made extensive amendments to the 1913 Act as well as introducing new provisions. This is, therefore, a suitable time for an up-to-date consolidation. Although some of the provisions of the 1979 Act are not yet in force, they are included in this Bill in accordance with normal practice. I should add that if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it will be referred, in the usual way, to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill
3.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Four major changes are contained in this Bill relating to Scotland: it gives the sheriff jurisdiction in divorce actions; it enables the relaxation of the requirement for corroboration in certain classes of divorce action; it confers on

833
the Secretary of State power to regulate the fees paid for legal aid, and clarifies his power to regulate fees for legal advice and assistance; and it transfers to the Secretary of State the existing powers of the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session to regulate court fees, or court dues, in the Scottish courts.
This Bill was introduced in another place, and received a general welcome from all parties. I am happy to say that, subject to a few minor and technical amendments, the Bill which I present to your Lordships today is substantially unchanged from that which my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General for Scotland commended in another place.
Clause 1 brings actions for divorce within the jurisdiction of the sheriff. At present in Scotland, it is possible to raise an action for divorce only in the Court of Session in Edinburgh. It is, therefore, necessary to employ counsel and, where the party's solicitor does not have a place of business in Edinburgh, also to employ an Edinburgh agent in order to enable counsel to be instructed. This arrangement can cause inconvenience and involves increased expense for parties concerned in the divorce action, and also, inevitably, for the legal aid fund.
For some time now, there has been much informed pressure to give the sheriff competency to deal with actions for divorce. The question was considered by the Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who I am very glad to see in his place today, and in their report presented to Parliament in May, 1980, they recommended that not only should the sheriff be given jurisdiction in divorce actions, but also that the sheriff court should have exclusive jurisdiction as a court of first instance in these matters. In the light of comments received on that report, we concluded that the benefits which the commission had in mind could be achieved by giving the sheriff jurisdiction in divorce actions, but retaining also that of the Court of Session.
Under the provisions of this Bill, the existing jurisdiction of the Court of Session to hear divorce actions at first instance will therefore remain, but the sheriff will have a similar and concurrent jurisdiction. Since publication of the Bill, so far as I am aware, no one has queried the benefits it will bring in increased convenience to the general public, but we have had representations that it is doubtful whether the effect of the Bill on the cost of a divorce action will be such as to justify the extension of the sheriffs jurisdiction. These representations have been most carefully considered coming, as they do, from bodies of the stature and experience of the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland.
On the question of cost, the society have been good enough to submit to us an extensive memorandum setting out their views on the provisions of the Bill, which I understand has now been made available to your Lordships also. They have also gone to some trouble in preparing specimen accounts to support their own view that divorce in the sheriff court will, in practice, prove more expensive than divorce in the Court of Session. Although our own views on relative costs had been the subject of detailed and careful consideration taking into account all relevant factors,
834
we have given the accounts produced by the SSC Society further detailed attention. We must, however, bear in mind that this is not an exercise which can display unchallengeable exactitude, given the suppositions which necessarily must be made in relation to the eventual procedure which will be adopted in divorce actions in the sheriff courts.
We are not persuaded that our original calculations were wrong, and we find support on a factual basis in the figures given in the latest annual report on the Scottish Legal Aid Scheme, from which it is possible to estimate the actual costs involved. in legally aided divorces. In our view, these figures form a more satisfactory basis for argument than any hypothetical figures based on the, as yet, unresolved procedure of the sheriff court in divorce actions.
The estimated average cost to the legal aid fund of a Court of Session divorce action in 1981–82 is around £520; the estimated average cost of a sheriff court action for separation and aliment is around £270. Although I appreciate that in an action for divorce in the sheriff court additional matters will have to be considered, these additional matters will not be of such complexity as to justify the difference in cost between the two figures.
As a further example, one might look at an undefended divorce in the Court of Session where the grounds arc adultery and where the affidavit procedure is used. At present in such circumstances, if only one Edinburgh agent were to be involved the cost would be about £290, but, where there is an Edinburgh agent and a country agent, the cost of the same divorce would be £357. The accounts produced to us by the SSC Society have prompted a further useful reconsideration of the cost savings which can be expected to come from the proposal to allow divorce in the sheriff court, and I am satisfied from our various calculations that cost savings will result, although it is difficult to be precise, including a saving in legal aid expenditure of between £1·3 million and £1·8 million in a full year.
I hope and expect that it will be possible to devise a procedure relatively free of complications for divorce in the sheriff court. There has already been introduced with effect from 11th January, 1983, in the Court of Session the simplified procedure recommended by the working party, chaired by Lord Cowie, to whose work I desire to pay tribute here, which is appropriate in actions for divorce based on non-co-habitation for two or five years where there are no children under 16, no dispute about financial provisions and where neither party suffers from mental incapacity. It is the intention that the procedure should be extended to the sheriff court as soon as the sheriff has jurisdiction in divorce. This procedure, since it has been introduced, has been widely welcomed and is now in full operation.
Our proposals have also been criticised in respect of the ability of the sheriff courts to deal with divorce actions from the point of view of resources in staff and accommodation. We have carried out a survey of all the sheriff court accommodation throughout Scotland, and this survey has led us to the conclusion that in no place will we require to acquire additional accommodation. Likewise, subject to the requirement for a net total of 16 additional staff and the equivalent of three extra sheriffs, we are satisfied that the sheriff

835
courts will be able to absorb the extra workload without notable difficulty.
In this connection, it is also important to bear in mind a fact which does not seem to be generally appreciated; that steps which are being taken to provide for alternatives to prosecution for traffic offences should, in no small way, offset any increased workload arising from divorce actions. When they are implemented in full, the effect of the provisions of the Transport Act 1982 could be, based on the criminal statistics for 1979, to remove from the sheriff court up to 40,000 cases each year. This should result in a significant reduction in the workload falling on sheriffs and sheriff clerks' staff and will help to offset the increased workload caused by divorce.
So far, I have spoken of the financial advantages in giving the sheriff a divorce jurisdiction. Nevertheless, I would not like it to be thought that our decision on this question had primary regard to the financial consequences. Where a marriage has broken down, I think that there is much to be said for a system which enables the divorce to be obtained as quickly and as cheaply as is compatible with the seriousness of the matter. By enabling the local sheriff to deal with these actions, I think that the Bill does just that and, even if—and this is very unlikely—the savings prove not to be as significant as we expect, I think the added convenience to parties in having their divorce dealt with locally if they wish it is ample justification for the provision. I must, however, stress that this Bill will not make divorce "easier" in the sense of affecting the grounds of divorce.
I turn now to Clause 2, which allows the courts to dispense with the present requirement that facts need to be corroborated in such classes of undefended divorce actions as may be prescribed by order made by the Lord Advocate. It is intended that this provision will operate in conjunction with the simplified divorce procedure recommended by Lord Cowie's committee and which, as I said, has already been introduced. Initially, therefore, I intend to apply the provision, assuming that it is passed, to undefended divorce actions based on non-cohabitation for two or five years where there are no children of the marriage under 16, where the court is not asked to make any order for financial provision and where neither party suffers from mental disorder. In the light of experience of its operation, the clause will then enable consideration to be given to extending it to other classes of case.
In providing for a relaxation of the evidential requirements of this nature, we are not denying the court the opportunity to call for further evidence, if they do not consider that the facts have been established on the evidence of one witness alone. The clause is drafted in similar language to that used in Section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968, with the result that the court's discretion to call for further evidence will remain. In all consistorial actions, other than those to which this clause applies, the present requirement for proof of the facts by corroborated evidence will remain whether or not the action is defended.
Clause 3 of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to regulate legal aid fees and outlays, and lists certain areas which are likely to be covered by the necessary
836
regulations. This represents a straightforward—and some would say overdue—step to rationalise the arrangements for fixing legal aid fees. At one time, legal aid accounted for only a small proportion of litigation in Scotland. In those circumstances, it may not have mattered unduly that the determination of fees for legal aid, as well as other court work undertaken by solicitors, was made by the Court of Session in civil cases and by the High Court of Justiciary in criminal cases. Howevery, the proportion of legally aided work has risen very significantly in recent years.
Since the Secretary of State is responsible for meeting the cost of legal aid, which will exceed £30 million in the current financial year, it is clearly reasonable that he should have responsibility for the regulation of the fees which relate to legal aid work. The case for assuming such power is all the stronger when one considers the need to have regard to the prevailing public expenditure guidelines, as is done in the case of other professional services whose cost is met by the Government.
It is not the Government's intention to restrict the growth in legal aid expenditure simply by curbing fees and outlays paid to solicitors and counsel for legal aid work. The level of fees is nevertheless an important factor in legal aid spending and not one which can be ignored. Indeed, since the Government came to power in 1979, the cumulative effect of increases in solicitors' fees has been some 86 per cent., compared with an allowance for pay and price increases of less than half that figure.
Under the present arrangements the court is placed in a most invidious position in having to prescribe fees which cover both legal aid and private court work. It has the unenviable task of reconciling the interests of the profession and legal system with the prevailing public expenditure constraints. Under the new arrangements the Court of Session will continue to be concerned with fixing the fees for litigation which is not legally aided. While, obviously, some solicitors may choose to provide little or no legal aid, there has been no shortage of able solictors willing to act on behalf of legally aided clients. As the noble and learned Lord is sitting opposite to me on this occasion, I should also say that there has been no shortage of very well qualified counsel to represent legally aided clients. I have no reason to believe that this position will change. Nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any suggestion that solicitiors providing legal aid do other than their best for their clients. Indeed, one of the complaints sometimes made is that they have an advantage over privately funded clients with limited resources.
The growth in legal aid expenditure in recent years has been staggering and it is necessary to examine the reasons for this. There are various factors. One has been the growth in legal fees and it would be irresponsible of the Government to ignore this and to fail to apply the same criteria as apply to the consideration of remuneration of other professional services in the public sector. It is also necessary to examine the scope for limiting unnecessary expenditure and securing better value for money. This, as I have explained, has been one of the considerations behind the proposal in Clause 1 of the Bill to give concurrent

837
jurisdiction to the sheriff court in divorce actions and the introduction on 11 th January of the simplified procedure. Both these changes will facilitate savings in legal aid expenditure.
Further consideration is being given to other possible changes in the arrangements for criminal and civil legal aid. The Government are examining the various ways in which money is spent and whether they represent the best way of using the resources available for those most in need of legal aid. Obviously this must be the primary objective. The great bulk of payments for legal aid work is to solicitors. A working group has been established with the Law Society of Scotland to set in hand a survey of solicitors' costs and remuneration to provide a basis on which legal aid fees may in future be determined. I hope that in consultation with the profession simpler and more straightforward tables of fees may in due course be devised. Simplification of the arrangements for compiling and assessing accounts could in turn result in savings in legal aid administration.
Clause 3 also gives the Secretary of State power to regulate the fees and outlays payable to counsel. The High Court of Justiciary has had the power to prescribe counsel's fees for criminal work but has never formally exercised that power. Instead, the Faculty of Advocates have provided an informal table of fees to the Law Society for use as the basis for assessment of counsel's fees. The precise nature of the form of control of counsel's fees in the future will be worked out in consultation with the faculty.
Clause 3, in our view, places upon the Secretary of State the duty to regulate fees where he is responsible for their payment. This is the general pattern in the remuneration of professional services in, for example, the National Health Service and elsewhere, where services may in part be public and in part private and, as I have suggested, there are good reasons why it should apply also to the remuneration of legal aid.
Clause 4 transfers from the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session to the Secretary of State the powers to regulate, with the concurrence of the Treasury, certain fees payable to the courts in both civil and criminal proceedings. At present the statutory power to regulate court fees rests with the Court of Session in relation to civil matters and the High Court of Justiciary in relation to criminal matters under the provisions of the Courts of Law Fees (Scotland) Act 1895 and the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907. This change (which is supported by the Lord President of the Court of Session) proceeds on the basis that, since the Government are responsible for providing and maintaining the courts, the Government should be directly responsible for the level of the court dues.
There was general support for the principle of Clause 4 in another place, not least because it will result in a greater measure of parliamentary accountability in relation to court fees. The Government's general approach to the policy on the level of costs to be recovered by way of court fees was set out in the Treasury Minute on the Twelfth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts for the Session 1981–82 (Cmnd. 8759). Assurances have been given, which I repeat, that it is not our intention to use the
838
transfer of powers to change significantly the level of cost recovery for criminal fees; nor to extend the range of fees being charged in the district courts.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are standard clauses dealing with financial provisions arising from the Bill, minor and consequential amendments and commencement. Your Lordships may wish to note that while Clause 7(2) provides that the evidential provisions will come into operation two months after the Bill receives the Royal Assent, the remaining clauses will be brought into force by order by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I do not anticipate that the sheriff will have jurisdiction in actions for divorce earlier than the beginning of 1984. This will allow time for final preparations to be made, including the formulation of procedural rules for divorce actions in the sheriff court by the Sheriff Court Rules Council. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may one thank him for his very lucid explanation of the money saving factors in the Bill, but am I not right in thinking that the Bill contains no provisions to deal with conciliatory services, especially those relating to divorce matters, or even encouragement of them in an informal way in the courts? Apart from the human aspect, is this not rather uneconomic in relation to legal costs?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I confirm that there are no substantive provisions which deal directly with that point. It is conceivable that that matter could play a part in the procedural rules which the Rules Council will now go on to consider.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
3.56 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, first I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on getting through his 25-minute speech in a mere 16 minutes. Secondly, I thank him for his rapid exposition of this small Bill. I realise, however, that it would be proper for me to declare an interest. It is slightly difficult for me to define precisely what that interest is, but a Bill which has the practical consequence of diminishing the jurisdiction of the Court of Session and putting counsel's fees, including my fees, firmly under the control of civil servants in St. Andrew's House must have some effect, and probably a fearful one, upon all practising advocates. So one's instinct is to dislike the Bill. However, I put my instincts aside and look at the Bill upon its merits.
I cannot invite your Lordships to greet the Bill with any enthusiasm, for although some of its provisions, taken in isolation, can be justified, the Bill itself, from the viewpoint of the Scots lawyer, has no coherence, no logic and, in my view, no common theme. It is motivated by one bleak and increasingly familiar idea: the desire to reduce expenditure upon public services, in this case the administration of justice.
This Government have always engaged in a good deal of rhetoric about law and order, but when it comes down to pounds and pence the order gets the money and the law gets the cuts. The desire to save

839
money or to reduce public expenditure is in itself to be applauded, but no Scots lawyer can be other than dismayed by the Government's decision, which is evidenced in this Bill, to by-pass Scotland's excellent law reform machinery and to rely instead upon such initiatives as spring, as in the case of this Bill, from the Treasury or, in the case of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, from the Home Office.
This Bill was conceived by accountants whose sole brief was to find as many ways as possible, within the limits of a seven-clause Bill, to reduce the amount of money spent on justice in Scotland, without any real consideration of the likely side effects upon the quality and efficiency of the whole machinery of justice in Scotland. It is a bit hard to blame my noble friend Lord Hughes for any substantial part of the Bill. The Royal Commission made about 222 recommendations. I do not suppose that my noble friend Lord Hughes will applaud a selection of only two, inspired, as I conceive, by notions of thrift, particularly as neither Clause 1 nor Clause 2 does precisely what the Royal Commission recommended.
It is slightly disappointing for me to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sponsoring the Bill. The thinking behind the Bill was not, I believe, done by him or by the Lord Advocate's Department. I do not really believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has the slightest enthusiasm for any part of it. The only traces that I can find of the Lord Advocate's influence in the Bill are, first, that he has prevented the sheriff court from having exclusive jurisdiction in divorce actions and, second, that he has in Clause 2 made some attempt to hold at bay the forces which are eating away at the very old rule requiring corroboration in Scottish law. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate enjoys the highest possible reputation in Scotland and he risks diminishing it a little by putting his weight behind this particular measure.
Turning to the Bill itself in more detail, Part I, as the noble and learned Lord has said, does two things. It alters the balance of jurisdiction and therefore the workload of the sheriff courts, on the one hand, and of the Court of Session, on the other, to the detriment of the Court of Session; and it enables the Lord Advocate by order to make a slight alteration in the law of evidence. What I regret is the piecemeal character of these alterations to our law. The Government have made no secret of the fact that the only real justification for these alterations is a desire to save money. They are not alterations inspired by concern for the character and coherence of Scottish law or for the structure and harmony of the courts' system.
I believe it is true to say that every thinking lawyer in Scotland knows perfectly well that the interplay between the jurisdiction of the sheriff courts and the Court of Session presents an opportunity for a well-planned reform; one which would redistribute the workload so that the Court of Session, with its unique capacity and reponsibility for guarding and developing the law of Scotland, would deal with those cases where its unique qualities can be used; and, equally, so that the sheriff courts—with their greater informality, their potential for dealing with cases swiftly and summarily, and even cheaply—can be given all such cases and be
840
relieved of those litigations with which they are inadequately equipped to deal.
Clause 1, however, attempts no such redistribution, whether based upon jurisprudence, history or even proper cost-benefit analysis. It just hacks a piece off the Court of Session's jurisdiction and scatters it around the various sheriff courts. It does for jurisdiction what the steam-hammer does for cut-crystal. No one has really calculated what the effects of this particular measure will be. I believe that no one bothered to study them in any great detail. The Royal Commission noticed some and commented upon them, but no study was made. There will be effects, probably adverse, upon the junior Bar in Scotland; upon Edinburgh solicitors; upon the workload and ultimately the number of Court of Session judges; and upon the quality of decisions which fall to be given in such hotly disputed matters as custody, access, and financial provision in divorce.
There is likely to be, in my judgment, serious interference with the speed of litigation in many sheriff courts, especially the busiest of them, because of the transfer to those courts of the divorce motion roll. It is not just a question of looking at the divorces themselves, because there is an immense amount of incidental procedure which has to be handled by the court first thing in the morning. I fear that the handling of that business, especially in the busier sheriff courts, will inevitably delay—on some occasions by as much as an hour or an hour and a half—the start of the other business, and so cut into the time available for disposal of the ordinary business of the court, both civil and criminal.
As to the divorce system itself, there is likely to be some loss in efficiency and speed because of the loss of expertise which has been acquired by the Bar, by the Edinburgh solicitors and, especially perhaps, by the highly expert clerks of the Court of Session. It has been said by the protagonists of this change—and this comment was made again today—that divorce litigation is an easy matter which hardly requires the skills and brain power lavished on it. But the same can be said of many human activities from ballet to hang-gliding; it looks easy because the skilled performers conceal their art. But I fear that for some time to come the Pavlovas of the Court of Session will be replaced by the "Tumbleovas" of the sheriff court.
It is also said that this change will save money, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate so argued. No one has made a study to see if it will do so. The evidence, such as it is, is essentially anecdotal. Those who profess the belief that this change will save money do so on the basis that it must be cheaper. Let them remember the cautionary tales of the reform of local government, the restructuring of the health service, or even the centralisation of driving licence records at Swansea. There are simply no "musts" when bureaucracy is involved. Intuitive faith is no substitute for sound research, and nor is it a basis for legislative reform.
Turning to Clause 2, the provision there will save a tiny amount of money and will dispense with what has become in many cases a needless formality. My criticisms of its details I shall leave until Committee stage but the criticism I make as a matter of principle is this. The Scottish Law Commission has been

841
engaged for some time in a massive, coherent and very learned study of the law of evidence and has published documents on that. It has expressed tentative opinions on corroboration, including corroboration in consistorial cases, but has not yet pronounced its final view. In its Memorandum No. 46, it describes this question as being,
"of some importance";
and I agree entirely. To my mind, it is at the very least ungracious to remit this important question to the Scottish Law Commission, allow the commission to spend much time and learning on its study, and then to legislate before the commission produces its report and recommendations.
A much worse example of by-passing the Scottish Law Commission is in prospect because of the extraordinary provisions of Clauses 53 to 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which have alarmed all alert lawyers in Scotland. I say, "alert", because one has to be alert to notice them; the Government did not take the trouble to consult any lawyers in Scotland and they put these clauses into an English Bill; but that, perhaps, is a question for another day. I deplore this indecently premature fiddling with bits of the law of evidence at the behest of Treasury or Home Office Ministers. If we are to reform the law of evidence, let us approach this task with a sense of its history and coherence. In Scotland, we should approach law reform with the kind of respect that a sculptor brings to a block of marble. The Government's approach is more reminiscent of a cow flicking its tail to displace inconvenient flies from its hindquarters.
Clause 3—enabling the Secretary of State to control legal aid fees—is, I believe, constitutionally defensible in itself. In the provision of legal aid the Secretary of State is the paymaster and there is certainly a case for saying that he should exercise direct control over the level of fees. But I wish to make two points. I am worried about the motivation and thinking behind this change. Publicly, Ministers are saying that they are concerned at the alarming increase in the cost of legal aid. That is indeed a matter for concern. But privately, senior Ministers and civil servants will tell you anecdotes about Glasgow solicitors who park Rolls-Royces or Porsches outside Barlinnie Prison while they interview their legally aided clients who are detained there. The implication is that the fees are far too high and that legal aid is a dripping roast. But the great mass of Scottish lawyers who undertake legal aid work are doing no more than earning quite modest fees for representing the poorest members of the public. The really prosperous members of my profession earn their fees in the private sector through acting for developers, insurance companies, property owners, those seeking alcohol or gambling licences, and persons legitimately anxious to keep their tax and rates to the legal minimum.
That brings me to my second point; and it is one that I should not have to make to a Conservative Administration. There is a free market in legal services and if the Secretary of State uses his new power—as I suspect he will—to depress legal aid fees while leaving the private sector unrestricted, he will seriously increase the danger, which is already there, that all the best legal talents will gravitate towards the more prosperous private sector and the poor on legal aid will
842
get a second-class service from second-rate lawyers. We have largely avoided that danger hitherto because legal aid remuneration is adequate, but the risks for the future are blindingly obvious. If the Secretary of State uses his new powers to drive the better lawyers out of legal aid work, he will tip the scales of justice significantly against the poor.
Clause 4 of this Bill has been largely ignored in public comment, and indeed in another place, because at first sight it looks technical in character. In the Scottish Grand Committee, the Solicitor-General for Scotland represented that it was a simple question of transferring a responsibility from the Lord President of the Court of Session to the Secretary of State.
The real, underlying purpose of Clause 4 ought to be made clear. Let me try very briefly to do that. As the Lord Advocate has said, the court fees referred to in Clause 4 are in effect a stamp duty; they are a tax upon litigation, a revenue-raising charge. They are the sums of money paid by the litigant to the court for the right to raise a summons or lodge defences or copy papers, and so on. So at different stages each litigant has to hand over in cash sums ranging from 10p to £56. The Government collect the bulk of these revenues. Of course, these revenues do not meet the cost of running the courts, and it would be absurd in a civilised society to expect the courts of justice to be self-financing. But the Government now intend to increase this tax on litigation by an enormous amount. It is impossible to say by how much because the Minister who spoke about this in the first Scottish Standing Committee gave an extraordinarily confused picture of the Secretary of State's intentions, ranging from an estimated increase in real terms of 5 per cent. annually, to an increase of 67 per cent. in real terms spread over the next three or four years. I hope that the Lord Advocate when he comes to reply to the debate will clarify what the Government's intention is in this regard.
As I say, court dues are a tax upon litigants. The only litigant who does not have to pay the tax are the Government themselves because Government departments are exempt. This Government came into office committed to reducing taxation. Litigants do not want to litigate; they are driven to it by life's various misfortunes or they are brought into court by somebody else. But they are the very ones whose tax is to be increased; they have no choice in the matter. The private litigant who is not in receipt of legal aid is the worst hit; unlike an insurance company or other corporate litigant he cannot set his court fees against tax. The clause may be technical in character, but its underlying purpose is malevolent and I regret to say that I have to deplore it.
My Lords, those of you who have been patient enough to listen to me might have got the impression that I was displaying a cavalier indifference to the wholly laudable objective of saving public funds. That is not true. I believe our litigation processes, civil and criminal, do consume an alarmingly high amount of public money, and, worse still, squander real resources. And I believe there is an unanswerable case for taking action to reduce the waste. But this Bill has been cobbled together in the hope, probably vain, that it will cut down the costs of legal aid. But it treats symptoms, not causes. It is based upon a wholly

843
misconceived theory of the cause of the problem. And for that reason it is, in the first place, extremely unlikely to effect a cure, and, in the second place, extremely likely to produce some rather nasty side effects.
The cause of this problem of over-expenditure on the system of justice is not, as the Government seem to think, that lawyers are charging excessive fees or that they are abusing the system. The real cause is that the whole system of justice in Scotland, and I suspect in England as well, is inefficient and its productivity is abysmally poor; We need to study the system, to identify the bottlenecks and the places where it creaks. We need to study the areas in which the system manufactures frustrations, delay and waste. I am not calling for a Royal Commission or a Committee of Inquiry, because I just do not believe that they are capable of doing this kind of job. What we need in Scotland is an Institute of Judicial Administration, staffed, like the Scottish Law Commission, by experts who can on the basis of sound research assess what changes can be made to improve court productivity and to reduce waste. Until the Government create a Department of Legal Affairs, as recommended by the Royal Commission, the Government should sponsor and finance an Institute of Judicial Administration, possibly within the university system, as at Birmingham. The Government would finance it, but in truth I believe it would soon pay for itself many times over.
Let me give your Lordships a few examples of the sort of simple changes that might be studied—and I am sure there are hundreds more. I believe that we could make much more widespread use of the "routine evidence" technique now to be found in Section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; we could allow either party in a cause, criminal or civil, to offer to prove any fact by means of a signed certificate. It is done in a good many cases at present and it could be done in a good many more. By that means he can dispense with having to bring the witness to court if the matter is not in dispute. Of course, if the matter is disputed, the witnesses have to be brought to court.
That could tie in with improvements in Crown Office practice. I hope I speak with some authority here, because I spent some 12 years working in that unique, and I believe very fine, institution. Following upon the oral Question I asked today, I believe that the Crown should be much readier to disclose the Crown precognition in jury trials. I acknowledge that there are problems that would justify something less than complete disclosure, but there is room for the Crown to do much more than it has done traditionally. I am sure that the profession would respond in two ways: first, by spending less money on obtaining statements from witnesses, and secondly, by being more ready and able to enter into formal agreements to allow the cancellation of witnesses who would otherwise have to come to court.
In a study reported in Monday's Scotsman it is disclosed that three-quarters of the police cited to attend court in Scotland were not even called into the witness box. They were cited from their beds, from holiday, they were cited from duty. There are several
844
causes for that scandalous state of affairs, which in the whole of Scotland might cost £4 million or £5 million per year. I am sure that an Institute of Judicial Administration could soon identify those causes and suggest remedies. I have suggested one.
In addition, however, the Crown Office could exercise much tighter control over the Crown's own indictments and complaints, so as to avoid what is known as "overcharging". Many people, not least these policemen, are aggrieved and angered when the accused, having maintained a blank denial of the charge, pleads guilty on the morning of the trial and nobody is called into court to give evidence. I have every sympathy with their anger. But too often these critics jump to the wholly unjustified conclusion that the fault lies with the defence. No doubt it does on many occasions. But on a great many occasions the responsibility rests with the prosecutor, who has brought five charges when he is really only looking for two convictions. When that is made clear to the defence on the morning of the trial, a plea is negotiated and everybody goes home happy, except of course for the disgruntled witnesses whose time has been wasted.
Lest the House should think that my evidence on the matter is purely anecdotal, may I refer to a Written Answer that I obtained from the Lord Advocate on 25th November 1982, in the Official Report at cols. 1053/4. That discloses that in the most serious, and I hope the best prepared, cases of all—murder cases—the Crown in the first 10 months of 1982 charged 93 persons with murder of whom only 36 were convicted of murder. The Crown accepted reduced pleas, including 8 pleas of not guilty, from no fewer than 22; and 34 were acquitted.
I am not criticising the Lord Advocate or the Crown Office for this state of affairs. Certainly not. Indeed, my own researches into the mid-1960s disclose that this degree of overcharging is by no means new. But its antiquity does not give it sanctity. It is a problem that we simply cannot afford to continue to ignore. If there is a degree of overcharging in the highest court of all, we can be sure that it is rife in the lower courts.
Finally, let me mention the courts themselves. The whole issue of court productivity and court efficiency needs careful study by experts dedicated to the elimination of waste. They need to study the distribution of business, the timetabling of cases, the great problems and expense caused by delays occasioned by the courts having to deal with urgent interlocutory business before starting on the main business of the day. The problems of witnesses and jurors are obvious. But the expense to the legal aid fund is very large indeed. Lawyers who have to waste their time sitting around the courts waiting for their cases to be called are paid a compensatory fee known as "waiting time". I ask, and I hope I have given the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate ample notice privately of this question, approximately how much money does the legal aid fund spend to compensate practitioners for waiting to have their case called or to have their clients judicially examined?
We are also anxious to know if the Government are prepared to allow any amendment to this Bill, if good reason for amendment is shown, or are they so determined to have this Bill on the statute book by Easter that they will oppose any amendment so as to

845
prevent the Bill from going back to another place? I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can deal with that.
I conclude by saying that I make no secret of my distaste for this Bill. My distaste springs from my apprehension that its motivation is wrong-headed and that in Parts II and III we are being asked to confer powers on the Secretary of State without his telling us with any frankness how he intends to use them. The Bill does little good for the litigant and nothing for the law. I regret it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I have listened with great interest, as one is always compelled to do, to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said about this Bill. He is very persuasive about it, and there is little in his sweeping review of the state of the Scots law with which one could disagree. But he is quite wrong about this Bill. If we were to wait for this grand review before doing anything about legal aid, criminal legal aid and the jurisdiction of the sheriff courts in divorces, then we would all be dead, if my experience is anything to go by, before anything was achieved.
For my part—a mere former tumbler rather than a Pavlova or a Nijinsky—I greatly welcome this little Bill and I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is quite wrong in his approach. As I understand the purpose of this Bill, it is to reduce the delay and expense which going to law too often involves for people. When the National Health Service was developing someone wrote a book for doctors entitled, Patients are People. During the years in which I have been involved in my humble tumbling, I often wished that someone would also write a book entitled, Courts are for People.
As I have said, this Bill, as I understand it, has as its principal objective to reduce, if it can, the delays and expenses which going to law too often involves. I should have thought that that was a worthy objective; an objective which any lawyer, young or old, ought to do everything he can to seek to achieve. Indeed, he should be dedicated to these aims; and I was a little doubtful about the dedication of the noble and learned Lord to these objectives. Without pausing to explore the question whether the legal profession is sufficiently dedicated to these ends, I have no doubt at all that the public who have to go to court, and the taxpayers, will find a little bit of joy from, not, of course, an impressive sweeping reform, but an improvement in the state of affairs in the real world in which they live and which they find when they go to court, whether as a litigant, a juror, a criminal in the dock or whatever. They will find some little satisfaction in the fact that at last the Government are doing something about two problems which Governments, including the Governments of which both the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and myself were members, have for too long neglected.
Apart from that, I do not imagine that this Bill will excite a great deal of interest among any except those informed on the history and development of the Scottish legal system. However, I think that, in fact, this giving of jurisdiction to the sheriff courts in divorce actions is a small move, perhaps not frightfully
846
important or memorable but not unimportant, in the right direction. It means that for practical purposes the sheriff courts now have almost complete jurisdiction, concurrent with that of the sheriff courts in practically all civil litigation. I should have thought that was a good thing; and there are many, of whom I am one, who think that the only argument is whether or not it ought to have been done 20 years ago, because, although we must have vision, if we have too much vision and too little appreciation of the realities nothing ever gets done. That, at least, is a lesson that I learned. In my case I spent many years trying to contribute to the reform of the sheriff courts. I was not as successful as I wish I had been, but I did my humble best.
I do not want to rake over ashes of the past—that is never a profitable thing to do, here or anywhere else—but I cannot refrain from observing that the resistance to this measure which has come from some corners of the Edinburgh legal establishment is something which I regard as being worthy of a better cause. My whole experience of working in this field has led me to the conclusion that the legal profession's capacity to quarrel with proposals for change makes the approach of some of our more conservative trade union leaders look like dangerous radicalism.
This concurrent jurisdiction set-up—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was right about this—is not a rational or logical thing. It does not follow that because of that it is necessarily right for change, or that it is a bad division of jurisdiction. I agree entirely that it is something the Government ought to be looking at. I hope that they will look at it and, when they are ready, come forward with their proposals.
There have been some in the profession who have questioned the prudence of this little Bill and the effects which the Government claim will flow from it. All the Members of the other place received representations from the profession. That was perfectly proper, and I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong or sinister in that. It may be that some of your Lordships received them. They did not send any to me, perhaps because with my views on these matters they felt they could not change my mind. But I am always ready to change my mind about anything. Only the dinosaurs could not change, and we all know what happened to them.
I am not going to try to answer the detailed representations which have been made against these provisions, and to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has replied, because I think that the simple fact, and the simple answer to these representations, is that if the sheriff courts cannot do this job at significantly greater speed and at less cost than the Court of Session then the Government must take a quick hard look at the organisation and administration of the sheriff courts, where the speedy and efficient disposal of business is their statutory responsibility. One only needs to explore the practicalities of the situation in the sheriff courts as against the Court of Session to appreciate that the point I make is at least a statable one, even if your Lordships do not accept it.
Part II of the Bill aims at bringing the cost of legal aid under more effective control. It seemed to me that

847
the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was blowing a bit hot and cold about this. At one moment he seemed to be saying that the Government were too concerned with saving money and at another moment he was saying that he quite appreciated that it was a good thing to do. But the need for this control has been notorious for years; we all know that. I have heard a good deal of criticism of the civil side of the business, but I should not like to pass judgment on that because I am not sufficiently well informed. But off and on I have had a pretty close look at the way in which the criminal legal aid system, introduced in the dying days of the Government in October 1964, has worked. I find it very disturbing indeed that Governments in the past have not grasped the nettle.
The scheme was introduced before the general election of October 1964. My impression is that no one in that Government took a close look at the matter. I do not blame them because they were probably all at the hustings or perhaps elsewhere. Initially—and here I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—the fees were fixed far too high. I thought that it was rather like what happened with the dentists. Those of your Lordships of my age will remember what happened to them when the National Health Service was introduced. The fees were fixed too high and there was a great bicker before the matter was put right.
Something similar happened in October 1964. Certainly from my examination of the matter—of course I may be wrong, but this is a considered judgment—had the fees been more carefully considered then, and had the need for safeguards against abuse been appreciated and such safeguards been built into the scheme, we could have had just as good a scheme as we have had but for about half the cost. To put the matter another way, over the past 18 years we have paid about twice as much as we need have paid. When I first came to look at the situation between 1965 and 1967 it cost £250,000. Today the cost is £11½ million and that cannot be explained either by inflation or by the increase in crime.
The Labour Government of 1966 to 1970 took a pretty close look at the situation and it was argued and discussed. Of course at that time we had become concerned because we discovered that we were beginning to pay to those who were employed in defending a mere proportion of criminals, more than we were paying those whom we employed to prosecute all criminals. That point was taken up with the Treasury and there was the usual type of discussion, argument and difference of view that one gets within Government. The best that those who wanted change got out of it was an amendment. I am going to sit down shortly because I think that the amendment illustrates graphically, and, to me at the time—and still—rather horrifyingly, the attitude of a small part of the legal profession towards criminal legal aid.
There was a provision in the regulations which allowed extra payment to those who were involved in cases of special difficulty, duration or complexity. The decision as to whether a case fitted into one of these categories and therefore justified the increase in fees, lay with the Law Society of Scotland. I must say that this always seemed to me an absurdity; it was as if we
848
gave the trade union leaders the right to decide the hire to which the labourer would be entitled. So we changed it to give it to the courts. Who better than the judges to say whether a case fitted into that special category and deserved additional payment? We made that change but what a struggle it was to get that change. At the time the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was a colleague of mine. I do not know whether he remembers the details, but he obviously draws different conclusions from the experience from those that I do.
What did this sensible change do? The Glasgov, solicitors practising in the criminal courts went on strike. I thought that they were a disgrace to their profession and I still do. There were many in the Scottish Office who, for one reason and another, wanted to settle that strike. The arguments were put from the other point of view very forcefully. This took place in about 1967 or 1968. The certainty that the strike would be broken was assured when one of the striking solicitors said to the press, "You know, this is costing me £20,000 a year". That was a great deal of money in those days.
In so far as this Bill tries to bring that type of attitude under control, it is a good thing and so I welcome it. Indeed, we on these Benches welcome it. I wish it success. There will need to be a careful monitoring of the working of the provisions and I hope that full and friendly consultation will take place with the legal profession. But on the whole it will make things better, and not before time.
4.38 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, when we were taking the Divorce Bill through this House in 1976 a certain amount of pressure was then exercised to extend the jurisdiction of the sheriff courts to include divorce. I resisted that, and it was resisted very diliberately because the breakdown of marriage was an entirely new basis and it seemed to me that it was a matter which, frankly, needed to be decided, in the first place at all events, at the highest level. I felt that if it were put in the sheriff court—and I have no criticism of it—it would be wrong for it to go there for the initial period.
Seven or eight years have passed and I imagine—although I do not know this—that the new Act has operated fairly well. I regard it, for that reason, as quite inevitable that this matter should pass to the jurisdiction of the sheriff courts. But I do not think that we should underestimate the very considerable economic consequences. There are about 12,000 divorce cases going through the courts of Scotland every year. This could mean a transfer of activity from one category of the legal profession to another category, with considerable economic consequences. We are taking these cases away from the Court of Session which has developed great skill in dealing with them, and giving them to another set of courts who, with great respect, have no experience at all. It is important that this changeover should be smooth, not only to the court but, of course, to its clients. This is being spread among 40 sheriff courts around the country and will produce three new sheriffs. I am surprised to hear my noble and learned friend say that no further accommodation will be required. I dare say that he is right, but I am surprised.

849
What worries me mostly is delay. I know absolutely nothing about the current sheriff courts, but from everything I have heard, it seems that today it takes an enormously long time for a case to be heard in a sheriff court. I do not know whether that is wholly true, but one hears stories of delays of a very considerable character, and this puts a considerable additional load on the courts. My noble and learned friend is quite aware of that. He told us that many traffic cases would be taken away from the courts, which would be a relief, and I dare say that that is true. But I am concerned about delay and I would not be wholly surprised if people continue to go to the Courts of Session because it is quicker.
I am not very impressed with the financial arguments. I do not think that anyone will know the answer to that. Almost every case in divorce varies; there is an infinite variety of cases. I think that it is very difficult to make a comparison. My noble and learned friend said that there can be "no unchallengeable exactitude", a statement which I am sure is absolutely true.
I am concerned about this. The Court of Session is the oldest institution in Scotland and one of the most important. It deals not only with the administration of justice, but with a great deal of administration concerning various aspects of the life of the country, and that is of great value to the Scottish Office. It is available to assist the Scottish Office. It is extremely important that the Court of Session should not only be healthy and strong, but that it should attract men of the highest ability to work there and to make their profession there. That is the point about which I am slightly concerned, which I believe is of first importance. This institution stands for a long history of Scottish development which should not be lightly discarded.
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend this question: What is he doing about records? Up to now the records have, of course, all been centralised. They are now to be spread around 40 sheriff courts. It is very important to have the records. They should be reasonably accessible to members of the public, to see what is there. There is nothing in the Bill about this and I do not know what that will mean; but it is important that we should know where those records are and how they are being maintained.
I turn now to Clause 2. I think it is a serious matter to change a fundamental rule of evidence in Scotland, without the authority of anyone outside the Lord Advocate's Office or the Scottish Office. I do not know on what basis this is done. I do not quite know how it will work out. My noble and learned friend mentioned classes of one kind or another which could be used. I do not know what he will say about this, but perhaps I could ask this question. I do not know what is happening in the courts today, but I am told that one can get a divorce by affidavit. I take it that one comes to the court with one affidavit stating "I saw" or "I know that these parties have lived apart for two years", or whatever it may be, and one simply puts the affidavit in. It asks a great deal that someone can put that on a piece of paper without being cross-examined. I know that there is no defence, but is it not coming rather near to divorce by consent? I do not know how this works and I may have completely misunderstood
850
it. However, what is the basis on which these affidavits will be given?
I shall not say anything about legal aid because I really know very little about it. But will the running rate established by the Scottish Office be the normal rate of counsel or solicitors in their work outside legal aid? Will that be the basis? If that is not to be the basis, what will it be? Will it be that for as long as the Secretary of State thinks it should be that? I think that the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made about getting second-class legal services for legal aid raises an extremely dangerous prospect. This may very well occur, and here we could get into the realm of speculators. We ought to have a statement on this: will they pay the running rate or will they not?
I do not know very much about court fees, but they have risen a very great deal and I wonder whether my noble and learned friend has it in mind to raise them still further. Justice should be quick and, so far as possible, it should be cheap. But court fees are going in the opposite direction and will make the administration of justice more expensive. I hope that my noble and learned friend can tell us a little more about Clauses 2, 3 and 4 in particular. I regard Clause 1 as an inevitable step, but if he can tell us more I should be very grateful.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I almost feel an intruder in this debate, and had it not been for the fact that I had the privilege and the pleasure of chairing the Royal Commission, I should not, in fact, have ventured in. For instance, I noticed that my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey stated with total truth that he was able to conceal his enthusiasm for this Bill. After we leave the part relating to divorce—and my remarks will be confined to that—I neither feel it necessary to agree nor to disagree with anything that he said, because I do not feel any competence whatever in the matter. However, I do not find myself in agreement with the rather lukewarm welcome, if welcome is in any way an appropriate word to use, for the first part of the Bill.
When the Royal Commission examined these matters, one of the things which was most obvious to us as requiring our consideration was the matter of divorce. It had been raised over many years that having to go to the Court of Session was a source of needless expense. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the savings which could accrue. He went on to say that, of course, that was not the only reason involved. I want to emphasise that when the Royal Commission looked at the matter the fact that there would be substantial savings in altered procedure so far as the commission was concerned was a bonus.
Their prime concern in looking at the matter was how to find a better service for those who needed to go to the courts; and while, in the examination of the matter, we were well aware of the fact that this would cause a diminution of income to junior advocates, because in the main the undefended divorces are handled by the junior members of the Bar, and while it would cause a certain loss of income to Edinburgh solicitors, we took the view that the law should not be

851
designed to provide an income to lawyers, but should be designed to provide a service for those who needed the law. If, in the course of improving the law, some lawyers receive less income, that ought not to be a deterrent to making the change.
I would point out that in our recommendations on divorce, of the 15 members of the Royal Commission only two entered notes of dissent to our proposals. One of these was an advocate and the other was an Edinburgh solicitor. However, I would point out that I have no reason to believe that either of them had any personal axe to grind in the matter. Certainly that is so of the advocate, because it is a long time since he was a junior advocate.
Therefore, we were made well aware of the financial effects, both to the legal profession and to the person who was going to court. I do not think that my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey is right in accusing the Government of being animated only on this matter—I say nothing about the other parts of the Bill—by a desire to save money. One of our recommendations was that in undefended divorce cases we should follow the English practice and only allow advice and assistance. Given that this would reduce the cost to the legal aid fund of an udefended divorce from something over £300 to something like £50, and when I learn that it is only within the last three months that the Government have acted on that part of our recommendation to make arrangements for the limiting of the expense, they certainly cannot be accused of undue haste in seeking to save money there.
The figures which were available to us were that divorce was taking three-quarters of all the money that was spent on civil legal aid in Scotland, and amounted to almost £3 million. The scope for saving has been taken by the Government, but in my view taken rather belatedly indeed. The savings by transfer from the Court of Session to the sheriff court in what remains obviously is by far a smaller part of the saving to the legal aid fund than what has already been done within these last few months.
I regret that the Bill does not follow what we said in two aspects. On giving sole jurisdiction in the first instance to the sheriff court. I should like to quote in part the reasons why we felt that a concurrent jurisdiction was not desirable. On page 155 of the report we said:
"We do not, therefore, recommend concurrent jurisdiction in respect of divorce actions. There are, in our view, a number of strong arguments against concurrent jurisdiction. In the first place, it does not ensure that any case will necessarily find the appropriate level of court. Where there is concurrent jurisdiction the selection of the court rests with the pursuer, which probably in practice means with his or her solicitor. No reason requires to be given for the selection, and we do not think it is necessarily made on an objective assessment as to which court is most appropriate. Moreover, it gives an option to the pursuer which is denied to the defender. This seems to us wrong in principle. It would enable a pursuer to select the Court of Session with a view to threatening expense or inconvenience to the defender, thereby inducing him or her not to defend."
That is only one of the considerations we had in mind. But having regard to all the evidence that we had we came to the conclusion that it would be better that a sheriff court should be the court of first instance. In that matter we were following a trend because
852
recently there has been less inclination to give concurrent jurisdiction, although in the great bulk of civil matters there is concurrence between the Court of Session and the sheriff court.
The other aspect on which I would speak on that matter is on the subject of corroboration. I do not think I can agree entirely with what my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey has said. When I looked at what was before us on this subject of corroboration I noticed that part of what was said was that in civil actions in Scotland, where no defence is being lodged, corroboration is not necessary. It therefore seems to be quite a simple step to transfer that principle to this other type of civil action of divorce. It is not in fact widening the field in which the corroboration is not required but applying it to one other part of the civil scene.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a number of questions about how the divorce procedure is going to work. He mentioned the making of rules in due course. Of our recommendations on divorce five were concerned with looking after the interests of children. We had the benefit among our membership of one of the senators of the College of Justice in Scotland, Lord Maxwell. He had had much experience in dealing with divorce actions. One of the things to which he particularly directed our attention was that in one of the Childrens Acts—and I am sorry but I do not now remember which one it was—an obligation was placed on judges in these matters to have particular regard to the interests of children. But Lord Maxwell pointed out to us that it was almost impossible for a judge to do much about this because there is no machinery at his disposal to get the information on which he could make a proper judgment. We therefore have a number of suggestions in the report about things which could be done, and should be done, in the interests of children. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate if any of these recommendations will be followed up in the rules which are going to be made.
Finally on this matter of divorce, we attached considerable importance to privacy. We made three recommendations in that connection. Will the rules which are going to be made make provision of this kind? One of the arguments which was advanced against having divorce actions in the sheriff court was that the great majority of cases which were taken to the Court of Session were being taken away from where people live, and it was argued that is was a good thing not to have the dirty linen washed in public. We accepted that argument, although one point which was raised was that there appeared to be no special arrangements for Edinburgh's dirty linen to be washed other than in public in these matters. We arrived at the conclusion that it would be desirable, in undefended divorces certainly, that the proceedings should be in private, although the necessary arrangements should be made for reporting in the law journals for cases which might be of particular interest to the legal profession.
I welcome the fact that the Government are taking this step. My noble and learned friend referred to the fact that the Royal Commission had made 222 recommendations. I am tempted to enter into the debate on that but this is neither the time nor place to

853
do it. I am happy to say that of the 222 recommendations only 13 were the subject of notes of dissent and none of the lay members of the commission signed any of these notes of dissent. Five of the 15 notes were by one Edinburgh solicitor, two by one advocate, and the other eight were by a combination of the various legal members of the commission. We managed to unite in our recommendations what we believe to be very much the views of lay people in Scotland, and particularly those organisations which had an interest in the matter. I commend the first part of the Bill, and beg leave to be neutral on the remainder.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I just ask him whether he could comment on one matter? He reminded us that the argument which he and his colleagues on the Royal Commission regarded as the most convincing was the better service argument. You would get better service by taking divorces to the sheriff court. But of course in those days, he will recall, the pursuer and his witnesses had to attend the Court of Session and give their evidence in court. Now that that system has been replaced with a system whereby the affidavits of the evidence are simply posted into the Court of Session, does he think that the better service argument has not perhaps lost some of its force?
Lord Hughes: I think it is correct to say that it has lost some if its force, my Lords. But if I were now talking as if the Royal Commission was still sitting, I would say that it still remains a sound principle that a whole loaf is better than half a loaf.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I gather that the weight of opinion among those who have contributed to the debate is in favour of Clause I of the Bill, and for that I am grateful. In relation to the last question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, asked of his noble friend Lord Hughes, the affidavit procedure was operating in the Court of Session at the time the Royal Commission was sitting, so I think the question was not well based in fact. The Cowie procedure makes some difference, but so far, at any rate, the Cowie procedure is restricted in scope; and the cases in which service, in the sense in which Lord Hughes referred to it, would be important, would be the other cases. In our view, the reasoning which led the Royal Commission to think it was right that the sheriff courts should have jurisdiction in actions of divorce is sound reasoning, and that is the basic principle on which this part of the Bill rests.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was inclined to doubt whether the Lord Advocate was capable of thinking up the Bill on his own. I can assure him that Part I of the Bill is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate, as having responsibility for the jurisdiction of the civil courts in Scotland and having responsibility in relation to the law of evidence. So far as the corroboration matter is concerned, my noble friend Lord Selkirk was somewhat concerned about that, and I, too, am concerned about it. That is why we have adopted a fairly cautious approach to the matter and would apply the relaxation to the areas in which it would seem appropriate; to start with, the same area which is appropriate for the Cowie type of divorce.
854
I come to the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on our approach. He called this piecemeal and said we should wait until there was a tremendous reform of court jurisdiction in Scotland. I fear, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, that we might have to wait some considerable time before we should get an agreed solution to that problem. Nor do I think it right to leave out of account the fact that during this Government's term of office there has been some work done in this area. In particular, the power of remit from the sheriff court to the Court of Session in cases which appear suitable to the Court of Session exists generally, and that, in my view, is a valuable step forward in an area which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned, was one generally of concurrence. The purpose of the Bill on that aspect of the matter is not primarily to save money. It will certainly save money, we believe, but in our view it will give a better service to the people of Scotland who happen to become involved in this area of the law.
I come to the question of delays, which is a point raised by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I understand that in consistorial cases in the Court of Session the present position is that proofs allowed in January are being assigned diets in June and July—that is, where there is oral proof—and, likewise, in ordinary actions they are currently being assigned in June and July for cases which appeared in the proof roll in October. In the sheriff courts the maximum delay period between pleading and trial diet in criminal cases is currently 20 weeks, although in some courts it is much shorter than that. In civil cases the maximum delay prior to a proof is also, I understand, about 20 weeks, although in Edinburgh for instance, it is only nine weeks and, in Glasgow, 12 weeks. I hope it is reasonable to believe that the sheriff courts can accommodate this work, particularly having regard to the reliefs from other work to which I referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned as I sat down the question of conciliation, so I thought it might be right to add that a conciliation project is shortly to be established in Edinburgh, with some Government funding, to see whether conciliation can be built into the procedure, although it will depend for its success on it being of a voluntary character.
The purpose of Clause 3, as I sought to explain, is to put the responsibility where the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, recognised that it constitutionally properly belongs for regulating legal aid fees—with the Secretary of State for Scotland. He mentioned a number of areas of the law which required improvement, and I agree entirely that it is highly desirable to achieve improvements in those areas; but I do not believe that the creation of an institute of judicial administration would achieve those aims. These problems have been looked at by many bodies, and I believe it is in practical ways, by practical steps taken by people who know something about the business as practitioners, that improvements will arise.
That is one of the reasons why I took the initiative, referred to in answer to an earlier oral Question, of asking the fiscals to be prepared to meet the defence a good while before the trial starts so that the position can be resolved at a much earlier stage, thus avoiding

855
the necessity of witnesses turning up and not being required because of people pleading guilty at the last minute, and so on. I can therefore assure your Lordships that these matters are very much under our consideration and that we are doing all we possibly can to eliminate these difficulties.
I was asked what proportion of the legal aid fund is devoted to solicitors' waiting time. I do not think it is possible to give a figure for that—the accounts are not easily broken down in that way—but I should certainly like to see that amount reduced to an absolute minimum; as I said, the manner of achieving that is, in my view, by seeking to get practical improvements in the working of the courts.
The purpose of Clause 4 is to put the responsibility for fixing fees where it should be constitutionally. To achieve the level set out in the command paper to which I referred, real increases of about 5 per cent. per annum over the next three years are required, and this matter is presently the subject of review. That is the best information I can give at the moment.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I had in mind, when I made my observations on the subject, the debate which took place on 21st December 1982 in the First Scottish Standing Committee, where the subject was dealt with at columns 168 and 169–70. It is extremely difficult for me and others I have consulted to work the proposal out. It was suggested there that the ultimate policy was to recover the full cost of civil court services, excluding certain expenditure on judicial salaries and the like. I am not asking the Lord Advocate to deal in detail with that now, but I hope that in Committee we shall find some way, perhaps on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, to clarify the intention of the Government in that regard.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am happy to seek to answer any matters the noble and learned Lord puts at whatever time is convenient to him, my Lords. I have tried to set out the principles as referred to in the command paper, and the practical result of applying those principles. Obviously we can discuss the matter further in due course if he so wishes.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, concluded his remarks by asking whether the Government would accept any amendments to the Bill. The answer is that the Government will carefully consider the merits of any amendment which is proposed, and will take an attitude in the light of that. This is a difficult area, and I am the first to acknowledge that. We certainly do not come to this sort of work with a closed mind, and anyone who has suggestions for improving the Bill, certainly so far as we are concerned, will be listened to carefully, and a judgment will be come to in the light of the facts. I hope your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him this? I mentioned the subject of records. I wonder whether he can give me any information on that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I had that question in mind, but I
856
forgot it at the right time. The situation is that the Registrar-General keeps records, and intimation is made to him. It is expected that the divorce records of the sheriff courts will also be kept centrally.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate answered the questions that I put to him in relation to the rules. Can he do that now, or would he prefer to write to me on the matter?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the situation is that it is for the sheriff courts' rules council to make the rules. I cannot usurp their function or forecast what they will do, but I feel sure that the matters to which the noble Lord referred will be very much before them, particularly those concerned with the interests of children and the desirability of children being protected against any damage which may result to them from the court procedure, and any question of privacy which is concerned in that.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. In case it does not occur to them to look at these matters, is there any particular way in which their attention can be directed to the desirability of doing so? Can the noble and learned Lord do that, or can anyone else do it?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I feel sure that the sheriff courts' rules council will have the proceedings of your Lordships' House on this Bill before them when they are considering these matters. To make sure, perhaps I should undertake to draw their attention to the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Water Bill
5.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution and procedure of water authorities]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("two") and insert ("not less than two nor more than three").
The noble Lord said: At this stage and on this particular amendment, I am looking for helpful answers from my noble friend rather than attempting

857
to divide the Committee. Under existing legislation, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may appoint two to four members of the board of a water authority, depending on the size of the particular authority. This represents between 18 per cent. and 28 per cent. and only in one case, that of Thames, is the percentage less than 20 per cent. Thames water is rather different from others, in that it flows through the greatest concentration of population, and I would accept as a farmer our obligations to that population and so concede less representation on that particular authority.
For reasons which I hope my noble friend will explain, under this Bill only two members may be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which would mean that the agricultural representation on a 9-member board would be around 22 per cent.—similar to but perhaps on the whole less than under existing legislation—whereas on a 15-member board the representation would drop to around 15 per cent. I ask my noble friend why so? Are the Government saying that the relationship between agriculture and water has suddenly altered? I was not aware of it. It seemed to rain last year just as much as it did before and it was dry just as much as it was before and we need our drainage just as much as before. Perhaps my noble friend has some awesome talent to direct the water on to the towns when we do not want it and then back to us when we do. Perhaps when he replies he will be able to give me the reasons for this apparent disregard of agriculture's vital role in water management.
My amendment would correct this injustice by giving the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food power to appoint two or three members to a water board. It would not be necessary for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take up this option. He probably would not do so, for instance, on a 9–member board; and, in any case, he would do it in consultation with the Secretary of State. As my noble friend knows, this cut in the appointments by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be even more extreme than I pointed out in authorities like Severn-Trent and Anglia where the number representing agriculture will be dropped to one from three members.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is in the Chamber at the moment, perhaps I could say one thing with regard to his Second Reading speech. In that, he accused me of being a pillar of the Tory party—which I hope I am; although I do not know that my noble friend on the Front Bench would always agree—but, in particular, he accused the National Farmers' Union of being the right arm of the Conservative Party. I must make it quite clear to the noble Lord and to the Committee that the National Farmers' Union represents farmers regardless of their party. I am sure that the party opposite would agree if the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, were there that we work as well with the Socialist Party as with the Conservative Party. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain the reasons why the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is being given the power to appoint members to water authorities and why we decided that
858
there should be two such members. The answer is quite simple—the water authorities are responsible for exercising two functions for which my right honourable friend the Minister has a statutory responsibility—namely, land drainage and fisheries. Indeed, Section 1(3) of the Water Act 1973 places upon the Minister a statutory obligation,
"to secure the effective execution",
of his policies on land drainage and fisheries. In our view—and I emphasise that this is a Government view—that obligation can best be met at the management level in the water industry by appointing to each authority one member who has knowledge or experience of each of these matters.
Given the proposed size of the membership of the authorities, that is a fair representation. To increase it, would be to give those interests a disproportionate share of the available seats. I would also point out that there are four water authorities—Northumbrian, South West, Southern and Wessex—which already operate on the basis of two MAFF members. Of these, Southern and Wessex are both relatively important in terms of land drainage and all of them are regions with strong agricultural and fisheries interests. These authorities have operated very successfully on this basis, and we see no reason why the others should not do so in the future. On the other hand, it would be virtually impossible to find one person for each authority who is knowledgeable on both land drainage and fisheries. I have no doubt that a large number of farmers are also fishermen, but we are looking for a greater degree of expertise than that in making the appointments.
The fact that the catchment areas of water authorities comprise mainly farmland does not, in our view, constitute a good reason why farmers should be more heavily represented on the authorities. I would not be easy to maintain a strict mathematical proportion in numbers of members appointed from agriculture, land drainage and fisheries on boards which vary in size between nine and 15 members, and the Bill does not seek to do so. We have sought to preserve the principle that this representation should continue virtually unchanged, bearing in mind the reduced size of the boards. With nine to 15 members overall, agriculture is, I respectfully suggest, very well represented with two. I would remind the Committee that this matter was extensively debated in the other place at Committee stage, and also voted upon there. I have listened—as I always hope that I do—to what my noble friend says. He has far greater expertise and knowledge on these matters than I have. In trying to retain a balance, this seems to me to be right—not least bearing in mind the fact that the same two members will come from these very much reduced numbers on the boards.
Lord Sandys: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Although, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin has reminded the Committee, it was discussed in detail in Standing Committee B, there are a number of matters over which your Lordships may cast an eye in some greater detail. One of the principal items of course is the consequence of the disbanding of the National Water Council. But at the same time there is the continuing need for wider

859
consultation as a result and therefore the enhanced role of the chairman.
The second argument on which my noble friend Lord Bellwin cast doubt was the land drainage consideration. He did not feel that the river basin automatically gave agriculture a further degree of representation. But the whole aim of legislation over the past 10 years is to bring water authorities into the management of the whole river catchment area. For that reason I think that there is some advantage in looking at the role of agriculture in this particular field.
The question of numbers has been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in some detail. He mentioned Severn-Trent which at the present moment—as he rightly said—have four members. Anglian have four members and Southern have two. This amendment proposes that there should be either two or three, and this degree of manoeuvrability would be a very great advantage to both the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture because it is the management and the making of these appointments which is going to be so important in the future. This is not a single act of appointment, this is maintaining appointments over a considerable period—the life, presumably, of the Act of Parliament.
One can foresee circumstances very easily—and it is not necessary to go into those now—in which that opportunity of appointing either two or three members would be very useful, knowing circumstances which arise in making appointments. With that in mind, surely there could be no objection to writing this into the Bill as a degree of latitude. The fourth point concerns the major difficulty of getting the balance right and keeping it right. I have alluded to that.
The fifth point is the admitted conflict which there is in the statutory roles of the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will know that considerable doubt was cast in this direction (and this can be seen at column 72 of Standing Committee B) where this has been admitted by Ministers, and his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Shaw, said so at that point. There are arguments for considering this amendment and I wonder whether my noble friend would be willing to give this matter some further consideration.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend clear up one or two points on agricultural representation on water boards? As the Committee knows, I am a farmer and so I must declare an interest here. It seems sensible for the Minister of Agriculture to have this power to appoint. Does he agree that it is possible to argue that if one Minister of the Crown has power to appoint certain people to the board because of sectional interests, that will open the floodgates to everybody else?
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Lord a question about this matter? It seems to me, listening to what he said, that the Government's case was that the two representatives which the Bill will allow are there simply to put a point of view. One is there to put the agriculture/land drainage point of view; the other is there to put the fisheries point of view, although that is
860
not clear from the face of the Bill as I read it. That is what I took the noble Lord to be saying. That seems to me to contradict what he opened his speech with, which was the remark that these people, all of them on the water authority, are there to manage the responsibilities of the water authority.
If that is the case and if these two representatives which the Minister of Agriculture appoints are there to be responsible in particular for the management of land drainage and fisheries, then if the water authority doubles in size there is a reasonable case to be made for saying that the number of representatives with a particular interest in that part of the authority's management should also increase. I wonder whether the noble Lord can clear up my confusion between what he sees the roles of these people on the authority to be. He seemed to me to be saying two things at once.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: May I say a word to support my noble friend Lord Onslow? One of the difficulties, especially with a very small board like this, is to try to get the right balance in so far as anybody represents anything. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, makes a good point here: these people are there to manage the whole bag of tricks, not just to represent one particular interest. If an additional member of a board is to be brought in to represent agriculture or fisheries, then the case for all the other people—local government, industry, recreation, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all—is made out. No doubt before my noble friend Lord Bellwin has finished he will hear a lot about all this. He will have to enlarge his boards by about 10 times!
The fact is that a representative of each interest is what is needed because they are specialists. Not only that, but they have a function to perform then because they form their own committees for land drainage and fisheries in their respective regions. They also form them at national level, and this enables them to function in taking care in a national way of these very important matters. In concession to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley may I say that one extra member is not—except as a point of honour—going to be much practical help. Heaven knows which one would attribute it to: whether it would be agriculture or fisheries. It would be a tug of war. The member would have to be cut in half. It is quite good to get one representative of each function on such a small board. I think that my noble friends ought to be content with that.
Lord Ardwick: I wonder whether the noble Lord could give a picture of a board as he visualises it. It would have one or two agriculturists, perhaps one or two executives from the water industry and a couple of people from local government. It would help me at a later stage of the discussion if we could have some kind of an idea of the rest—the other five or six members.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I find that my noble friends are answering for me better than I can do. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, puts the matter into context. What kind of people will there be on the boards? As my noble friend Lord Nugent rightly said, the record shows that there should be executives from

861
the authority—whether one or two members, I do not know. We do not want to say how many. It will depend on what they can contribute. We are absolutely committed to there being between two and four local authority members. Here we are talking of two representing MAFF. I would have thought, with my noble friend Lord Nugent, that in fact that was a pretty fair representation out of this small number.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asks: in what capacity will they be there? I would say they will be there in the capacity as experts. It is felt that these people would have an expertise perhaps beyond that which one would normally expect to find from, if you like, lay people. We hope they will have managerial expertise, know-how and the capacity to make a contribution to all the matters pertaining to the working of a water board. They will not be there just to put a point of view, but to bring a certain expertise in their fields.
My noble friend Lord Onslow was so right when he said that if we project this through to its conclusion we would have to start to pick out all the various groups of people who might, not unreasonably in the circumstances, claim to have a right to be represented—not for themselves or even as nominees, but because they have a statutory representation.
We have already gone as far as we think is right on that point. As I say, there will be two people for MAFF, two for local government and there will, of course, have to be a chairman. I think we should be rather careful in trying to extend this. There could, for example, be a big argument made by some people who would question whether there should even be this amount of representation. But it is the old story which we get in regard to Bill after Bill. You try to get a balance of what you think is the right level; those with a special interest will think it is not enough, and others will think it is a bit too much. I think this is about the right level. My noble friends Lord Sandys and Lord Stanley know that we always think carefully about what is said in these debates. I cannot make commitments. I am bound to say that I think that, in the circumstances, we have gone as far as we can go on this. In the light of what has been said, I hope that my noble friends may feel able not press the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Could my noble friend just go a little further on the reason why MAFF are having this privilege? Surely there are larger users of water than the Ministry of Agriculture—the chemical and steel industries, for example, use much more water, and Kielder was built not for agricultural use but for industrial use in the Newcastle area. But water authorities have statutory duties to people other than the Ministry of Agriculture. I may say I am delighted about this representation, but I would just ask why it is that the Ministry of Agriculture is the only one, other than the possibility of public representatives—and that is a different matter, the question of accountability—to have this privilege.
Lord Bellwin: There you are. What did I tell you? The fact is that the functions of land drainage and fisheries are statutory obligations with statutory committees. That is why there are the two MAFF members.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: May I add just this, for the edification of my noble friend Lord Onslow: the land drainage function does extend from the rivers which the water authority manages to the farm. In the management of the river, the water authority is responsible for seeing that not only is the river running as it should, but that it is dredged and managed in such a way that the watercourses, part of which will also be the responsibility of the water authority, are kept clear so that the gradients from the farms draining the water actually from the fields will flow smoothly into them. So there is a direct practical link there which flows from the days when the river authorities were responsible for the management of land drainage. This was inherited by the water authorities and it is essential that there should be some direct link between the hoards of water authorities and the farming world. To some extent, it is the same in fisheries. The water authorities have a very good record here in the hatcheries they have set up to breed fish for stocking in order to improve the fisheries in the rivers. Once again there is a direct practical relationship there, and that is reflected in this particular constitution.
I think it is generously reflected, and I can well remember the history of the arguments in another place 10 years ago—I was not there but I heard all about them—which gave two members on each board, and sometimes more than two, for agriculture and fisheries against the many other interests who had good claims to be there. But there was a certain personality, who I am sorry to say is no longer with us, who fought a doughty battle for farmers in the 1922 Committee of the Conservative Party. He won his battles and as a result they got what they got; but the claims that my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Sandys are advancing are not as strong as all that, and I think they really ought to be content with two members on each board.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank my noble friend Lord Bellwin for the care and thought contained in his replies, and I am also grateful for the other replies that came from various parts of the Chamber. I do not agree with all of them, and particularly with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I would, of course, like more but I can appreciate the very valid points put forward by various speakers.
I accept that the whole purpose of the board is that the members should be active businessmen running an efficient board, rather than looking after any particular interest. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has correctly pointed out the importance of agriculture so far as land drainage and drainage as a whole are concerned. I would not agree that more members are not a help. I always find it helpful to have a friend in this Chamber and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, if he goes to a board meeting of whatever sort, too, would not mind having somebody there to give him a hand occasionally.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that we had a disproportionate share—at least, if it was not my noble friend, somebody certainly said it. I do not really understand that. What the noble Lord did not fully explain is the fact that we have lost representation between the previous water authorities, where we had a 28 per cent. representation, to the proposal here. I do

863
not think he entirely grasped that point but I am sure that he will go away and think about that, just as I will go away and consider seriously what my noble friend and other members of the Committee have said.
There is just one thing I should like to draw to his attention: if we get two in nine and then we get only two in 15, one of those propositions must be wrong. I am suggesting to my noble friend that two in 15 is wrong and that it should be three in 15—it is simple arithmetic. I would say again to my noble friend that we are not asking for this third member, but just giving the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture flexibility, which I would have thought they would like.
My final point is that to have this strong representation would instill in the agricultural community confidence in their water authority. I think that is an important point. However, having listened to what has been said, I will go away and think about the matter very seriously. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("of whom not fewer than two and not more than four shall be appointed from among persons duly elected as members of local authorities within the water authority's area and nominated by those local authorities.")
The noble Baroness said: I understood that we were to discuss Amendment No.7 with this, is that not so? I wish to confine myself to Amendment No. 2 because that is the option of the two which I prefer. This is a very straightforward amendment. It is to write into the Bill the Government's declared intention. I will not rehearse again the need for local authorities to be represented on these bodies. That was done very clearly and from all sides of the House in the debate on 7th February. But perhaps I could just mention a letter which I have received within the last hour which comes from the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations. This is a union not normally associated with our side of the House, but it feels very deeply on this issue and has asked that I and others oppose the Bill, for reasons which we made clear earlier—that is, the undemocratic representation which the new water authorities will provide us with.
I should like to remind you Lordships of the Government's commitment to the local authority presence on the new water authorities. On 16th November 1982 in another place the then Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services said:
"It is proposed that there should be executive members on the executive authority and that it should include local authority members".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/82; col. 152]
On 7th February in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin was introducing the Second Reading, he said:
"we propose that county and district councils will have the opportunity to nominate people for at least two appointments to the new boards".
And in winding up on that same day the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, went a little further when he said:
864
"We have said—and I am prepared to stick to this tonight—that between two and four members will be the appropriate number, depending on the size of the board".—[Official Report, 7/2/82; cols. 993 and 1071.]
I was very encouraged to hear just a few minutes ago the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, reiterating this point.
All that this amendment seeks to do is to write this into the Bill and the noble Lord the Minister will need to explain very carefully, if he is not prepared to accept this, why he is not prepared to accept it. The reason it should be written into the Bill must be clear. Ministers change and so, eventually, do Governments and it is not at all certain that the next Minister or the next Government would be clear about the intention of the Bill. At this stage I do not propose to say any more. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: In speaking to the two Amendments, Nos. 2 and 7, the purpose, as has been said, is to write into the Bill the provision that the local authorities should have a right to a proportion of the membership of the new small boards. This runs counter to the approach which we have adopted in the Bill. We have not attempted in the legislation to hypothecate individual places to particular interest groups. The principle which we have put forward is that all appointees of the new boards should meet the primary qualification for membership which is that they must be able to make an effective contribution to the management of the industry.
However, we have made it clear—I gladly repeat—that county and district councils will be invited to nominate people for some of the appointments. The links between local government and the water industry make it desirable to do this. It is our intention that there will be a local government representation—I say it again—of between two and four members of each authority, depending on the size. I reiterate that pledge gladly.
However, we believe that it would be wrong to tie the Secretary of State's hands by legislation in the way the amendments propose to do. All the appointments are by the Secretary of State and he cannot yield up his right to appoint, either to the local authorities or to other bodies. The fact is that the noble Baroness's amendments would allow the local authorities to nominate only two members whom the Secretary of State would be obliged to appoint. This would make the local authorities de facto the appointing bodies. It is important to preserve the principle of the direct accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament for all appointments. It would be at variance with this principle, and with the national industry practice, for the Secretary of State to be required to appoint people on the nomination of other bodies. However, local government has, as I have said, an important link with the water industry and we have clearly recognised that. It will be our responsibility, or the Secretary of State's responsibility, to ensure that those links are adequately reflected in the membership appointments which are made.
There are also other difficulties with the amendments as they stand. They do not place a duty on local authorities to make nominations. Neither, as I have said, do they specify the size of the field of nominations from which the Secretary of State would

865
make appointments, or whether the Secretary of State would be able to ask for further nominations if it was found that the nominations put forward initially were for any reasons unsuitable for appointment.
Moreover, the amendments would restrict local authorities' choice of nominee to elected members of the authorities. In most circumstances it would very likely be appropriate for the nominees of local authorities to be elected members. However, there may be cases where local authorities would wish to see the Secretary of State appoint people who are not currently elected members, but who nevertheless have particular skills or experience to offer to the water industry. Where this is so, we would not wish to stand in the local authorities' way.
There are particular difficulties with the amendment which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Ridley. That would provide that only "a proportion" of the membership should be drawn from local authority nominees without specifying the size of that proportion. The amendment would empower the Secretary of State to appoint any proportion of the membership of the authorities from local government nominees. He could, for example, appoint a majority of the members from nominations put forward by the local authorities. This would mean returning to the present pattern of membership from which the Bill moves away. Equally, of course, under the amendment the Secretary of State would be entitled to appoint no more than one local government nominee to the board. As I have said, the Government's intention is to appoint between two and four members, depending on the size of the board in question. We believe that this level of representation will provide for proper recognition of the historical and functional links between the local authorities and the water industry.
In some ways this is slightly off the point that the noble Baroness was making when she said she was concerned about it being written into the legislation as opposed to it being an expressed intention. She says that Governments change and Ministers change. Indeed they do, and this is not the first time I have had this point made to me; it has been said when I have been dealing with other legislation. I hope that my replies are today as consistent as ever. The intention is, as I have said, that there are no grounds for really believing other than that they will be carried out. If one starts to write such details on the face of the Bill, I am open to correction here but I think there are many Members of your Lordships' House who would tell me that the practice is not normally to write into a Bill in this way because it loses a certain flexibility, which I think is very important. For all the reasons said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel, if not satisfied, perhaps able to accept that there is another argument and perhaps not press her amendment.
Viscount Ridley: I hope that the noble Baroness will not withdraw her amendment because, as she has said, we are also debating Amendment No. 7 in my name and others. If I may refer to that amendment at the same time, that may assist the committee. The whole purpose of this amendment and a great many other amendments before us this afternoon is really to try to make these new water authorities more accountable to
866
the public which they serve. If nothing else has happened in the last four weeks, we have seen the need for the public to feel that they are involved in the very important water industry. The terrible time it has been through recently has shown to me, and I think all Members, that surely one of the many lessons to be learned is that these authorities must be accountable to the public which they serve. I do not think that this Bill, and the many amendments which seek to remedy this, go far enough.
One of the ways in which we do this is to see that at least a proportion of the members who are to be appointed are elected members—this is an important distinction, which was discussed at great length on Second Reading—and that these are not merely the Minister's nominees, because that is where confidence in these boards will go wrong. They will have been elected by local authorities. The Government have said on many occasions that they are committed to accepting these members, and I think they should put this into the Bill in no uncertain fashion, as has been so ably suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
Amendment No. 7 provides a fall-back situation, whereby, if the Government felt disposed to accept it, it would mean that if a local authority failed to agree on names the Secretary of State should, quite correctly, step in. It is not an amendment which seems to appeal to my noble friend the Minister. I would only add that it was a Liberal amendment, which was moved in the other place, and if there are any Liberals who are not at the count in Bermondsey they might consider it.
It is all very well saying that the Secretary of State, who makes these appointments, is answerable or accountable to Parliament. But I should like to ask: when did Parliament appoint or dis-appoint the chairman of any authority? The Minister makes these appointments. So far as I know, he does not tell Parliament what he has done. He tells the person concerned. I do not remember, as a Member of the House, being told who had been appointed to a water authority or similar body. The Minister does it, quite rightly, and that is how it goes. But I do not think he should shelter behind the fact that he is answerable to Parliament. He is answerable only to himself, while he remains Secretary of State.
Another point is that on Second Reading my noble friend said that there had been no fewer than 131 members appointed over 10 years to the Thames Water Authority. At this time there are 62 members of that authority, so that amounts to two overall appointments for all that time. I should have thought that that was not an unreasonable rate of turnover in a large area, bearing in mind the fact that you need new people on it.
My final argument is much more devious and I hope that the Minister will see the strength of it at once. We shall come very shortly to a very important debate on the involvement of the ombudsman service in water authorities. One of the arguments which was put forward by the Minister, and which will no doubt be repeated tonight, is that the ombudsman no longer has a bearing, because local authorities no longer have direct representation on the authorities. I should like to turn this argument on its head, and say that, if we continue to have local authority members as of right,

867
my noble friend has no reason to avoid getting himself off the hook when we come to debate the ombudsman. I beg to support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: On the previous amendment we had a lucid and powerful argument put forward on special hypothecated places for special interests. I think most people in your Lordships' House agreed that it was a good thing that the Ministry of Agriculture should have those two members on the water authority. For the special interests of one industry to be represented by statutory right, and not people's local representatives, seems to me to be getting matters slightly upside down. My noble friend Lord Bellwin objected that the amendment was too narrow, because a local authority could nominate only two people, which would tie the hands of the Secretary of State to nominating those two who might be, in his view, totally unsuitable. But it is perfectly possible to redraft the amendment in such a way that local authorities will nominate six people, and the Minister will choose two, four or whatever the number is. That is an argument of the Civil Service, who have decided that they do not want to move, they want to get on with their own thing and they do not want any interference from the people's representatives. It is dangerous not to have people accountable to their elected representatives. I suppose that that comes well from a hereditary Peer, but we learned our lesson in 1911.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to support the very able way in which my noble friend Lady Nicol moved this amendment. The amendment has the support of the three local authority associations. It carried the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, both of whom are presidents of local authority associations, and the AMA has as its representatives today my noble friend Lady Nicol and myself. So all three local authority associations are in favour of this amendment, but they are also concerned that the Government are showing such a lack of confidence in directly elected persons.
It appears to us to be another case of "Whitehall knows best". This is a serious reflection upon local, democratically elected people up and down the country, regardless of which party they represent. Therefore, I want to emphasise what other speakers have said. Without the local authority representatives, unless the Minister is giving way on the ombudsman and the press, there is no democratic element at all in the new water authorities.
I could show noble Lords a few of the letters that I have received in the last three days. These do not all come from the City of Birmingham—because they all know Doris Fisher. They come from Bradford in Yorkshire, from Edinburgh, from places in Surrey—real good Labour seats!—Weston-superMare, Harrogate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where we have a Labour seat, Clifton in Bristol, Market Drayton in Shropshire—all of them, without exception, expressing concern about the lack of democracy in this Bill. One of them is from a firm of solicitors. The people are all named and they say:
"A Bill such as this, providing for secrecy and absence of accountability in such an important area, is surely more appropriate for the Star Chamber of the 17th century, rather than the Houses of Parliament in the 20th century.".
868
It is important for the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to remember that he has been a very responsible and distinguished member of a local authority for a long period of time, so he understands how the water authorities impinge upon local authorities. I shall not spell out all the examples, because he knows how they impinge on local authorities. I heard somebody say that these small executive bodies will be composed of businessmen. As I said on Second Reading, I hope that there are also some businesswomen on them. They will need some busy women, if these bodies are composed entirely of businessmen. Therefore, I want to stress that, if local government representation is lost, we might as well ask ourselves, as somebody did in a letter to me:
"Is this 1984, and is this George Orwell, with no accountability?"
Finally, if the noble Lord feels that these executive committees will be important, and that these people will need to be interested only in profitability, is it not true that water is big business and must it not also be very close and very sensitive to its consumers, whether they are household consumers or industrial consumers? That closeness can be achieved only if we have local authority representatives. We are not asking for a majority of local authority representatives. We are asking the Minister only to put into the Bill what is already promised.
We know also that local authority representatives are accountable to their electorate. They have to keep their ear close to the ground. Local authority representatives know that if they do not carry out the wishes of their electors they will lose their seats. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at the amendment and not lightly brush it aside. I end as I began. This Government are showing a lack of confidence in the democratically elected members of local authorities—and shame on them for that.
Lord Bellwin: If we had been dealing only with the amendment I should clearly have made some observations upon it. But the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has gone, as we say where I come from, very much over the top. First, what a coincidence that the letters which she has quoted arrived three days before this debate was due to take place. How interesting. The noble Baroness and others say, "Come on". The noble Baroness knows as well as I do that it is not very difficult to orchestrate such things to arrive in good time.
Several noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Bellwin: Noble Lords may well say that, but we have listened to such expressions as lack of confidence if local government representation is lost. I can only assume that nobody listened to what I said. I said quite clearly that the representation would be two to four. I reiterated that the Government's intention is that that should be the representation. I say it again and, if necessary, I shall go on saying it. The noble Baroness has attacked the basis of these committees. The fact is that this was voted upon properly and passed by the other place and forwarded to us. It is a method of running these authorities which will not take away from people rights which they may hitherto have enjoyed. It is an attempt to try to give back

869
something to the people who at the end of the day have to pay for these services. We want also to provide for them a level and quality of service which is better than they have hitherto enjoyed.
The best way to achieve this, we believe, is by having boards and authorities of the kind set out in the Bill. They will be composed of people who represent the interests of those concerned but they will also have expertise and know-how which will enable them to provide a better service and better value. It is clear that we differ as to whether that is a better way than the existing way. The Government believe that this is the direction in which we ought to go. That is why we have made the proposals. We listen to amendments and try to meet them. I say right now, although I had intended to say it later when the ombudsman amendment is dealt with, that we intend to accept that amendment exactly as it is presented. We do so because, as we always do after Second Reading, we go away and read carefully the arguments which have been put forward. We believed that in this case the arguments had merit. I do not know whether Governments always do that. At least, therefore, we are entitled to some credit for having taken care and for having considered the arguments which have been put forward.
Why are we being attacked by my noble friend Lord Ridley and those who represent the interests of those in local government? I concede nothing of my own attachment to local government. We are being attacked because we propose not to write on to the face of the Bill something which we have said we are absolutely content to do in any case—something which in the other place we said that we would do. We are being attacked from all quarters on the sole issue of not writing this on to the face of the Bill. That is all that the amendment says, apart from the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley. As he fairly said, that is a fall-back situation. In the rest of our debates, and there are many to come, let us at least accept that there are differences of view as to the best way of going about what we are trying to achieve. If noble Lords opposite feel that the Government's policy is not right it is up to them to say so, but they must not expect us to move from the line which we believe is the right one to take.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in view of its considerable importance and what the Minister of State has just said I feel justified in saying a few words. The noble Lord was at less than his best when he referred to the letters which my noble friend read out. Some of them are addressed to me. I can assure the noble Lord that I am not aware that they were in any way orchestrated. Although my noble friend received some letters during the last three days, others—I am prepared to pass them over to the noble Lord—go back over the last month and come from all parts of the country. They are not cyclostyled or photostat letters. They are all handwritten and they are all different. It would be a good idea if I were to pass them to the noble Lord so that he realises how profound is the concern about local democracy.
The noble Lord said that he and his right honourable friends were not selecting on the basis of particular interest groups. The Committee understands and apreciates that point perfectly well, but a local authority
870
is not a particular interest group. A local authority is a representative authority. The noble Lord was a member and the leader of the Leeds City Council for getting on for 15 years. I, too, enjoyed the privilege of being a member of a local authority for several years. Therefore, I speak with some knowledge of these matters. A body nominated by Ministers is more likely to be a particular interest group than the representatives of local authorities.
Local authorities are not foolish. They would seek to appoint people who are most fitted to the task. The noble Lord knows that from his experience, as I do from mine. They will do their best to select people who are fitted to do this job. But that is not the point. The powerful argument is that this amendment would introduce an element of democracy into what is now an arbitrary system. For that reason it is objectionable. I do not see any case against the amendment. This matter rises above party political considerations. It is one in which noble Lords from all political parties and those on the Cross-Benches are concerned. I appeal to the noble Lord to take back this amendment and consider it very carefully with his right honourable friend, otherwise we shall have no alternative but to press it to a Division.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before my noble friend comes to the end of this debate, I wonder whether he would give further consideration to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. There is not all that much between the Government and those on both sides who have moved amendments. The amendments ask only for the same number. It is simply the machinery of how those people are to be selected which is at issue. My noble friend Lord Onslow suggested that perhaps six or eight members might be nominated by the local authorities concerned. The Minister would then have a choice. Perhaps there is some way of bringing minds together. There seems to be so little between both sides that it is a pity to disagree over it.
My noble friend made a great mistake in removing the present local government members, and I said so on the Welsh order. Having done so, however, and having decided to boil the boards down to these small executive bodies, I see the difficulty for him. However, we have reached the point where there is very little between my noble friend and all sides of the Committee. There is a point here, that local authorities should have a chance to nominate. Whether my noble friend can go as far as accepting specific nominations of the two or the four people who are to go on the board is something I do not know. But he should be able to consider the possibility of the local authority bodies nominating a larger number so that the Minister can make his choice. That is something that my noble friend could very well consider. I hope that my noble friend will look again at this point before we reach a decision.
Lord Sandford: Perhaps I may just say a word, as my name is linked to both of the amendments we are discussing. I am sure that we should not get too excited at this stage, because there is much rougher water ahead. The fact of the matter is that we are changing from a system in which the regional water authorities

871
relied on having a majority of local authority representatives on them. I believe there is agreement that that system has not proved to be as successful as was expected. But we cannot really go straight from that situation to one in which there is nothing on the face of the Bill to secure any elected member from any local authority being there at all.
We have received from my noble friend, and from the Government in another place, an assurance that there will be between two and four members of local authorities. My noble friend is asking us to accept his assurance that that will be so—but a legislative Chamber must not do that. If that is agreed between us, we must put it into the Bill; that is very important. One can accept assurances on some matters, but we must not accept assurances on a matter as important as this.
My noble friend is being offered two suggestions, in Amendments Nos. 2 and 7. There are plenty of other permutations, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford had indicated. I must urge my noble friend Lord Bellwin to be more flexible and to state that he will accept the necessity to have the provision for a limited number of local authority representatives on the face of the Bill. It is not necessary for him to do that now but it must be done on Report. I hope that my noble friend can accept that point, otherwise we are bound to have a Division.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I rise to speak very briefly, partly because of the jibe of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley; the days are long past when the Liberal Party could not amend Bills before this House and win a by-election at the same time! We definitely support the amendment now before your Lordships' Committee. An important point has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It is important that the representation of local government should be written on to the face the the Bill.
The second important point is that some of the representatives of local authorities should actually be nominated by their local authorities. Here it may be that there is a principle involved of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has mentioned; maybe we should look at this again to see if there is another way in which the amendment can be made. Perhaps the amendment should not tell the Secretary of State that he is to appoint people nominated by other bodies. But the general principle that there should be representatives of local government and that they should be nominated by local government itself is one we certainly should support.
These bodies will cover strategic planning for water, pricing policy, and a great number of other matters. It is important that local democracy is represented and that it is represented in a way—and this point has not seriously been made—that embraces different points of view and the points of view of different political parties. Different political strands of thought do come into even such matters as water. As at present drafted in this Bill, representation on these bodies will not allow the kind of genuine democratic to and fro which is important in deciding matters which are significant in our lives; and water is not the least of these. There is absolutely no case whatsoever for not having some
872
strong representation of local authorities, and for not having it in a mode which, at second remove at any rate, is democratic.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend the Minister replies, I would just like to ask, since he was so emphatic when he spoke earlier on the necessity for having local authority members on these new executive boards, and was so impassioned about this. why is it that he cannot write this into the Bill in some way? That is the question we are all asking.
Lord Bellwin: The writing into the Bill of a number is one thing. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the way in which he put this point, because he summed up the difficulty very well. The question of a number is one matter; the question of the right to nominate as such is something else. The Committee may recollect that when making my response I majored—if I may use that term—and placed the main emphasis of my response to the amendment initially moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on this question of nomination.
If the noble Baroness is willing to withdraw her amendment, I will undertake to go away and discuss this matter with colleagues—especially the question of writing in the number. The noble Baroness knows that guarantees I cannot give, but there are later stages and options remain open to anyone to do something later. I am impressed more by the issue of the number. I should like to go back and check on what precedents there are.
We have been told that if one believes in this, one should write it into the Bill. I want to see how many instances there have been in the past where numbers of this kind have been written on to the face of Bills. If the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on those grounds, I will undertake to take this matter away; and she has the option to come back with this at a later stage if she is not satisfied with whatever answer the Government may give.
Baroness Nicol: I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, speaks in good faith; there is no question of that. But I share the feeling which has been expressed so eloquently from all sides of this Chamber that we really should make our feelings clear. I am aware that there may be technicalities of drafting which need to be tidied up. It is not my intention to place local authorities in the position of secretly nominating people to the water boards. If a change in drafting is needed to avoid that, such a change can be introduced at a later date. But having come so far, and having expressed its views so clearly, I believe that the Committee should now divide and give its view to the noble Lord the Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The question is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content": to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
The Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50, and the Division therefore cannot take place. I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
6.22 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 5 and insert—
("(3) Each water authority shall appoint one of its members").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I should start by congratulating the Opposition Front Bench on a statesmanlike decision. I hope they will support me just as much on this amendment. We are here talking about the appointment of deputy chairmen to the new water authorities. In the spirit which I have already mentioned, which I think is not contrary to the Government's own intention of making these new bodies as efficient as possible, it is, I think, important that we should, as far as we can, give them as much confidence as possible both in themselves and their membership. I believe one of the ways we can give them confidence in their membership is to see that they have the power to appoint their own deputy chairmen.
This may not sound of earth-shaking importance, but I think it is important for several reasons. First of all, as may well be the outcome of the Bill, the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture will appoint all the members of the authority. He or they must therefore be presumed to have total confidence in the people put forward for membership. If the Ministers have such confidence in all those people, I think they should have just that much more confidence and allow then the freedom of action to appoint deputy chairmen to act in the absence, through illness or otherwise, of the chairmen.
There is no suggestion whatever that I am challenging the right of any Government to appoint the chairmen of the water authorities. I am sure that is a correct and proper thing. But I believe that the deputy chairmen should have the confidence of the rest of the membership, and indeed of the chairmen, and the way to achieve this is by my amendment.
I am not making any suggestion in this amendment, and I hope it will not be used as a peg on which to hang the principle, of "Buggins' turn next". I have never thought that made any sense; I have never supported it, and it is not invariably right or wrong. If the chairman falls under a bus it must not be assumed that the deputy chairman will automatically be appointed by the Minister. Of course, if the chairmanship becomes vacant the deputy chairman acts as chairman until the Government appoint a new man. Nor would the Government feel bound to appoint an elected deputy chairman if this bus did come along and it became necessary. So I do not think that in doing this it can be said that I am trying to weaken or water down the right or duty of the Government to appoint chairmen to the new water authorities.
Had they not been deeply and very bitterly engaged in much more serious matters during the last four weeks, I would have been able to consult the current chairmen of the water authorities; but obviously, they have had more important things on their minds. However, I happen to know that two of the present chairmen would strongly support this amendment in principle and feel, as I do, that the deputy chairman should be somebody elected by the authority members.
The one other argument that I would put forward is this. The appointees, the chairmen and the members will in effect be, whether we like it or not, political appointees one way or another. If they are from local government they may be just as political. If the Government were to change—of course, I am not one who wishes this Government to change at all, but if they eventually do through some terrible disaster—you could have a situation where the new chairman is appointed by the Government of one party and the rest of the board by another. This makes for considerable problems of loyalty, and considerable strains could arise in that situation. I therefore think that a deputy chairman who had the confidence of knowing that he had been elected by the board would help bring stability to such a situation until matters were sorted out.
I think this is a very modest amendment. In the interests of accountability and the confidence of the boards in themselves, I think the Government should be pleased to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: As my noble friend says, this is indeed a modest amendment, and, if I may say so after the previous debate, has been presented very modestly and and moderately. Would that I were able to accept it.
The point is that subsection (3) of the proposed new section, as it stands, would allow the Secretary of State to designate a water authority member as deputy chairman. As such it is well precedented; for instance, Section 1(2) of the Gas Act 1972 contains a similar provision. But we have not included it simply for the sake of consistency. Indeed, we have modified this provision in the other place so as to reflect the substantial differences between the British Gas Corporation and the regional water authorities. We do not need the power to designate more than one deputy chairman, as in the Gas Corporation case. However, it is important that the Secretary of State should, as with the other nationalised industries, have the power to designate the deputy chairman.
Let me try to explain why. Your Lordships will note, incidentally, that this is not a power to appoint a deputy chairman who is not already a member of the authority; it is a power to select a member as deputy chairman. It is not in the sense of an extension of ministerial patronage, but a prudent precaution. Just as the Secretary of State appoints the chairman, so he should decide who will act as chairman if needs must.
My noble friend raised the possibility of the chairman falling under a bus. If the chairman in falling under the bus were to be killed, that would be one thing; but what if he falls under the bus and he is just very seriously injured? He will then have to be away for a considerable period of time. That is really the basic reason why we are concerned about the amendment. I am sure my noble friend will agree that the deputy chairman, in this sense, is in an important position.
Quite apart from the "falling under a bus" possibility, the deputy chairman will take over from the chairman and discharge his functions if the chairman is ill, on holiday or for some other reason is unable to attend meetings of the authority. He may have to assume these duties for a considerable length of time, certainly in the case of prolonged illness.

875
When that happens the deputy chairman will have to act as the representative of his authority and be the link between the Ministers and the authority at top level. It is right that there should be a clear line of accountability to Parliament for such appointments, as there is in the case of the appointment of the chairman. For these reasons, in our view the Secretary of State must have the power to designate the deputy chairman along with his other powers to make appointments.
My noble friend, as I said, was very fair in the way he proposed his amendment. It is not the most critical of all the issues that we shall be discussing under the Bill. I would have very much liked to move towards him on this matter, but I wonder whether on this occasion—I suspect it might not be one of many—he will move towards me in accepting the fact that, even though it is not the most critical of all situations it could lead to real problems in scenarios of the type we were both describing in a half-joking way. There could be a serious basis to it, and for that reason I hope he will feel able not to press the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I speak in support of this amendment for this reason. I have served on a very large number of committees, of various sizes and kinds, as chairman, vice-chairman and practically everything else. There is no doubt that when the chairman disappears, for whatever reason but especially on a temporary basis, it is necessary that the committee or body should have complete confidence in the person who is taking his place. It seems to me that they are much more likely to have confidence in someone they have elected themselves than someone inflicted on them (if the noble Lord will forgive the phrase) by the Minister.
The committee knows the qualities of each of its members, and, despite what has been said earlier in our debates, as time goes on they forget that they are there representing other bodies outside. They work together as a team in all the best authorities and the best committees. They are well aware which of their number can best represent them outside. They know his views, and that they can rely on him. For that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Could the noble Lord help us a little here? I am in favour of the amendment. Do we understand—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made the same point—that the people who will be on the regional water authorities will all be appointed by the Secretary of State? We hope that the Minister will accept the action that we took on the previous amendment and take that up when he makes the appointment. If the members are all appointed by the Minister they are, therefore all equally capable, one would expect, or the Minister would not have appointed them. He has given the power to the chairman; so does it really matter, because they are all really good people who have been appointed, if the vice-chairman is selected by the remaining members of the group? Is it terribly important that the Secretary of State or the Minister has to say, "No, we are going to have so-and-so"? If he has nine picked men and he has singled out one as extra special, could he not let the rest of the authority choose their man?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I say a word in opposition to this amendment? The assumed situation of political conflict, to which reference has been made, seems, with respect, to have an area of unreality about it in this context. There is no compelling reason in support of election as distinct from appointment. I agree, of course, that this is perhaps not terribly important, but, surely, before carrying an amendment against a Bill that has been brought from another place there must be some compelling reasons. In my submission, none has been put forward.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: May I make this point. Nationalised industries have had a rather rocky record over the years. My own feeling about them (indeed, my own experience) is that success depends basically on the relationship between the Secretary of State and the chairman. For the industry to be successful the chairman of the nationalised industry, whomsoever he may be, has to make winning the confidence of the Secretary of State his first concern. However important all the industrial considerations are—and they are weighty—he must be able to win the confidence of the Minister. So often these industries get into trouble because, for one reason or another, that confidence does not exist. It is in relation to that particular matter that I believe my noble friend is right in sticking to his point that if there is to be a deputy chairman it would be better if he were appointed by the Secretary of State, so that if he does have to act there is a reasonable prospect that there will be a good relationship between them.
I speak having had the rather peculiar experience of being appointed by a Conservative Government and then, by the time the authority—the National Water Council—came into being, there being a Labour Government in power. Therefore, I had to relate myself to Labour Secretaries of State pretty well throughout the whole of my five years in office. I found that some of my colleagues were surprised when I told them that I felt my first priority was winning the confidence of the Secretary of State. He is the link with Parliament, and, ultimately, the source of finance for capital purposes. Indeed, he is the link with the outside world, because unless he is prepared to defend his chairman in Parliament, and unless he has confidence in him and can take advice from him, the industry will never prosper.
Of course, he is responsible for running the industry, but he is also responsible for letting the Secretary of State know how the industry is going, and whether there is anything awkward that is likely to crop up; and, as far as he can, he has to consider the position of the Secretary of State. This is a very complex and subtle relationship, and it does not matter who the Secretary of State is. It is the only basis on which the industry can be successful. I am not at all sure that some of the present troubles of the water industry have not flowed from a rather different situation. Be that as it may, on the whole the appointment of the deputy chairman, if there is to be one, would be better in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Of course, there is force in the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, put foward, that it would be desirable for him to be elected, but presumably the Secretary of

877
State will choose someone who will carry the other members' confidence, and then it is up to him to jollywell do so. On the point of preferring to have someone of their choice rather than someone inflicted upon them, the fact is that they have all been inflicted on each other. The Secretary of State has appointed the lot.
I should have thought that, on balance, this is the best way to do it, and that we might let my noble friend take his point here and allow him to keep it as it is.
Lord Bellwin: May I make just a few brief observations? I was amused when the noble Baroness. Lady Fisher, said that they are all equal. I am sure that everyone is equal, but some are always more equal than others. Primus inter pares is, perhaps, a term with which the noble Baroness will be familiar.
The same arguments about the deputy chairman can be said about the chairman; and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is so knowledgeable about these matters and who was so interesting in telling us about the relationships between the chairman and Ministers, and so on. I am sure he is right.
However, there is one point that I do not think we have brought out sufficiently—namely, that if the elected deputy chairman did not, for some reasons, quite work out, it is a darned sight easier for the Secretary of State to change him than it is for the members themselves. In any case, the most important point is that of accountability—that is the fundamental point. The responsibility lies with the Secretary of State who makes the appointment. He is answerable for that appointment. I hope that my noble friend will perhaps take that point more than some of the others that have been made, but not least those made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford.
Viscount Ridley: I take all the points. I am rather sorry that my noble friend the Minister continually refers to the gas industry. I do not think that that was the precedent that we were looking for; I thought that we were trying to get away from the worst forms of nationalised industry.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I do not believe that this matter was discussed in another place—but without going through Hansard I cannot be sure—and it is for that reason that it has been very well discussed here.
Finally, I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Nugent, who always has a limitless supply of oil to pour on troubled waters, that he will need all his supplies before we go home tonight. I take his point very much indeed. I shall withdraw the amendment, but in doing so I would like to echo the feelings of all your Lordships that none of the chairmen or deputy chairmen of the water authorities goes anywhere near a bus, let alone underneath it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): Before calling Amendment No. 4, I should point out a correction to the first line. The first line should read:
878
"Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("in") to ("and") in line 17".
and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. I call Amendment No. 4.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("in") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("matters relevant to the functions of Water Authorities, subject to not less than one member being a person who has shown capacity in recreation, and not less than one member being a person who has shown capacity in landscape or wildlife conservation.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and at the same time I would like to speak to Amendment No. 6 which makes exactly the same change to the relevant part of the Bill as Amendment No. 4, but—so far as Amendment No. 6 is concerned—in respect of Wales and the Welsh Water Authority. I have listened to the previous debates and I very much hope that another hefty dose of moderation and modesty in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will enable him to accept an amendment.
This is a modest amendment. It does not suffer from the one fault which the noble Lord seemed to latch on to—or, at least, it was a fault so far as he was concerned—in the amendment on local authority representation, in that it does not strike at the Secretary of State's power to appoint or to choose who to appoint in any way at all. It simply strikes at the question of numbers which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made clear when we were discussing Amendment No. 2, he was (at least in that case) quite happy to look at. I hope that the same will apply as regards this amendment.
All this amendment does is to require the Secretary of State to do something which I very much hope the noble Lord will tell us the Secretary of State will do anyhow, and that is to appoint one person to each water authority who has some expertise in wildlife or landscape conservation, and one person who has some expertise in recreational matters. I say that I hope the noble Lord is going to tell us that the Government will be doing this anyhow, because when the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was discussed in another place in 1981 on 18th June in Standing Committee D, at column 992 the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, now Sir Hector Munro, said:
"I reiterate that we shall use our best endeavours to ensure that the water authorities have at least one member with experience of wildlife and conservation".
That was because the Wildlife and Countryside Act amended Section 22 of the Water Act 1973 to require water authorities to further wildlife and landscape conservation interests. That parallels a duty which water authorities already had under Section 20 of the 1973 Act to further the interests of recreation in so far as it was possible.
I would just add as an aside that I am sure that noble Lords who are more knowledgeable than I about this matter will not need reminding that water authorities are desperately important to both wildlife and landscape conservation interests and to recreation interests. Water authority land and reservoirs provide major resources for recreation in this country. They accommodate huge numbers of people as regards fishing, sailing, water ski-ing on their reservoirs. Large

879
numbers of people go walking on water authority land. Indeed, they are very large landowners, very significant landowners, for large parts of the population, and some of them have a reasonable record in allowing access to their land, although many do not. Indeed, that is a point to which I should like to return later.
Water authorities clearly have major influence on the shape and the look of the British countryside and the wild animals, plants and birds that live there not only in deciding where to build reservoirs and how, but also in carrying out their land drainage function—which we discussed under an earlier amendment—and in many other ways in the work that they do in the countryside. I do not think there can be any argument about their importance, and this has been recognised by Parliament in giving water authorities these dual functions to further recreation and conservation.
The Government, particularly on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and also in another place, have given a good deal of detail about consultative arrangements and we shall discuss those in particular when we come to Amendment No. 34 of my noble friend Lady Fisher. I want to emphasise that in this amendment I am speaking to an entirely different point. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in particular, at Second Reading made some ponts about the regional consultative committees that the Government are envisaging, and I certainly hope that we can discuss those in more detail later in the Committee stage.
At this point I am getting at what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, himself referred to on an earlier amendment as the management level of a water authority. It seems to me absolutely vital that there should be people with expertise—to take another word which the noble Lord himself used about the agricultural and fisheries interests—in these two areas at the management level discussing, for example, future plans before any consultation on them takes place—which is what I would take it that the smaller, more tightly organised management boards will be doing and will have a good opportunity to do. Noble Lords will not need reminding of the potential for conflict that there is between both recreation and wildlife and amenity interests, and some of the things that water authorities want to do in the course of their work. If we are to avoid some of those conflicts, or at least to minimise them in the future, it seems to me absolutely vital that people with this expertise should be available at the management level.
I should like to make two other points. First, I should like to justify the need for expertise. I hope that there is no one in your Lordships House who would suggest that, while people may be experts in fisheries or land drainage matters, everybody knows about recreation or about wildlife conservation. Those are both areas where the levels of expertise of the people working in the field have increased enormously over recent years. They are often very technical subjects where there is an enormous amount of literature and scientific and research information available. I do not believe that that type of expertise is generally available and in my view it is important to have people with it at their fingertips at the management level.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, quite rightly said that water authorities have a very good record on fisheries matters where, of course, there has always been a statutory representation of one or more members on water authorities. I hope that he would not disagree too strongly with me when I say that in my view it is fair to say that the same could not be said. certainly not said without fear of contradiction, about the water authorities' record on recreation and wildlife and landscape conservation matters. I accept it certainly as regards some aspects of recreation, but there are, for example, a fair number of conflicts brewing at the moment between those interested in access to the countryside and water authorities. To give just one example, conflicts over land drainage and so on will be well known to your Lordships. Therefore, there is a very good argument for saying that the fisheries analogy is a good one, that it has worked well and that it would help these two interests—which, as I say, Parliament has recognised as being so important in the work that water authorities do—if there were a statutory provision for water authorities to further those interests. Having taken some time, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have been modest enough and moderate enough to enable him to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I put my name to this amendment, and the reasoning which has made me think that for once I am totally right is a speech of my noble friend Lord Nugent earlier on, when I asked him why it was necessary to have a member of the agricultural lobby upon the water authority management boards. He gave a perfect reason for the Secretary of State appointing people with conservation interests: to do their statutory duty.
In the case of conservation, there is a statutory duty laid down in the Wildlife and Countryside Act that the water authorities will pay attention to conservation. Earlier on my noble friend spoke about the gradients of rivers and the fact that the fish could survive and live there, and that land drainage should be done neatly and tidily. All of this is, in fact, compatible with good conservation, but it will be very difficult if this compatibililty is recognised only after certain plans have been made and have been published, and then people have made decisions which, people being people and being proud, it is extremely difficult to change.
It would seem to me to be so much more sensible for a man who is trained in conservation, but who is also conscious of his job to manage a water authority, to say to the water engineer: "No, we do not take an absolutely dead straight dyke down through that area with steeply battenned sides; we make sure that it goes in a slightly different way. It may cost a little more money, but we must do it this way for conservation and wildlife reasons." If those things are perceived at an early stage, this will obviate the need for what happened at Halvergate. Halvergate was a long, rumbling and rather bitter row which finally ended up—at least I would say so, and I was quite deeply involved in it—in a very satisfactory compromise on all sides. The majority of the marsh was left as it was; there was a very small amount which was properly

881
drained to modern standards, and some of it was left in exactly the same way and SSSIs designated.
I think that there is a measure of concern for conservation which is growing and growing, and those of us who are involved in agriculture or those of your Lordships who are involved in local authority and water works of this sort will have to take heed of this. It is much more important to meet these questions early on, at the beginning, rather than to have a public row over them. That is why I support this amendment; and also because we have heard very good arguments for special pleading from the agricultural lobby and because the waterworks also have a statutory duty to take conservation into account.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I oppose this amendment, wearing the hat of someone who has had the privilege of sailing and, indeed, fishing on many water authority reservoirs, particularly Oxford. In making that remark I hope that I make a true friend of my noble friend Lord Nugent. I know that their record has been first-class as regards their efforts towards recreation. Indeed, as far as Welsh water is concerned, as opposed to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on the Alaw, which 15 years ago was made into a reservoir, they have segregated areas entirely for wildlife, much, I must say, against my own personal wish, which on that reservoir was fishing. But I think that they were right in doing so. I do not think that it is fair to castigate the water authorities on the recreation line.
The few remarks that I make to your Lordshops on this amendment I make with the full backing of the Central Council for Physical Recreation. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is not here, because he normally puts their case. For a multitude of reasons I, with the backing of the central council, would much prefer the option that the Government have offered us in the form of regional recreational committees. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has kindly written to me since the matter was raised—indeed, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, at Second Reading—on how these committees will be formed under the guidelines.
There is only one detail on these recreational committees that I should like to raise with my noble friend, and it is a matter that still concerns the central council, for they would like these committees to be chaired by a member of their choice who would sit on the water board. I accept that my noble friend, to whom I have written about this matter, has probably not made up his mind on it because I see the other side of the coin. But perhaps he would bear this in mind and give me an answer later on.
But for these reasons, and particularly for the recreation reason so fully backed by the central council, I would support this form of recreational committee and not this amendment.
Lord Melchett: Before the Minister replies to the amendment, I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, a question. First, perhaps I could correct him about something. There is absolutely nothing in this amendment which would affect the regional committees. I made that perfectly clear. It is a point that comes later in the Bill, and I have some
882
worries about it myself. But with respect to the noble Lord, on the face of it this amendment has nothing to do with those committees. He seemed to me to be setting up—and I do not know why—an entirely artificial conflict between this amendment and the establishment of those committees.
But it seemed to me that he then went further and said something which 100 per cent. supported the amendment. As I understood it, he said that he would like the regional committees, which the Government have suggested, to be chaired by somebody "of the committee's choosing who sat on the water authority". Those were the words he used because I heard him. That may take us into dangerous ground with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who wants to retain the Secretary of State's exclusive power over who sits on the water authority. However, is not the noble Lord really saying much the same as I am in the amendment: that there should be somebody with an interest in and expertise on recreational matters, who presumably would be the ideal person to chair the committee on which the noble Lord is keen and which, for that matter, I also see nothing against? I cannot really understand why the noble Lord was suggesting that there was some conflict between this amendment and the regional committees. I honestly had not seen it. I had seen it as strongly reinforcing the Government's proposal.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Perhaps I may just add a few words. I am afraid that I shall not be quite so helpful to my noble friend on this amendment because I think that there is real substance in it. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, only on one point. I should have thought that one member on each regional board covering both water recreation and wildlife and conservation generally would be all that the hoards could comfortably contain. But the case for including such a person is very strong indeed. I urge my noble friend to think about this again.
The intrinsic argument has been extremely well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and by my noble friend Lord Onslow, with his particularly clever analogy of the special pleading for the agricultural case. However, the practical point that I wish to put to my noble friend is that the water industry will be very much weaker without the Water Space Amenity Commission. This has really done a tremendous job, not only in taking initiatives round the country but in spurring the water authorities to get on and be active in this field of water recreation and conservation generally. These are activities that in the past water undertakings never took part in, and the major objective in regard to all the great reservoirs of the past was to shut out the public at all costs.
There has been a tremendous change in the last 10 years to bring the new regional water authorities to see that these great reservoirs, the old ones and the new ones, are places with marvellous opportunities for water recreation, and the Water Space Amenity Commission has been the major factor in giving a lead to some water authorities who were reluctant to recognise their obligation to the general public. They gave them a lead and stimulated them so that they did so.
Not only in fisheries but also in water recreation

883
there is a good record, and I thank my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for his kind reference to me. There is a good record there as well, but, unless every regional water authority of the future with small management bodies has somebody on the board who is generally expert in the whole of this field, there is a danger that water authorities may not be so enterprising and imaginative in their management to cater for the strong public demand for adequate water recreation and adequate conservation throughout this field.
It is a most sensitive subject. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could not be more right. If one can, one wants to avoid conflict before it arises, because once it has blown up it is a hell of a job to damp it down. There is a point here. I hope my noble friend will feel able to take another look at it.
The Earl of Onslow: As one of the movers, may I say of the amendment that if the noble Lord were to say one, like Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah I would certainly accept one just man as opposed to two, which is the ideal.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: One could hardly have listened to a more reasoned small debate. I have every sympathy. I was always so delighted in the past when I saw how, through the water space amenity people and others, there was such a greater use of water for recreation in the area from which I come. I always thought that was marvellous. As I hope your Lordships will know, I always had tremendous personal attachment to sport and recreation, and everything that goes with it. I am certainly not unsympathetic at all to the underlying point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, makes, and indeed confirmed so ably by my noble friends and others who have said something about it.
The problem is that, with the best will in the world, we come back to the constitution of the board. We are talking of a chairman; of two to four local authority members; we are talking of the executives, who clearly it will be useful to have there; and we are talking of the two statutory MAFF members. If we are to then say that we have to have someone to represent the water recreational side, dearly though I take the point, and I hope your Lordships will accept this, what then do we say to other sections who also would make a case?—perhaps not quite so powerful a case, because I happen to think that this is a strong case.
For example, we have people with knowledge of the water supply industry; or people with special experience in customer relations. The danger is that if you once start to fill up the board you leave out the opportunity for others who may be able to make a very powerful—as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, agreed—managerial contribution, or whatever. Here we are sticking to a formula which we have, which I feel at the moment anyhow is the only way to overcome what will be a difficult situation.
It could be argued: what is sacrosanct about a number? What is sacrosanct about nine and 15? What is wrong with 10 and 16, if you like, except that once you have got on to that one where would you end? The
884
reason why I feel I am in great difficulty here, whilst sympathising as strongly as I hope your Lordships gather I do with what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with this amendment, is that I fear where it would lead us and the problems which it would create in itself. That is my difficulty.
Before I sit down may I deal with the points raised on Amendment No. 6, which deals with the Welsh Water Authority. There are differences between the amendments. For instance, the English amendment includes a reference to "recreation", and the Welsh amendment does not appear to require the appointment of a conservationist, if you will forgive the term, where the English amendment does. Nevertheless, the overall purpose appears to be similar, and for precisely the same reasons we find ourselves in the same dilemma in seeking to be sympathetic to the amendment. That really is the difficulty. I am sorry if it is not very helpful to the noble Lord, but I have explained why I am not able, as I am here today, to accept the amendment.
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Lord one question? I mentioned the commitment given by the Government in June 1981 in another place that they would use their best endeavours to ensure that water authorities have on them at least one member of experience of wildlife and conservation. Could the noble Lord say whether that commitment is now being withdrawn by the Government, or not?
Lord Bellwin: This point has been made to us before. We feel that what is now proposed, with the new composition of the boards and their small numbers, creates a new situation. There is no question of understanding the concern here, and indeed, more than the concern, the desirability as put by my noble friend Lord Nugent, but it seems that the arrangements made at regional level referred to under Clause 7, which we think need not cut across the existing satisfactory arrangements, will provide all that is required.
I clearly cannot accept the amendment. All I can say is that, as with the other things, we shall certainly discuss this later with colleagues. I can make no commitment at all, and if I were back at a later stage I must say, as I stand here now, that I fear I would be in the same dilemma, the same problem, of how could I log up the whole of the numbers, however deserving a particular situation might be.
The Earl of Onslow: It is a catastrophic situation that the Government have, in effect, thanks to Lord Melchett's probing, withdrawn the undertaking given in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. The other thing that my noble friend Lord Bellwin said is this. If you have a conservationist person, and two agricultural people, and this, and that, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, where does it stop? The MAFF man could be a conservationist. There are conservationists in the agricultural world, in spite of what the Guardian seemed to say this morning. I would regard myself as one of them. There are people who can wear two hats. There are local authority members who can be active and concerned conservationists. It does not necessarily mean that they have to be all different people.

885
Having regard to the fact that my noble friend Lord Bellwin has, to all intents and purposes, said that we shall no longer use our best endeavours to ensure that the water authorities have at least one member with experience of wildlife conservation on their boards, which is what I understood him to say, because he is relying on it at a lower level, then I would sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pushes this amendment to a Division.
Lord Winstanley: I had not intended to intervene in this particular debate, but I feel tempted to say a word in support of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I served for some time on WASAC—the Water Space Amenity Commission—and in addition, in my capacity as a former chairman of the Countryside Commission, I had an opportunity to observe at close hand the apparent change of heart that came over the water authorities over a number of years, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said. He can remember, as I can, the time when water authority land on the whole was a sort of no-go area. You could not go anywhere near the reservoir, and you certainly could not bathe in it or fish in it, or picnic by it, and so on. There has been a total change of heart. I genuinely believe that has been brought about by the activities of bodies like WASAC, which is now to go, and by the recruitment into the water industry of many staff members at a senior level who themselves have great interest and expertise in such matters as recreation and wildlife.
There having been that change of heart, my anxiety is that if WASAC is to go and if we are to have much smaller authorities—which, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, implied, will not be able to embrace all possible interests—we may finish up with some water authorities on which there will be nobody with a very firm personal commitment to such activities, and we shall lose some of the momentum which has been gained over the years, and then we may slip backwards.
Lord Bellwin: If the scenario as described by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, were to come about, I entirely agree that it would be unfortunate. Perhaps I omitted to comment—certainly I should have done—in my opening remarks on whether or not it will be possible, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said, to have someone who is not only a MAFF man but has knowledge of recreation and so on. I do not know, but I suppose that will be possible. Although, as I said, we have difficulty in accepting an amendment which would make it obligatory, I would hope—indeed, I would give an assurance on the point—that, when making appointments, the degree of experience in the fields about which we are talking, in the authority as a whole, is a matter we should certainly want to consider.
I very much hope that will be the case. Indeed, I go beyond that and say it is something we should be looking to do. However, I am unable to take on a commitment to make a statutory appointment. That is the difficulty, but I should hope—my colleagues have already said this—that in considering the appointment of individuals, their expertise in this field would be a very strong factor.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I hope my noble friend will consider going further than merely hoping that expertise in conservation would be among the attributes to be sought. Conservation is not, in my opinion, to be seen merely as one of several sectoral interests to be balanced when drawing up a water board. Conservation is, as it were, a screen or pair of spectacles through which all activities of the water hoard must be viewed.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, The Water Industry, in paragraph 623 of which the point was summarised. It said, roughly speaking, that because all forms of animal or plant life depended for their very existence on a supply of water, there was no step in the abstraction, storage management or disposal of water, before or after human use, that could be undertaken without due consideration of its ecological consequences.
My noble friend Lord Onslow has drawn attention, as have others, to the importance in political terms of prior evaluation of the likely impact of the activities of water boards in the fields of ecology and conservation. It is absolutely essential that there should be someone on every water board who, by his background, can direct the policy in ways which will avoid some of the unfortunate conflicts we have seen. I sincerely believe that the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act—that there should be one member on the board specifically appointed for his conservation background—are absolutely indispensable.
Lord Chelwood: I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook with the reply of my noble friend Lord Bellwin. The same principle has arisen here as arose on Amendment No. 2—whether it is the same for a Secretary of State to make a promise to do something as putting it in black and white in the Bill—and it is not the same thing, and we all know very well it is not. Governments and Secretaries of State come and go, and I hope my noble friend will give further thought to the matter and not force the amendment to be pressed.
There is a serious risk of damage to SSSIs, nature reserves and great areas of scientific importance well beyond those resulting from the decisions of water boards, and we know perfectly well that that is true. We put in the Wildlife and Countryside Act a statutory duty on authorities to further nature conservation—not, as my noble friend said by mistake, simply to pay attention to the matter; that is by no means the same thing—and a provision to that effect appears as Section 48 of that Act, which amended the Water Act 1973.
It is wrong for the Minister to go back, as he seems to be doing, on the clear promise made by Mr. Hector Monro on two occasions in another place when the Wildlife and Countryside Act was being debated. I am sure my noble friend does not mean to go back on that promise. What really matters is representation at board level. There is plenty of to-ing and fro-ing between officers—that always has been the case and, on the whole, it is working well, even now—but that is not the same as having representation at board level, where policies are worked out and decisions made. I

887
beg my noble friend to go further than he has and to say, "Yes, I agree to look at the matter again".
Lord Melchett: A great deal of interest has been shown in this issue by noble Lords from all parts of the Committee. The one substantive argument which the Minister put forward against the amendment was the problem of numbers. He said in effect that if we had a specialist recreationalist, a specialist nature conservationist plus two MAFF people and the local authority people, we should be filling the board up. To some extent he seemed not entirely to accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is possible for people to wear more than one hat.
It so happens that in the last couple of weeks I have met two people on water authorities—one from Yorkshire and one other from the North-West—who do just that: wear two hats. Both of them have strong recreational interests, and the meetings at which I met them were concerned with recreation, although they were on different days at different places. I discussed the Bill and this amendment with them in turn, and both supported what we were trying to do and had grave worries—this has not been touched on in the debate—that, given the great pressure the Government will be under from numerous sources, there would not be any representatives (the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, made this point) at board and management level with expertise on these issues.
Of the two people I met, one was a local authority representative on the Yorkshire Water Authority, a county councillor, who, apart from his recreational interests, is an accountant who has just written a learned article about the financing of water authorities. He must bring enormous expertise in that field to the discussions of that authority, as well as being knowledgeable about recreation, The other, apart from his recreational interests, also covers the field which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, mentioned, that of public relations or customer relations, and he is a considerable expert in that field.
It seems perfectly possible, therefore, to have—and not unreasonable for the Government to make sure we have—such vital interests covered; and I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that, in my view, the two he mentioned are very different. To find one person able to cover both, as he mentioned, would be much more difficult than finding, for example, an accountant who is also expert in nature conservation, or a customer relations person who also knows something about recreation. That is a much easier way of doing it than trying to find, for example, somebody who knows a lot about dinghy sailing or water ski-ing and has botanical and ornothological interests. Although such people are about, they must be much more limited in number.
I urge the Minister, in view of the widespread concern that exists, to reconsider the matter. The assurances he has given have been in terribly general terms and I do not think any noble Lord, on either side of the Committee, could feel happy about withdrawing the amendment on the basis of what he has said so far. He is always very straightforward about such matters. Whenever he feels that he will not be able to do anything further, although he always tries to be helpful, he does not promise to do something. Up
888
till now he has made it fairly clear that he does not think he will be able to do anything. If that remains his position, it may be best to see what view the Committee takes about the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: There are one or two points that I should like to make. First of all, Section 22 of the Water Act 1973 already statutorily binds water authorities to further conservation. I think the noble Lord will agree with me about that. I make that point also, if I may, especially to my noble friend who raised that aspect of it. Clearly there is much concern on this point; yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, properly said, if I do not really believe that I can consider it with the possibility of being able to come back with something, then, if the Committee have to give a view, I would sooner have that view given now, and so be it. That is why, when I say I will look at something and consider it. I say it in a way to be helpful; but I cannot always guarantee.
I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that what I have said is indeterminate. I accept that it is so because I could not do otherwise. I do not think I can undertake to do something. Of course we will look at it, but I cannot guarantee to come back with the answer that is wanted because I cannot, as I stand here, think of any way other than the one the noble Lord (or was it my noble friend Lord Nugent?) makes about having somebody who has a knowledge of conservation and recreation, and so on, combined with drainage and fisheries, et cetera. If the noble Lord feels that there is some likelihood that when I start to look at it closely I will come up with answers that may satisfy him, that is for him to decide. He knows that I am sympathetic to the point, but I cannot be more determinate than that.
Lord Melchett: As I have said, there seems to be very widespread support for the amendment, particularly, if I may say so, from the Benches behind the noble Lord. He has been very straight with us. He is prepared to look at it, but he does not see any other way of meeting the point of the amendment. This is really my view as well, and I think that in that case he really ought to be voting with us for the amendment rather than (as I am afraid he is going to do) voting against it. I hope the rest of your Lordships who are not tied down by a brief will feel, having listened to the arguments, that this is a modest and moderate amendment to the Bill. It would reaffirm a clear undertaking which the Government gave twice in another place very recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said. I think that on that basis alone your Lordships' Committee would be entitled to ask for the amendment to be put in the Bill.
7.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Beswick, L.

Collison, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Cranbrook, E.

889

Darcy (de Knayth). B.

Onslow, E.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Denington, B.

Pender, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ridley, V.

Hall, V.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Holderness, L.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Shannon, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Lawrence, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Willis, L.

McCluskey, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Winstanley, L.

Nicol, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Avon, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Donegall, M.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Sandys, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glasgow, E.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hayter, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Ingrow, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: I think this is probably a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn for dinner. I think it would be useful if I were to tell the Committee that we intend to go so far as Amendment No. 12 tonight. I beg to move that we now adjourn until 8.15.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 until 8.15 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 5. I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to it will not be possible to call Amendment No. 6.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 20, leave out from ("in,") to end of line 23 and insert ("some matter relevant to the functions of water authorities subject to not less than three members being persons who appear to him to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, agriculture, land drainage, or fisheries").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I am more hopeful of my noble friend's approval, for I truthfully believe that it must have been a drafting mistake—or, indeed, a series of them—that caused the Bill to take no note whatsoever of the importance of agriculture in Wales. Unbelievably, as the Bill is written, the Secretary of State for Wales, when appointing members to the Welsh Water Board, does not need to have regard to agriculture, even though this is clearly stated concerning all the English water boards. I do not understand why there is this omission. Has Wales no agriculture? Has Wales no farmers on Snowdon? From whence cometh the English water? Surely my noble friend does not want a renewal of the bitter signs of bygone years when on every bridge one saw "Welsh water for Warrington workers". I am sure he does not.
I did of course read my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale's remarks on Second Reading on this particular point when it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. At column 1072 of Hansard for 7th February my noble friend said:
"… what about Wales? My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is the Minister of Agriculture in Wales; therefore, the Principality does not need a Ministry of Agriculture appointee."
I totally fail to understand such an argument. I am just—but only just!—able to understand the job of the Secretary of State for Wales. I am not, I hope, being irreverent when I say that I find his split personality as difficult to comprehend as the Holy Trinity.
This amendment gives the Secretary of State for Wales a little help with his split personality, for when he comes to decide who should go on to the water board he will be able to put on an agriculture hat and remember the problems of his greatest industry, agriculture, and appoint two members for their experience in agriculture. I would remind the Committee that this particular reminder to wear an agriculture hat is even given to the Minister of Agriculture when appointing members to the English water authorities. Surely if it is thought necessary to remind the Minister of Agriculture of his duty to appoint persons experienced in agriculture, how much more so the Secretary of State for Wales with his multitude of jobs?
My amendment will also correct another mistake, as I see it, in the drafting. As the Bill is written, it says that the Secretary of State shall appoint
"persons who appear to him to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, land drainage or fisheries or some other matter relevant to the functions of water authorities".
I am advised that a strict interpretation of that sentence could allow the Secretary of State to appoint no member experienced in land drainage or fisheries and only those concerned with some other matter. My mind boggles at the hilarious possibilities of those other matters. Could we have a board consisting, for instance, of cockleshell collectors or some such persons? My amendment corrects this inconsistency. Finally, my amendment would bring the agricultural

891
representation on Welsh water equal to, but no more than, that of their English counterparts, though if I were a little more bold I would say that because of the importance of agriculture in Wales there should be even more. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: We have already debated the need for what I might broadly term agriculture members when we were debating Amendment No. 1. Perhaps I should first explain that land drainage and fisheries are two functions of the water authorities for which they are statutorily required to establish committees. They are not so required for any of their other functions. In England these functions fall within the ambit of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He is therefore given the power to make these appointments. Although, for reasons which I have explained, it is most unlikely, the situation could possibly arise where the Minister might wish to appoint a farmer with no experience of land drainage or fisheries rather than someone with experience of those functions; and to provide for this, the word "agriculture" is included within the Minister's remit.
In Wales the situation is rather different. The Secretary of State for Wales, among other things, is the Agriculture Minister for the Principality and is therefore able to choose members from all walks of life, including agriculture, without any singling out of the agricultural community being necessary. It is not—and I gladly give the Committee my assurance on this—a slight on the agricultural community at all. The contention is that it is simply not necessary to mention them in the Bill.
I should add, as my noble friend will probably be aware, that local consumer advisory committees have already been established in the area of a Welsh authority. The guidelines for these committees provide for two and, in some cases, three members to be appointed to look after farming interests. I am not suggesting at all that that precludes a member of the agricultural community from being appointed a member of the water authority—I understand in fact there are already three farmers on the Board of the WWA—but it does ensure a fair representation of farming interests at local level. Some of the other points that my noble friend has made are interesting in themselves. I hope that what I have said will assure him that his concerns should not be quite as great as they seemed to be when he moved the amendment.
Lord Sandys: I am sure the Committee will have recognised that the assurances given by my noble friend are satisfactory so far as they go, but where the problem has caused anxiety relates to the form the Bill takes. It may well be that the inclusion of the word "agriculture" is, in the mind of the Minister, otiose and unnecessary, but it raised considerable anxiety in another place in Standing Committee B. I think it is clear from our discussions of just a short time ago that there is grave anxiety in the mind of my noble friend Lord Stanley, and I make a plea to the Minister that, although this word may be unnecessary in fact, perhaps he could possibly consider including it purely as a matter of form.
Lord Bellwin: Would I include it as a matter of form? We are very concerned about including in the
892
Bill, as your Lordships will recall from the debate we had before the adjournment, many matters which are of very great moment. Not for one moment do I try to suggest that the point my noble friend Lord Sandys is making is not one of importance to those who are concerned about this. I accept that without question. But as to Wales, the fact is that the present wording includes agriculture, just as it includes industry and accountancy, if you like, as was mentioned. I certainly undertake, in response to my noble friend, to make assurance doubly sure, if I may put it that way, and I will look at this again. I would not say that it is impossible. But, in all fairness, I am bound to say that I think at the moment it is not necessary. However, I will have a look and, as I have said, make assurance doubly sure.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am afraid I am not satisfied with that answer. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that in fact he has not answered any of my questions. He has not answered my questions on the "or", if I may put it that way. As the Bill is written, there is no need to appoint anybody responsible for fisheries or land drainage. They could all be concerned with some other matter.
I do not want to go into the argument about whether of not there should be agricultural representation on the board, but it has been accepted by the Government that the Minister of Agriculture should appoint to the English authorities members who are experienced in agriculture. We have had a little argument about this, and I have had to give way—I hope graciously—on the fact that it is only two members. If it is necessary for the Minister of Agriculture in England to have regard for agriculture—and that is written into the Bill in front of us—how much more important is it for the Secretary of State for Wales, with his multiplicity of jobs, to have it written in front of him too. As I say, my noble friend has not answered the question about other relevant matters. The whole board could consist of cockleshell collectors, with no experience of fisheries, land drainage or anything. I am not happy with this. I shall bring it back again and I hope that perhaps my noble friend will be able to write to me on the matter before Report—before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would like to say something.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I apologise for having missed the first part of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred to earlier debates that we had and, having thought about what happened before dinner, I just wonder whether the sensible thing from his point of view, in the light of what he said about my amendment, and from the Government's point of view, would not be to get rid of any particular people nominated to water authorities, whether from agriculture or anywhere else, and leave all this to the regional committees, with which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is apparently very satisfied so far as recreation is concerned. I am finding it increasingly difficult to follow the rather convoluted way in which his arguments swing wildly from one amendment to the next and I wondered, before he begs leave to withdraw his amendment, whether he could explain this further. I am trying hard to follow him, and not succeeding.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I knew it was a mistake to let the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, say anything! He says that he finds my arguments difficult to comprehend, and I find his impossible; but I do try to listen, and sometimes I feel that he does not. I must remind him, with the greatest respect, that he did not actually listen to my argument at the beginning of this debate, as he was kind enough to admit. Perhaps if he went away and read this in tomorrow's Hansard, we might all get on a lot better. But, frankly, the answer is: No, I do not agree with a word of what he said. He just puts words into my mind that he wants to put in.
At this stage, with an assurance and a nod from my noble friend on the Front Bench that he will write to me before Report on this matter—which is a serious matter and one which the Welsh farmer really cares about—I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert ("and to this end a proportion of the membership shall be appointed from among persons duly elected as members of the local authorities within the water authority's area, nominated by all such local authorities within the area acting jointly or, in the absence of such agreement, at the discretion of the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: I do not want to reiterate all the arguments used previously, and perhaps, as the noble Lord the Minister quite rightly said, I was very excitable. After the supper break I am not so excitable. What I am not very sure about is why we did not divide the Committee. We were led to understand by the Minister that he was sympathetic to what we were trying to put over in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Nicol. He expressed himself in sympathy with it. But our concern was that similar assurances were given in the other place, too.
I do not want to go all over the arguments, but, with the assurances that the Minister gave, I want to put some substantial meaning to them. Does he mean that he would like us to put down at the Report stage a further amendment, one that he would find much more suitable? Or does he feel that, after speaking to the Secretary of State and having further discussions, he might be able to put down a more acceptable amendment? I feel that this matter has been left a little in the air. That might have been because I was excited, or it might have been that I did not really follow what the Minister was saying. All I want to know is: does he want us to do some more homework, or is he saying that he will do the homework?
Lord Bellwin: It begins with our doing the homework. Whether that eventually leads to the noble Baroness having to do more homework of her own will depend, presumably, upon the conclusions that we reach. What I said was that there were certain aspects of it that we want to look at. As I say, when I have done that I will straight away inform the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and all who properly should be informed. Then it will be up to them to decide whether or not what, if anything, we propose is acceptable. They will then
894
decide on what line they want to take at a later stage. If what we decide means that it would be simpler for action to be taken by us, we will suggest that that is the way to go about the mechanics of it. I hope that is helpful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. We will wait to hear from him.
Viscount Ridley: As the amendment is in my name, I want to be quite sure, like Lady Fisher, that the Government are serious about this. They must have got the message from this House, and had my noble friend not agreed to look at it again, there might have been a quite serious vote against the Government; and in that spirit I think we all withdrew from voting, on the basis that he will put down a suitable compromise amendment which suits everybody.
Lord Bellwin: I have to say that it was not in that spirit that I agreed at all. I agreed to it because I thought that there was merit in the points that were being made and I wanted to look at it on those grounds. My noble friend, of all people, would not really want me to say that I was doing it for the reasons that he implied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("(7) The Secretary of State shall before appointing the members of a water authority consult such bodies representing water authority employees as appear to him to be appropriate and in appointing such members shall have regard to any comments or nominations made by such bodies.").
The noble Baroness said: I think that perhaps the noble Lord the Minister is being very generous. He has listened to the farming interests; he has listened to the local authority interests; he has listened to the wild life interests; he has listened to the conservationists; and now he is to listen to the trade unions—last but not least, might I say. Our amendment is not seeking any mathematical equation. What we are saying in the amendment is that there is expertise in the field of trade union organisation, and so the amendment really is to ask the Minister that the unions, either as individual unions or through the Trades Union Congress, should play at least some consultative role in the Secretary of State's deliberations on whom to appoint to the membership of each water authority. The principles of consultation with employee representatives have already been agreed to, and are part of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
What we are saying in this amendment, following the lines taken by other Members of the Committee who have spoken in their different fields, is that there is expertise. With any board of a managerial kind, whether it is called a board of directors or whatever it might be—these are being called water authorities—normally different directors have different responsibilities. Some may have expertise with exports or personnel, and some with other various aspects of the business. We see no reason why the trade union voice should not be part of the responsibility of perhaps one of the directors. If I may follow what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said in a

895
similar comment regarding one of the other appointments, if we have people of this kind it dampens conflict before it arises. What better organisation to be represented on a water authority than nominees who could be suggested if consultation took place? So in this amendment we are not asking for definite people—one, two, three or whatever—we are asking that consultation should be acceptable.
I think that perhaps the noble Lord the Minister might go only half way and accept the consultations but not the nominations. If that is the way he feels, I think that at a later stage we will bring forward a further amendment. We are asking that the appointment of members of the authority should be made in consultation with either the TUC or the unions concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: At present there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult with anyone before he appoints the members of a water authority. The suggestion posed in the amendment would be an unusual provision, certainly in a nationalised industry context. It is not customary for Ministers appointing chairmen or members to public corporations to be required to consult trade unions or any other interested groups. If one thinks about it carefully, it cannot be right to do so. The doctrine of ministerial accountability to Parliament is well entrenched in our system, and rightly so. But when the accountability is, in effect, accountability for the actions of a body like a water authority, then there is an important corollary. It is that the Minister alone must be responsible for appointing members of the body for which he is answering.
I appreciate that we are here talking of consultation only. Ultimate responsibility, even under this amendment, would remain with the Minister. I believe that there is a dilution of ministerial responsibility in what is being proposed here. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to any comments or nominations made by employees' representatives. This implies a limitation on the Secretary of State's discretion; otherwise, what is the point of it?
Of course, Ministers do consult informally on various appointment matters. That is often the way that new names come forward. It is a way of testing whether particular names would be acceptable to those with whom the appointees would have close dealings. But these consultations are at Ministers' own initiative. They are the Ministers' responsibility, and in no way diminish their responsibility for the ultimate appointment.
There is an additional point. Anyone who knows the Whitehall appointment system will know that it contains a number of checks and balances designed to prevent the unacceptable from gaining appointment. It is a system which takes some time to operate. If we were to be required to consult all the bodies representing employees in the regional water authorities each time there was a change of membership, the whole business would become hopelessly bureaucratic. Others, too, would wish to be consulted, which would make the whole problem even worse.
May I make a final observation? I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness, but there is
896
nothing in the Local Government Finance Act 1982 about employee members of water authorities. Otherwise, for the reasons which I have given I am sure that she will understand why we do not wish to accept the amendment.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My noble friend and I are very disappointed at the reply which has been given. We certainly do not want to abrogate the responsibility of the Minister in any way. But we feel that this has a precedent in a measure enacted by this Government in 1982, which specifically mentions in Section 11(2)(b) such bodies as accountants, such bodies as represent local authority employees, and such other organisations and persons as appear to him appropriate. It seems to us to be very well precedented. The unions are anxious that either they or the TUC should have some part to play in the consultation procedure, when the Minister is thinking about what he ought to do. We certainly do not want to destroy the Minister's part in it; if anything, we want to make it more effective. I hope that the Minister will think again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I say a brief word in opposition to this amendment? As your Lordships know, I very much favour the process of due consultation with trades unions. But, alas! these words constitute no more than an administrative exhortation. They have no legal efficacy. They are unenforceable by any known process of law. The obligation to consult such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate is not a true obligation to consult, as, if nobody appears to be appropriate, there is no requirement to consult.
Even if one substitutes "may" for "shall"—and I am not on small drafting points—and the Secretary of State consults, the mandatory provision to have regard to comments or nominations made by such bodies is still, in essence, permissive. One may have regard and, having regarded, may then disregard. With the greatest respect—and I mean this—to the movers of this amendment, it is not suitable for legislative enactment, because it clutters up the statute with unenforceable verbiage. My noble friend Lord Renton was unable to remain, but may I be permitted to inform your Lordships that he would have spoken as I have done.
Lord Melchett: If your Lordships' House passed only legislation which was enforceable in the terms which the noble Lord has just suggested, there would be hardly any legislation on the statute book under any Government. This point has been made in numerous debates on numerous Bills; nevertheless, your Lordships' House has seen fit to include exhortations in legislation. The suggestion that it is only pieces of legislation which are enforceable through the courts which are worth passing is, with the greatest respect, a view which may be held by those who spend their lives working in the legal profession and the courts, but it is not one which I believe is generally held. There are many purposes for including things in legislation, other than employing lawyers to take matters to the courts, and I suggest that this is one of them.
I also want to take up one matter which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, raised for the second time in the discussions during the Committee stage, and that is

897
about ministerial responsibility. It seemed to be an extraordinary suggestion that, because the Secretary of State consults with somebody, that, in some way, diminishes the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament, or interferes with the line of responsibility between the Secretary of State and Parliament. That is certainly what I understood the noble Lord to be saying; if he was not, he can correct it.
He implied that the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament for appointing people would be reduced or negated by the fact that he had to consult. If that were the case, no Government would ever produce a Green Paper. The idea is patently ludicrous, if the noble Lord stops to think about it, and I cannot for the life of me see why he tried to suggest it in this case. There are numerous occasions when Secretaries of State are obliged to consult, when it is suggested that they consult, or when they consult off their own bat. In none of these cases does it diminish the responsibility for the decision that they take, and I do not think that this amendment would either.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, respectfully, whether he accepts that the will of this House on all sides in a recent debate was that we should seek to improve the quality of statute law, and to render it readily and plainly enforceable?
Lord Melchett: Your Lordships are very good at agreeing on general principles. It is my experience, both as a Minister and in opposition, dealing with legislation that, when it comes to putting particular measures in Bills, the general principles tend to go out of the window and everybody wants to see in a Bill exhortations and particular points. All of us, including myself, have been party to that sort of process in the discussions on this Bill. I do not see anything wrong with it. It is often useful to have exhortations and declarations of general intent in statute, and that has been the case for a great many years.
Lord Bellwin: Despite the extravagant way in which the noble Lord made his point, let me simply tell him exactly what I did say, which was that the consultations to which I referred are at Ministers' own initiative. I then went on to say that they are the Ministers' own responsibility and in no way diminish their responsibility for the ultimate appointment. That is the point which the noble Lord was making, and it is one that I made in saying what I did.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am disappointed with the reply because all the other speakers definitely asked for numbers. They wanted one, two, three or as many as four. We are not asking for any numbers. We are just asking the Minister to consider anybody whom the trade union movement suggests. The trade union movement was not saying that it wants one, two, three or four. All I can hope is that the consultations which the Minister talks about will include, among all the other bodies—the businessmen, the farmers and all the others—a very large representation of the population of this country. If the noble Lord will not accept our amendments—and, for various reasons, he has said
898
that he will not—I think we shall have to come back on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Beaumont, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota and myself. With such weighty support, it is not altogether surprising that we have already heard from the Minister that he intends to accept this amendment as it stands, and I am deeply grateful for that. That means that it will not be necessary to detain your Lordships' Committee in moving the amendment. However, the principle involved is so desperately important that it would be wrong merely to pass through this part of our Committee stage purely formally, It would be wrong not to underline the principle involved, and that I will do as briefly as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will recollect that on Second Reading there were criticisms raised from every part of your Lordships' House and from every party. It was my feeling that, in the main, those criticisms were focused almost exclusively on the alleged lack of accountability of the new water authorities—authorities which were to be wholly appointed by the Secretary of State. The press were to be removed from their proceedings. We shall have to see about that. Local government in any meaningful form was to be extracted from the new authorities and the water authorities were to be removed from the scope of the ombudsman.
The amendment seeks to delete subsection (2) which removes the water authorities from the scope of the local commissioner for administration. All that we are offered in the Bill by way of accountability are the new consumer councils. I say nothing against them. In certain fields—the gas industry, water, telephones and so on—their work has been admirable, but unless the consumer councils are backed up by something else, perhaps by membership of the authority which they are investigating or by statutory powers to obtain all the information that they need to investigate the complaints given to them, they will become no more than mechanisms for the soaking up of complaints and for the allowing of time to pass until the complainant has somehow simmered down.
In the past we did at least have the ombudsman. He was to be removed. When these matters were challenged earlier the answer given to us was that since the new water authorities are no longer technically part of local government it was logical that the ombudsman should be removed from the field. Perhaps it is logical, but in my view it is certainly not sensible.
Furthermore, this move would be entirely contrary to the trend of recent years. In the days when the first parliamentary commissioner for administration was appointed, which was not so long ago, his role was very limited. The first ombudsman of the Select Committee of which I was a member announced on his first day that he had formulated what he called his adminis

899
trative screen of 10 jurisdictional tests through which every complaint had to pass before he could even look at it. Things have relaxed since then. We have now extended his scope to the National Health Service which originally was excluded. Originally local government was excluded. The majority of complaints arose in local government, but that barrier was broken and local government was brought in. In recent years, therefore, the trend has been a gradual extension of the scope of the ombudsman or the ombudsmen. They have been allowed into new territory.
Had we persisted with the Bill as it was, however logical that would have been in terms of the change of the structure of the water authorities, it would have been entirely contrary to the continuing trend of recent years and to my mind would have been desperately undesirable. I shall say no more, save that I am very glad to learn that the Government have finally understood this point and accepted it. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: First may I say that of all the speeches which we heard at Second Reading the one which most impressed us, as everyone would properly have expected, was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota. It focused very clearly the anxieties of the House. As she pointed out, the Bill proposed to remove the right established by Parliament in 1974 that any citizen might ask for an independent investigation when it was felt that there had been injustice through maladministration on the part of a water authority. The noble Baroness emphasised the powers of the local ombudsman to investigate a complaint in depth. Without going into the matter in the way that otherwise I should have done, I have to say that the noble Baroness impressed us very much with her arguments.
I should like to make one or two points as to precisely why we feel that in all the circumstances it is proper to accept the amendment. The powerful arguments which were put forward caused us to reconsider the position. In particular we were concerned that for the first time the Bill proposed the ending of part of the local commissioner's jurisdiction. It would have involved the removal of an existing right. Although I am glad to say that this has not had to be exercised too frequently, it has nevertheless been an important safeguard for the individual. It is always difficult to assess how far the fact that a right such as this has not been exercised makes it necessary for that right to be continued. We accept that it is an important safeguard. That, as much as anything, is why we are persuaded, based on what the noble Baroness has said, that the ombudsman should be allowed to investigate any complaint brought to him about a water authority. We agree that it is wrong, primarily for reasons of consistency and tidiness, to remove a public right of continuing value.
May I make two points. First, our agreement to retain the jurisdiction in this case should be seen as the preservation of an existing right; it does not necessarily lend strength to the argument for extending the local commissioner's jurisdiction into other areas. Secondly, we believe that this is an important concession to local accountability. Some careful thought is
900
required about the role of the consumer consultative committees when handling complaints. I do not accept the description by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, of the role of those committees. I suspect that I shall have more to say about it on the next amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, made some observations about this at Second Reading. At this stage, however, we are consulting only on the draft of guidelines for the new consumer arrangements. We shall need to consider the position in that context.
I am glad again to confirm that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, is, so far as we can see, the right amendment to make to achieve the purpose which they and we have in mind. I hope that your Lordships will agree that in this area we have shown ourselves to be not entirely inflexible. I am glad to accept the amendment.
Baroness Serota: I believe I shall be expressing the views of noble Lords on all sides of the Committee when I say how delighted I was to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on this amendment. I am sure he has played a very great part in the change of mind by the Government. I have always found him most sympathetic and supportive of the concept of an independent and impartial system of investigation of statutory bodies providing essential monopoly services. The Committee is, I am sure, grateful to the noble Lord for the gracious way in which the Government have yielded tonight.
I became a little worried only when the noble Lord entered his caveat that acceptance of the amendment should not be seen as grounds for extending the role of the ombudsman in the future. This is neither the time nor the place to speak about the possibilities of future extension, although at a later stage of the Bill we may consider the question of more access for the citizen to the local ombudsman. With those very few comments, once again may I say how delighted I am sure the whole Committee is that the Government have had this change of mind. All of us welcome it and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the part he has obviously played in it.
The Earl of Onslow: From this side of the Committee may I say how nice it is for those of us who have had nothing much good to say about the Bill to see one's own side showing intelligence, sensitivity, wisdom and all the things that one normally comes to associate with a Conservative Government.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: May I from these Benches thank the noble Lord the Minister for the assurance he has given to the Committee. We shall look forward to seeing the guidelines. I would like to say on behalf of Members on these Benches how much we appreciate the words and the contribution made by my noble friend Lady Serota. Her great knowledge convinced the House that here was something that ought to be righted and we are most appreciative of her comments. I should like that to be publicly recorded.
Viscount Ridley: As my name is on this amendment, I too should like to record my very great thanks to the Government for this marvellous change of mind.
Lord Sandys: I feel that it might be almost excessive for me to add a word, but for me to say that this is a major concession is only just sufficient because it is indeed of the greatest importance in the management of this Bill and, later, of the Act. The Government's original intention was to place very great reliance upon the consultative committees. Now that these consultative committees are going to be effectively backed up with the role of the ombudsman, as we have grown to understand his operation, it will be of enormous value. I thank my noble friend most sincerely.
Lord Winstanley: As the mover of this amendment obviously I should express my deep gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the statements he has made and for the action he has taken. I too should like to underline every word that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has just said. I should not want my gratitude to be diminished in any sense by any critical words, but I will also associate myself a little with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. The noble Lord the Minister has decided not to take a backward step. In relation to the very last words that he spoke to us, I hope that he will some day take some forward steps. I should like to see an ombudsman whose task was to investigate all the statutory undertakers—gas, electricity and the rest as well as water, but that is another story. I can only say now that I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Baroness Nicol: I have one small point to raise on Clause 1, to which the answer may be obvious to some. It seems that under the new clause it will no longer be necessary for the Secretary of State to make orders. I am a little concerned that this may represent a diminution of control over the Secretary of State's powers. I should like the noble Lord the Minister to comment on this if he will, because I am not quite certain of the reason for this change.
Lord Bellwin: I am not aware that the making of orders is a point before us at the moment. If the noble Baroness will enlighten me, I shall be glad to reply to her.
Baroness Nicol: I am quoting from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which draws attention to the fact that in Clause 1, whereas under the Water Act 1973 the Minister had to make orders in order to appoint the authorities, this is no longer required. Perhaps the Minister would like more time to consider this point.
Lord Bellwin: It may be that I am missing the point that the noble Baroness is making, but I will certainly look at this and write to her.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Admission to meetings.
. The provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall apply to the meetings of the Welsh Water Authority and each regional water authority in England.").
The noble Lord said: Rising as I do on that wave of euphoria, I hope to catch some of it—and speaking as I am to very much the same interest, I trust that the Government may feel almost as benevolent. I suppose that, along with at least two other noble Lords involved in the production of this amendment, I must declare an interest. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists, but this amendment goes far wider than any sectional interest of that kind.
In your Lordships' House there is not just widespread support for the freedom of the press—that goes without saying—but also recognition of the importance that the press should have access to the proceedings of those who govern us. We on these Benches believe in that, the Social Democrats believe in it, the Labour Party believe in it, and the Government believe in it because the Government say that they aim to be and want to be a party of open government. The Prime Minister believes in it because she was responsible for the Bill that originally made it compulsory for local authorities to admit the press to their meetings. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, believes in it too. As yet, the right of the press to attend the meetings of these new authorities has been removed by this Bill. With this amendment, and with Amendment No. 44, we wish to prevent that situation.
The reasons for allowing the press into these meetings are reasons of generality and of principle, and I have very briefly to recite them. More interesting, perhaps, and more open to contention, are the reasons which have been given, particularly in another place, for resisting this amendment. There was considerable debate in another place, where the great majority of opinion on both sides of the House was in favour of an amendment such as this.
One of the reasons given against was that the size of the new authorities was such that it was not appropriate. In fact, I am told that the size of some regional health authorities is very much the same as the size some water authorities will be. In any case, I do not see what size has to do with it. Just as much damage can be done behind closed doors by a small body as by a big one—possibly even more so. We were told that the fact that it is an executive body was a reason for not allowing in the press. That was an answer which the Prime Minister produced at Question Time in another place. Whether or not the authority is an executive body, it is undoubtedly also a policy-making one.
On the previous amendment I had cause to repeat the number of things on which it makes policy, but clearly the most important in the context of this amendment is that it is a rating body; it is a body which has powers to levy taxes upon the citizens. For that particular reason, if for no others, there should certainly be the right of access for the press.
The other answer the Government have given is that there will be press conferences after the meetings of the authority. This is a sophisticated Committee, and we have all had experience of press conferences of various kinds; we have both given press conferences and we have, most of us, attended them. I do not think it can be very seriously suggested that there is going to be a wild rush of the press to attend the anodyne press conferences that will be given after the authorities have been meeting behind closed doors to consider the

903
statements which those authorities will consider it right to issue.
Newspapers come to discover news. They come to press conferences when they think there is going to be news. When they donot think there is going to be news, they do not come. We all know that. All you have to do to put off the journalists is to offer to have a news conference with no news, and you will get an absolutely nil attendance. We all know that, and we all know that in fact authorities of any kind, for most of the time, do not want news conferences. Of course, there are times when they have something to announce, and then they will call a news conference and the journalists will presumably turn up. But for the rest of the time, after their meetings, if they decide they have nothing of particular interest they may call a news conference, but they will not expect anyone to turn up, and nor will anyone turn up.
If journalists are to report the news for the benefit of the public, they must hear the arguments. They must be able to detect the nuances. They must not just be presented with what the spokesman for a body represents to them as something which has already been decided. Indeed, they will not turn up on such occasions. The Government may say, or others may say, that in that case it is the newspapers' fault. I do not believe that it would be the newspapers' fault. I think it is right that in a democracy we should open up our decision-making processes to the press on behalf of the general public. We all, as I said at the beginning, share in that belief: it is nothing which belongs to one particular party or one particular section of this Committee. We all of us believe that; and if we believe that, I believe strongly that we should pass this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ardwick: I think my professional interest in the subject is well known to this Committee. I must say that I find it remarkable and deplorable that in 1983 a Government which should be opening up new sources of information and new opportunities of participation are actually shutting one down. The people who are most upset by this are the editors of the sturdy regional and local newspapers, which play a great part in informing the public of the work of local authorities and of boards of this kind. The Government are closing down a source of information and an opportunity for the public to influence authority which the public have enjoyed, through the medium of the press, during the past 100 years. Yet there is no change in the functions of the boards.
Let me quote from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, at Second Reading:
"There are no proposals in the Bill to alter the basic responsibilities and areas of the water authorities."[Official Report, 7/2/83, col. 992.]
Why, then, is the press being denied access to the meetings. First of all, in order to justify the exclusion of the press the noble Lord explained that the water authorities are being changed by this Bill into smaller executive boards. I see a fallacy here, and it is at the heart of our dispute with the Government. Yes, the boards will be smaller, but their function remains what it has previously been. The noble Lord said:
"There are no proposals in the Bill to alter the basic responsibilities and areas of the water authorities".
904
If they are to be executive boards in the future, then they always have been executive boards, or boards with executive functions, and they have always admitted the press. So what is the problem?
It would perhaps be more accurate to describe the new boards as boards containing a number of executives—indeed, as containing some executive officers—in the employ of the boards. To quote the noble Lord again:
"An important subsidiary change will allow senior executives to become members of the new boards."
This will put those with primary executive responsibility into the decision-making role. But, of course, they now become not mere executives of the board, they become important public figures. Indeed, the noble Lord emphasised that they must accept full collective responsibility for the consequences of board decisions. Responsible to whom? I suppose the Ministry. Responsible for what? For everything that the boards do.
But it seems that the Minister regards the new boards—this is why I was anxious to find out from him how they are to be constituted—as rather delicate plants. Instead of rough, tough local councillors they will have nominees from trade and industry and managerial types sitting alongside the bureaucrats. The Government perhaps fear that they may get themselves exposed to democratic pressures and from these they must be sheltered. The noble Lord said,
"It is impossible to function effectively as … such a board if at every stage one is concerned that the odd word here, the odd outspoken comment there, will hit the headlines next day."—[Official Report, 7/2/83; cols. 993–995.]
What kind of board will it be? What headline could bring the blush of shame to the cheek of authority? What kind of public representatives are these who are afraid to face the questioning of a reporter or appear before the microphone on local radio? Surely this kind of ability is very common among the people of the type who will become members of this board. It is one of their qualifications for public office.
I put it differently from the noble Lord. I would say that it is impossible for a board which is taking large decisions to function effectively unless it is subjected to public scrutiny. The point was, I thought, very well made by my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa on Second Reading. He said that,
"the right of the press to report the actions and deliberations of public bodies is one of our greatest safeguards against maladministration and misuse of authority."—[Official Report, 7/2/83; col. 1067.]
I can quite see that the Board will be different in style from the old boards. The debates will be sharper, briefer, more expert, and yet meetings of this kind are much easier to report than the long rambling debates held by rather large assemblies and, I may say, easier to report than the debates in this House which are long but I hope are not very often rambling.
It is true that the consumer, the water rate payer, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley emphasised, is to have his representatives—the Consumer Council. But, of course, its members will be on the outside looking in. They will be able to question the board but will not take part in the decisions. The press will be able to attend these meetings and will also be summoned to a press conference after a meeting of the regional board. The press will be told what the

905
chairman wants it to know about the decisions that have been taken. To find out what is really going on the press will be dependent on leaks. As the Government have learned in the past week or two, information leaks are harder to locate and check than are leaks from the water pipes.
Surely the Government must look at this matter again. It is most unlike this Government. It is unlike the thinking not only of the parties on this side but also of the Conservative Party, too, to close down a news source of this kind. Our amendment has been pressed in a non-Party way by people from all sides of the House and it has been pressed by people other than those of us who have a newspaper bias. I do hope that the noble Lord can give us some hope of perhaps reaching a compromise on the situation. If the Boards were to be opened, say, once a quarter to the press that would go some way towards reassuring the newspaper editors.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I support this amendment. I put my name down in support of it from these Benches for a particular reason. It was in May 1960 that the right honourable Member for Finchley, now our remarkable Prime Minister, began her political life in the House of Commons. She balloted and had time for a Private Member's Bill called the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Bill. It went through the House of Commons with the support of all parties—even people as different as Mr. Fenner Brockway and Mrs. Castle supported the Bill. The Member for Finchley invited me, who in 1958 had just become a Member of your Lordships' House, to pilot the Bill through this House as a Private Member's Bill. With some trepidation I did so and I had the support in May 1960 of the Labour Party, whose spokesman in those days was Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and, of course, the support of the Conservatives and the Liberals.
The Bill went through and was passed with no Divisions, but there were of course discussions. Today it is the Act which operates and it has been highly successful. It is the only Act on the statute book which has been put through both Houses of Parliament by a woman, because of course I had been in your Lordships' House for two years when I was invited to put the Bill through.
I have studied the debate in the other place and I have listened to the speeches which have been made, I entirely agree with everything that has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Ardwick. The Act has worked very well and it is one which was accepted by everybody. The schedule covers a wide range of meetings. It is very comprehensive. To quote from my speech in 1960:
"Bodies such as the London County Council, county boroughs, county councils, urban district councils, rural district councils, parish councils and all bodies connected with health, housing, education, water and other public services, and also combined boards and joint authorities, are included. In fact, the Bill caters for all existing bodies and for some that do not exist now but may be in the future.
"This Bill is an important step forward in our democratic system".—[Oflicial Report, 26/5/60; col. 1305.]
That has been a fact. It has worked extremely well. There was a clause, and it still operates today, under which if there were certain subjects which had to be
906
taken in private without the press present—for example discussions concerning housing allocations and land purchases; questions relating to staff matters such as promotions or appointments; confidential inquiries from Government departments wanting information on a subject before a final decision is taken or a debate on a national issue—a resolution could be passed at the beginning of the meeting to say that such subjects should be taken in private and, if agreed, that happens. However, it is done entirely democratically and has always meant that if there was something that should be taken in private, it can be taken in private.
The point of the Bill was, and still is, that nothing is hidden from the public and that nothing can happen behind closed doors which concerns the public and the people who are paying for all these national services. These are services which come on the national budget. Your Lordships and I and everybody contribute to them. It is only right that we should know how our money is being spent, administered or what-have-you. It all comes under the Bill.
I have studied with some interest the suggestion that, because these new water councils will be small, they should not be open to the public. When I was a member of the county council at home we had the public or the press in whenever they wanted to come, and sometimes the meetings were quite small. But it was a matter about which they wanted to know and it was of interest to people who were concerned with whatever democratic organisation was then functioning. The same applies today. You do not want to have the press excluded because the meeting contained 12 or 14 people when you wished it had contained 50 or 100 people, or whatever the number might be. That is not the point; that is not the principle. The principle is that these matters, which are of interest to the public, which are paid for or subscribed to by the public—it is public administration—should be known to the public and by the public.
I am very unimpressed by the fact that under this Bill it is suggested that, because these are small committees or small gatherings, they should not be open to the public. That seems to me to have no relation at all to the important fact that the public should know about it. I think that I have suggested that legislation that we pass should look to the future and should improve things. The suggestion to exclude these bodies from the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act is a very retrograde step indeed. I very much hope that the noble Lord, who understood very well the last amendment, which I am delighted he has accepted, will realise that this amendment is just as important, and that we should do just as much for keeping the principle of this Act going as we have done for any other. It is an Act; it was passed by a Conservative Government in 1960, and I would be most regretful if the Conservative Government in 1983 fail to carry out the principle. I hope that this amendment will be accepted by the noble Lord, as he accepted the last one.
Lord Hemingford: I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment to which I have put my name. I speak as a member of the Guild of British

907
Newspaper Editors. It seems to me that this evening we have seen and we have recognised the noble Lord the Minister wrestling with the difficulty of trying to make the composition of the new authorities directly accountable. We found him able to deal with the great worry which the House had over the question of the ombudsman. I very much hope that this amendment, which I think comes between those two points, will meet with his approval.
I think that the point about the ombudsman is that he is capable of dealing with matters after they have gone wrong. That is a very important thing to be able to do, but it means that something has already gone wrong. It seems to me that, if the press are admitted to meetings and can watch the policy-making process, there is a chance that there can be sufficient debate in the public media which can prevent things from going wrong. That seems to me to be an important reason for preserving the right of the press to attend these meetings.
The noble Lord the Minister said earlier, when he accepted the previous amendment, that the previous Bill removed an existing right. I would point out that that is exactly what the present Bill is doing in this case, because it is removing the existing right of the press to attend. I would urge on him that if the logic of excluding the ombudsman is seen to be not necessary, then I do not think that it is necessary to follow the same logic and exclude the press.
The Earl of Onslow: One of the besetting sins in this country's Administrations—and it does not matter who is in power—seems historically to have been an obsession with secrecy. It is infinitely better to make people open and outwardly acceptable to the public and accountable to the public, than to allow inward cabals to arrive at decisions which cannot be queried or questioned during the formation of policy process. This is why one would like the press to be present at the majority of these meetings.
There are statutory duties on conservation and on other things which are laid down in regard to the water authorities, both by the Water Acts and by the Wildlife and Countryside Act. How can the public know that these duties are being carried out, or are not being carried out, as the case may be, if the press does not have access? I totally concede that the press recently has given itself a bad name. There have been fines for contempt of court. There have been grave criticisms by the Press Council, and certain newspapers have recently indulged in practices which most reasonable human beings would regard as being in the most appallingly bad taste. But it is the press we have, and a lot of it is extremely good. Even with bad judgment, bent ''hacks- and "hackettes", call them what you will, that press is the best press we have, and it ought to have access to these meetings when they take place.
Of course my noble friend Lady Elliot is right in saying that if something like compulsory purchase is talked about, or staff salaries, or an individual's behaviour, then the press should be excluded—but for a specific reason. Surely it is better to give them the right to be there unless specifically excluded for certain reasons, and the reasons will be known before the discussion takes place. That is a right compromise
908
between the rights of an individual to have his individual interests protected and the rights of the public, through the press, to know what is going on by boards of water authorities which, after all, are dealing with very large sums of public money. That is why the press ought to be involved in these discussions.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Boardman: This is a highly emotional amendment in that we all have a love-hate relationship with the press. We love them when they are nice to us and say the right things; we think otherwise on other occasions. It is also emotional in that we all pay tribute to open government, we all want open government, it is something which we all endorse, and yet we must be pragmatic about it. I would support the amendment entirely if I felt, from the practical point of view, that it would produce a more effective result on the water councils, and if I felt that their debates would be better and that we would finish up with a more effective operation, lower charges, and so on. But I do not believe that it would be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to press conferences being an anodyne substitute. I believe that councils held with the press there would be anodyne councils. If one had to contrast between the effectiveness of the councils being held in the presence of the press and the press conference, I believe that the press conference would be far more effective. On those occasions, of course, the press are able to ask questions, and press those who have made the decisions for their reasons and arguments. On the council they can only be passive listeners.
Many of us who have taken part in meetings where the press are present and where decisions have to be made, know all too well that in those circumstances the really delicate decisions, the ones which people like to know about, are taken in committee behind closed doors, and you have the bland debate in the council chamber itself. I well understand the sentiments of noble Lords opposite who, quite rightly, are pressing for further open government and further exposure to the press, and indeed the sentiments of my noble friend Lady Elliot who did so much to get this originally started in 1960, and I am sorry to disagree with her. However, attractive as it is superficially to have open government, to have the press there, I feel that it would not lead to more effective decision-making or better service to the customer. There are other methods—the Minister has already referred to some—and there are amendments to be discussed later about consumer rights, and so on, which could be more effective than the press being present. For those reasons I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, has got it the wrong way round. He was arguing that we should not admit the press because we would not get better administration as a result. Surely, as a free country we must start from the assumption that the press should be admitted, and anybody who does not want them to be there should be able to show that we would get worse administration if they were admitted.
It is admitted that in certain circumstances that

909
could happen: that if the topic were, say, about land or the personal affairs of an individual, the press should not be present. That is provided for. If there are grounds for believing that the presence of the press would result in worse administration, an authority can, by means of a motion, exclude them. Surely, the general rule with which we should start, as is normally the case, is that the press should be there. The press will not earn their right to be there by being able to prove that their presence will necessarily result in better administration. Those who want to turn them out must try to show that there would be worse administration if they were let in. From my understanding of the argument, and from reading the debates in the other place, the supporters of the Bill as drafted have not even begun to prove that.
Lord Boardman: I would contrast meetings of the proposed water council with what happens at meetings of an executive board—a contrast which was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. It will be on all fours with bodies such as the gas and electricity boards, which do not admit the press. That is the contrast to be made between the decision of an executive board and that of a deliberative council, such as your Lordships' House. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, if he can remember—I certainly cannot—any occasion at which the deliberations at meetings of water boards, when the press have been there, have resulted in press reports. Therefore, while the onus may be to show that they would be harmful, my argument is that there is certainly no evdience to show that they have achieved the purpose which all of us would like, if possible, to be achieved.
Baroness Trumpington: I support my noble friend Lord Boardman and hope the Committee will not divide on this issue. Nobody could believe more strongly than I in the freedom of the press and their right to the facts and figures. However, I also believe that the total right of the press to be present at all meetings of authorities would turn out to be purely cosmetic. Noble Lords will have sat on committees where the press were present. In reality, the true arguments and true nuances as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, all took place either before or after the arrival or departure of the press, the result being a quite dull meeting when the press were actually present.
Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, I suggest that, far from having a reassuring effect on the public, in certain circumstances the articles that would emerge from the presence of the press at all meetings might prove to be tremendously worrying. "No news is good news" is an old saying. Therefore, only the more sensational aspects of any meeting would be reported. To coin a phrase, leaks about leaks could cause consternation. The press should be free to ask questions of the authorities and they should be given access to annual reports and, indeed, to all documents. Although they should be free to ask questions at any time, as my noble friend Lady Elliot said, to have the press present during discussions about, say, staff appointments and salaries would be intolerable.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: That is allowed for in the Bill as drafted. If something of that kind is about to be discussed, one simply asks whether the whole meeting agrees that it should be discussed with the press not present. If all say "Yes", the press are then not present. But they are present unless such a resolution is passed.
Baroness Trumpington: That makes the presence of the press even more cosmetic, in my view. I hope the Government will look at this again and that the public will feel, and be, fully informed both by the authorities and by the press. At the same time, I believe that certain rights of the authorities to maintain their independence must be allowed to remain their prerogative.
Lord Mottistone: If I might add a word, I think that my noble friend Lady Elliot is probably barking up the wrong tree in seeing a threat to her very special Act of Parliament of 1960, which is not itself threatened at all in the purpose for which it was designed. What I think is perhaps missing the point in all the discussions and in some of the earlier debates on earlier amendments is the fact that the Government are trying to change these bodies into executive bodies with a commercial instinct to run water as efficiently and capably on behalf of us all as they can. The whole accent is on making it as easy as possible for them to run a commercial operation.
No noble Lord has suggested that we should have the press in at every board meeting of public companies or even of the small companies. One needs to see these new, small hoards as being much more equivalent to a board of directors of a small company rather than of a public company. As your Lordships know, if you look at it from that point of view you will see that there is no argument for having the press there whenever there is an ordinary meeting—except when it is excluded under the rules of the Public Bodies Act; and when it is excluded under those terms, the press will probably get suspicious that something is going on that they ought to be listening to; and this would make matters worse rather than better.
One wants to see it more as though it were a company trying to run a service for the public as efficiently as it can. It has been said that it is different from the gas and electricity boards who do not have to have the press for the very reasons I have put forward. The fact is that the water authorities and their charging system are not an example of taxation without representation; nor can the authorities be likened to local government. The authorities charge for the services they provide, so as to meet revenue expenditure. They do not obtain central Government support. Water rates are not taxes. Rateable value is used as a proxy because no universally applicable alternative charging basis has been evolved so far.
Progress is being made to move away from a rateable value element and all consumers, as your Lordships know, now have the option to be charged on a measured basis. The principle is working towards having a proper, efficient, commercial operation to look after our water for us. That is what we need. I would agree with those who have said that the consultative committees would be the ones that would be

911
much more appropriate for the press to attend in the normal way so that the boards may get on with their job and run the organisation efficiently for us. One will then find that it is very much a better system than having the press breathing down the backs of one's neck whenever they feel like it. I hope that we all resist the amendment.
Viscount Ridley: I should like to support the amendment very strongly. My noble friend Lord Mottistone seems to me to have missed the essential point. It has nothing to do with a commercial company. We are all compulsory consumers of water and compulsory payers for water. This is not a commercial operation at all. It is a statutory one. If local authorities can, and have, made this Act, which my noble friend Lady Elliot produced so skilfully, work, then so can the water authorities.
Viscount Mountgarret: I should like to interject, if I may. Much as I should like to support the Government, I think that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has raised a point which needs elaborating. The mere fact that the water authorities are dealing with—and "handling" as my noble friend Lord Onslow said—public money makes it rather important that this should be watched over more carefully. If it is a public company where shareholders have shares and attend board meetings, and so on, there is no earthly need for the press to be present at their meetings. But as a public board they do not have individual shareholders. Perhaps it begs the question whether the water authorities might not be run by a private organisation, and then there would be no need to have the press attend.
The Earl of Onslow: I cannot emphasise more strongly that the water companies are statutory monopolies producing something which we all have to use. I accept that some of our forebears existed from morning to night on scotch whisky, but they were in a very small minority. There is no competition for water whatsoever, and therefore the analogy of a private company is totally false.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I wonder whether I may present the Government's view on this amendment. I have been listening with much interest, as I did at Second Reading, to what has been said. I should like to say at the outset that the Government consider this to be a matter of major importance to the overall objectives of the Bill. Let me try to explain why. No executive board of the kind which controls a major undertaking in the public or private sector throws open its meetings to the press and public. Why is that? First, it is because there is now doubt—and those who say otherwise are not being fair because in this Committee there is a mass of experience in this area—that the presence of outsiders at meetings of this kind has a profoundly inhibiting effect on discussion. People will not speak up as freely as they would in private. To deny that is simply to turn one's back on reality. That is not the whole of the story. Let me put it another way. In democratic assemblies we accept unreservedly that the access of press and public to a debate is not only desirable but I go further and say it is essential.
912
It is ironic that I should be winding up and presenting the Government's case on this issue when in the whole of my public life I have fought above almost anything else for openness, for everything to be on the table; and I did not mind what was shown. I wanted everyone to have access to all the papers and to all the discussion—and, yes, the press. If anyone doubts this, I would refer to my record, if I may put it that way, in my former incarnation. As it happens, it was a tenet of all that I believed in in public work. I still think the same.
May I take a few moments to show why I reconcile without difficulty that passionate belief in openness in public debate with what we are proposing in the Bill? I know that the Committee will bear with me. I should like to put it this way. I know that there is a profound difference between local authorities and the authorities which we are constituting under the present Bill. We are taking the water authorities out of the local government area within which they have been located hitherto. I do not merely mean by this that the local authorities are losing the right to appoint a majority of members. It also means that we are turning the authorities from large gatherings—and we know about the 62 members in the case of the Thames authority—into small, executive boards.
Let me stress that this is in line with the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We are turning the meetings from being debating chamber in character into round table discussions. Meetings at present are relatively infrequent: four, five or six times a year. Much of the detailed work is done outside the main authority meetings which are almost like set piece debates. Under the new arrangements, authority meetings will tend to be more frequent and last longer. The relative informality and the presence of executive members on the boards will mean that much more of the detail of policies can he discussed by the authorities in their board meetings.
I would emphasise the importance of the executive members in this context. Their presence on the boards will represent a totally new departure, with an opportunity that has not been available hitherto for a detailed analysis of key policies with contributions from experts. In my submission, it is impossible that this process can be assisted by the presence of members of the press or of the public. I would ask your Lordships to imagine the sort of stilted conversation that must take place around the table in the knowledge that every word is being taken down and might appear in the following day's headlines.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made a very fair and reasoned speech and I agreed with a great deal of it. He said in effect: "You must be joking". He belittled it, but I would ask each and every one of your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of those who will be sitting round these tables in small meeting groups, in the knowledge that you are talking among yourselves and trying to hack out whatever may be on the table for discussion; and then compare that with doing the same thing when members of the press and public are listening to every word that is said. For anyone to say that it would not make any difference is really going beyond the bounds of credibility.
I am trying not to make a long dissertation on this but I think it is important for me to make one or two

913
observations. I should like to emphasise one point which I think has been under-appreciated; that is, when we are talking about the new consumer consultative committees we are not talking of what we have seen before. We are talking of something which would be a very significant step forward. The committees will be able to consider any water authority matter which affects the interests of people living in the area. This would include fundamental questions such as charging, financial policies and overall investment planning. It also includes more detailed local issues and individual complaints where these are not satisfactorily dealt with by the water authority—saving the presence of the ombudsman! The committees will include representatives of every local authority in the area as well as representatives from many other organisations. A combination of a wide remit and the sort of membership we have in mind will ensure that the committees are not just a forum for idle chitchat. They will be able to grapple effectively with the main items of water authority business.
There are to be many of these. The total number of consumer consultative committee meetings means that in a region of average size there would be more than twenty, as compared with the present number of four, five or six meetings of consumer committees, which is typical of what one finds now, generally speaking. We are talking of a new type of body which is there precisely for the purpose of making information available and giving an opportunity for the public to question in depth. So I would ask your Lordships not to omit that from your consideration of what has been said.
I am tempted to take up some of the points mentioned by my noble friends, such as: how do you equate a public company, a private company and public bodies of this kind? Perhaps I may just quickly give an illustration by referring to the recent, very sad, water industry dispute. Water authorities now will have to take stock and decide what lessons are to be learned. The process will be exactly the same as in any industry which has just gone through an agony of this kind. The newspaper industry—dare I say?—is one which has more than its share of industrial problems; indeed, it is a byword for them. They have been seriously afflicted with prolonged industrial disruptions of one kind or another and I would go so far as to say, such is the importance to this country of a free press, that the industrial troubles of Fleet Street are a matter of great significance to us all.
I have no doubt that industrial relations matters frequently feature on the agendas for board meetings, just as I predict they will in the water authorities up and down the country following the recent dispute. Yet we do not ask or expect that such board meetings should be open to the public. We do not expect that serious discussions on matters as delicate as industrial relations should take place in public, whatever the company or the public corporation.
As far as the principle is concerned, does it make any difference that these are public bodies that we are talking about? Are we to suppose that every public corporation shall conduct its affairs with the press sitting in the room? When I referred previously to this
914
and asked: "why not apply this to the Gas Board or to the Electricity Board?" some of your Lordships said: "Why not, indeed?". All right: why not apply it to British Rail, the Coal Board and all the other nationalised industries? To pursue that to its logical conclusion one would have to admit the press to meetings of the Court of Governors of the Bank of England, the Privy council, even the Cabinet because, after all, all these bodies are public bodies. I ask your Lordships each to consider again, would you be prepared to serve on an executive board like those of the water authorities, as we are altering them, dealing with detailed managerial matters, in the knowledge that the press will be there to listen to your every word?
Let me say just this to finish. I hope no one will think that we lightly or ill-advisedly put this provision into the Bill. No one would willingly, without the deepest and most careful thought, undertake something which he knew was likely to give concern to the press of this country. The press remains a singularly powerful lobby. I have had enough experience of public life to know that the press will print the last word, and I know how powerful that word can be. It is not with relish that I persist in espousing this course of action, but I do so, and the Government do so, because, in our view, it is right that water authorities should be given the same opportunities as other similar bodies to debate their affairs away from the spotlight of publicity. In practical terms, in the knowledge of how the executive boards will have to conduct their affairs, I submit this is the only way they can operate freely, as they must, if they are to be the effective bodies which we believe the water industry needs.
We intend, through the new role that I said we are giving the consumer councils, through the other measures we are proposing and, come to that, any other additional measures which it might be possible to use to publicise and involve those affected by the work of the water authorities to keep them and open up the affairs of these bodies. This issue was dealt with at length, was voted upon in the other place—the government having a substantial majority of over 50 on the Floor of the House. I ask your Lordships to accept from me the Government's willingness to open up the work of the new bodies as wide as, and wider than ever before, but, please, do not so restrict the practical administration of their working to the point where the objectives we are seeking become stultified. That is what I sincerely believe will be the result if this amendment were to be passed. I understand, indeed, the concern expressed by those who have spoken in support of the amendment. In turn, I hope that they will understand and equally respect my opinion that they need not be concerned in the way they fear.
Lord Ardwick: May I ask the Minister a question? Did I understand him aright in saying that the Government had not thought of this infamous proposal for themselves but that it was put into their heads by the Monopolies and Mergers commission? Is that what the noble Lord said?
Lord Bellwin: No, I did not say that.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I shall not keep the House very long because I think many noble Lords have expressed good points of view on why the press

915
should be allowed to attend the meetings. But there is one thing that I have not heard any noble Lord say, and nor did the Minister refer to it. Under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 the press has the right to receive the committee documents relating to those meetings to which it has access. Does that mean that because the press will not be admitted the documents will not be available to it? In many instances, articles written in the press are based upon the documents that are given to it. To my own knowledge of the Birmingham local authority it was always said that the documents that the committee members had must be in the hands of the press at the same time the committee members had them. The members would them be able, through the press, to draw the attention of the public to anything in the documents and the debates could be followed. If the documents are not available, then the press will be completely stifled and will not know what is going on. I should like to know whether the Minister is saying that, although the press cannot be there in the flesh, they can have the documents to consider.
I do not think that the noble Lord has given us the real burden of proof as to why the Government have come to this decision. The editors of local papers do an excellent job—the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has great knowledge of local papers—in the areas which they serve. They are not always taking a party line; they take a public line on what they think are important issues. To deprive local people of knowledge about what is going on in their locality is exactly the opposite to open government, which the Minister has tried to explain.
May I remind the noble Lord that the press are allowed to attend all rent tribunals. Normally there is a chairman and two other people and they are exposed to the full glare of publicity. Therefore, it is not a question of numbers. In fact, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said, some council meetings are attended by very small numbers of people. Again, as the noble Baroness said, the press are asked to leave certain meetings at all levels. Very often members are discussing a social services case which involves a certain child or a family and, because the local authority does not want the case to be the subject of public knowledge, the press will be asked to leave. One has to give credit to the press for understanding how public meetings are operated.
I should like to follow up what my noble friend Lord Ardwick said. We hope that these will be very efficient committees, after all we have heard about them, comprised of small groups of highly intelligent people. Heaven knows where the Secretary of State will find all these people—
Lord Bellwin: We have found them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The Government have found them. I sincerely hope that they will be more efficient. But is not that a reason for letting the public know? Will they not want to know how much more efficient these six or nine people are, than the 45 or 50 people? Will the Government not want the public to know that they are saving money and giving better service. I thought that would be the first thing that the Government would have wanted known. As my noble
916
friend Lord Ardwick asked, if the press cannot go to every meeting, might there not be a quarterly meeting with the press, at which the authority would say, "This is what we have put into operation. This is our long-term plan. Now fire away. We are all round the table and we will give our quarterly report"? That is something which the Minister could consider. With all due respect, I see the attitude of the noble Lord on the opposite Bench, but Members of his party have spoken at great length on this amendment.
As regards the consumer councils, I cannot see anything in the Bill—and, of course, we shall not know till the guidelines come—stating that the press cannot be admitted. There is nothing in the Bill about that. What a fine state of affairs we shall be in if the consumer councils open their doors to the press and the first thing they say is that they disagree violently with the recommendation which the water authorities have put forward and they then go into great detail about why they disagree with the recommendation. Will it not result in very lopsided reporting? If we are to have democracy in this country we must make sure that we obtain it through the press and through every other kind of media. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will consider favourably this point, just as he considered favourably the ombudsman amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In this debate it appears quite often to be my fate to expose the fact that the arguments of the noble Lord on the Front Bench hang together in a horrible way. The closing speech of the noble Lord the Minister was very helpful. He went to the heart of the matter. He exposed a basic flaw at the heart of the Bill. He may well be right in thinking that one cannot have this kind of reform without doing away with democracy—those are my words, not his—and without doing away with the freedom and access of the press to the procedures of Government. But if we cannot do that we should not have the Bill. It is the belief of those of us on this side of the Committee that if we cannot reject the Bill as a whole we can do something to lessen its bad effects if we include certain safeguards. They include the access of the press to the procedures of bodies which will be making decisions about our affairs and about taxes imposed upon us. Contrary to what one Back-Bencher on the other side said, they are taxes because they are applied, although possibly in only a minority of cases, where no water or sewerage services are provided. Although these cases are exceptional they do exist and it is a form of taxation.
We believe that the noble Lord's Bill and the authorities which it is proposed should be set up could operate, perhaps not so well as the noble Lord would like but perfectly adequately if the press were to be present. Whether they could or whether they could not, we believe it would be totally wrong and against an absolutely basic principle of democracy if we allowed the taxation without representation which is provided for in the Bill. We have had a look at the possibility of more representation. Perhaps that is not on the cards. The possibility, though, of having what is decided properly reported to us, and open to srcutiny, is open to us. Therefore we must press this amendment to a Division.
10.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 47.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCluskey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crathorne, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ridley, V.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Hemingford, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Inglewood, L.

Avon, E.

Ingrow, L.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Sandys, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Shannon, E.

Davidson, V.

Sherfield, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gainford, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Sherfield Lord Sherfield moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Research.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the water authorities to settle from time to time, in consultation with the Secretary of State, a general programme of research into matters affecting the discharge of their functions.
(2) It shall be the duty of the water authorities to secure the carrying out of any general programme settled by them under the preceding subsection; and for that purpose they may themselves conduct such research or make arrangements with any other persons for the conduct of such research.
(3) In this section "water authorities" means the regional water authorities in England, the Welsh Water Authority, and regional and islands councils in Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment to give effect to the findings in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology relating
918
to the water industry. The amendment has two main purposes: first, it would place an obligation on water authorities to draw up a collective research programme for the whole industry; secondly, it would ensure that they do this in consultation with Ministers, so that the interests and obligations of both parties are given their proper weight.
The committee's arguments are set out in detail in Chapter 6 of our report, and I do not think it necessary to rehearse them all now. Briefly, the committee found that the water industry has not given sufficient support to research and development; the Department of the Environment is not devoting enough interest or resources to research and development, either; and strategic research in particular—that is, long term research into a perceived problem—is being neglected. My amendment is designed to remedy these deficiencies.
The water authorities already have powers to carry out research, and excellent work is being done, both within individual authorities and at the Water Research Centre, which is the industry's research association. Further work is done elsewhere in the research councils or on commission. But there is no central focus or forum for the establishment of a general programme of research in fields of interest to the whole industry. The interests of the authorities separately are catered for: the interests of the authorities together are not.
The National Water Council, even though it had done little about research and development, was at least a potential forum for discussion of scientific and technological issues covering all the authorities. Its forthcoming disappearance will remove the only body which could have filled the vacuum. There is, of course, the Water Research Centre, but I detect a tendency to throw the whole burden of research on to this body. The Water Research Centre, good though it is, is too much involved as the executive research arm of the water industry to supply research leadership from a national standpoint. Anyway, I suggest that to leave everything to the Water Research Centre would be a mistaken policy. It has quite enough on its plate already, and is likely to have more.
The Association of Water Authorities, which is proposed to take the place of the National Water Council, will certainly not be equipped to initiate a corporate research programme. What is needed is a duty on the water authorities to draw up a general programme of research similar to the duty which the electricity and gas industries already have.
It is right that the primary responsibility should be on the industry. Ministers, however, are directly concerned, especially as proxy customer for strategic research in accordance with the Rothschild principle, representing wider interests than those of the water industry alone, and it is essential that the water authorities should discuss their research programme with Ministers. By this means the division of responsibility for research between the water authorities and Ministers should become much clearer than it is at present. It is also desirable that the research councils and university departments most concerned should be associated with the drafting and development of the research programme, but I do not think it is necessary to spell this out in the Bill.
It may be said by some noble Lords that the water authorities already have a power to carry out research under Section 24(10) of the Water Act 1973, and that Ministers have the power under Section 24(11) of that Act to give directions on the exercise of that power. But a power to carry out research is not at all the same as a duty, and a power to carry out research individually is not at all the same as a duty to draw up a research programme collectively and to carry it out. Furthermore, the Water Act does not extend to Scotland and it is important that the problems faced by the water industry in Scotland should be given as much attention as those in England and Wales. My amendment seeks to draw the Scottish water authorities, who are the regional and islands councils, into consultation with the English and Welsh water authorities so that common problems can be considered in the most economic and effective way.
I believe that the time has come for the water industry to draw up considered and comprehensive research programmes, and this is what my amendment should achieve. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who so ably chaired your Lordships' Select Committee inquiry into the water industry. I take his lead again and I shall refrain from quoting at large from the Select Committee's published report which is available. But I would draw attention to the key issue which is illustrated in, among other places, the series of questions and answers numbered 15 to 31 that appear on pages 17 to 19 of the evidence published with that report.
It appeared to the sub-committee of your Lordships' Select Committee that, even under existing arrangements with the National Water Council playing its role, there was a significant lacuna; that is, an inadequacy in the processes that ought to be provided for fruitful assessment or promotion of a long-term review of strategic research priorities in the water industry.
This is, of course, not to say at all that the Select Committee were unimpressed by the quality or the appropriateness of the research programmes that are currently in hand. In fact, the Select Committee saw a great deal that is of interest and clearly of importance in this area during their visits to the Water Research Centre and to water authorities. But as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has emphasised, it is natural that any water authority should tend to concentrate its research effort on problems that are of topical or local interest and priority.
While the Water Research Centre provides a vital central service in unified general research into relevant subjects, it is in fact not the rôle of this body to undertake the overall review of research strategies. This task, it seemed to your Lordships' Committee, is clearly one that must be a function of the Secretary of State. The amendment proposes a mechanism to ensure that this function is properly carried out and that the Secretary of State is given the means to do so.
My noble friend on the Front Bench may detect that there is a certain double edge to the amendment: while it lays a duty on the water authorities, clearly it also places a reciprocal obligation on the Secretary of State.
920
But I hope he will agree that it is not any the worse for that.
The Earl of Shannon: Although I am not a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee I, too, should like strongly to support the concept of this amendment, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate when the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was kind enough to tell us that he would be moving this amendment and the subsequent one during the Committee stage. If, however, I do have a criticism against this amendment it is that it could be even more specific.
It is quite undeniable that an industry such as the water industry must have areas where there is a requirement for common strategic research. It is only intelligent that we should make provision now, officially and centrally, to co-ordinate these requirements into a single research programme. The general interests of all water authorities must be covered by this programme in matters affecting the long-term needs of the industry. If we do not make provision now so that there are means to make good the currently, I understand, somewhat neglected long-term strategic research in the industry, we are only going to be left with a collection of ad hoc bits of programmes which concern immediate, pressing and often local problems of individual authorities. I beg strongly to support the amendment.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: It falls to my lot for the third time this week in your Lordships' House to return to the subject of research. All that I can say tonight is that it has been well worth waiting in the wings. At this time of night I am unable to answer this very important amendment which, as we have heard, comes from the deliberations of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, quite as fully as I would had we been at an earlier stage in the afternoon. Nonetheless, I have listened with very great interest to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, in support of his amendment in connection with research. They speak with all the authority of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. The department will, of course, in due course and in the usual way, be making a full reply to that Committee's recent, and, let me say, "meaty", report on the water industry which was presented on 15th December last. It raises a wide range of important issues, but the present debate is concerned only with research as such, and is the subject of its sixth chapter. I shall confine myself to this subject. I should say straightaway to both the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who both supported the concept of the amendment, that so do the Government.
The Government are glad to endorse the committee's tribute to the Water Research Centre, both as regards a research programme carried out in the centre's three laboratories at Stevenage, Medmenham and Swindon, and as regards its ability to identify the needs of the industry and take the necessary steps to meet them. The Government consider that it is one of the strengths of the Water Research Centre that it concerns itself not only with research needs which it

921
can itself fulfil, but that it also concerns itself to identify gaps and longer term problems which can be researched elsewhere, and acts as a broker for the industry in securing that such research is carried out in other institutions. There is now a round of discussions in the autumn of each year with the separate parts of the water industry. From this consultative process the centre's officers draw up for the approval of the council as a whole their proposals for the research programme.
Your Lordships' Select Committee identified certain obstacles to the water industry's research programmes, and I should like to say something about these. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has of course commented on them this evening. These views should be set in the context of the law as it stands and of the present situation. As he said, the key statutory provision is in the Water Act 1973 at Section 24(10), which says:
"Each water authority shall make arrangements for the carrying out of research and related activities …".
In spite of what the noble Lord said, that is quite clearly a duty. It continues:
"… and in particular … may make"—
and there is a power coming here—
"arrangements for the carrying out of research and related activities … by subscribing or otherwise financially contributing to an organisation formed for that purpose.".
Subsection (11) says:
"The appropriate Minister or Ministers may give directions to a water authority with respect to the making of arrangements under subsection (10) above.".
Again, I agree with the noble Lord, this is a power. This section of the 1973 Act also includes requirements on water authorities to carry out surveys; to submit for the approval of Ministers concerned plans and programmes of a general nature. In practice, water authorities submit an annual plan to the Secretary of State for the Environment every March to serve as a basis, among other things, for the annual review of public expenditure.
In the Government's view this statutory framework provides that the English and Welsh water authorities, collectively and individually, can carry out appropriate research. Each has the power to do it for itself, and there are the powers and arrangements for common needs to be met at whatever end of the research spectrum they may lie. It is natural that water authorities should undertake for themselves such research whose objective is the application of research results to a specific problem. There is nothing to stop them from carrying out in common or individually work to develop techniques from a research level to the level of application. But much of that sort of work is best carried out on a common basis, and the research establishment is the natural place for research into a perceived problem (whether of a long or short-term character).
The committee considers that there has been a gap left in the field of strategic research and that, with the winding up of the National Water Council, the department should take on a responsibility for assuming the existence of a long-term research strategy in the water industry, taking account of the needs of that industry and of the interests affected by the
922
industry's activities. The Government will accept this recommendation.
The department will take steps to establish what is needed by way of long-term strategic research and see that it is carried out. The most appropriate mechanism and procedures are for consideration. The Water Research Centre, on whose council come together representatives of all the water undertakings and also the industrial and governmental interests concerned, have an important part to play in identifying long-term strategic needs and priorities.
I turn next to the research programmes of individual authorities. Noble Lords will note that under the existing powers in Section 24 of the Water Act research activities and programmes could be included in the annual plans already submitted to the Government by water authorities. Leaving on one side the question whether it is necessary, or desirable, for every water company and all the Scottish water undertakings to prepare programmes of research for discussion with Government departments, I believe your Lordships will agree with us that the statutory framework is already adequate to get the water authorities to prepare research programmes and to carry them out. It is the Government's intention, consistently with what I have said about their taking a more forward position on water research, to act on the committee's conclusions, and within the present legislation to get individual authorities to draw up and carry out research programmes of their own. As proposed by the committee we would also require them to include statements of their research activities in their annual reports.
In this context. I should briefly tell the Committee that the Government are also ready to accept the committee's view that there should be more spent on research relevant to the water industry and the water services. The committee identified certain gaps and priorities, and pointed to areas where it would be useful or wise to do more. Without going into further detail at this stage, I should like to say that the Government will be approaching both the question of long-term strategic research and the matter of research appropriate for the water undertakings themselves, whether individually or collectively, on the footing that a higher level of expenditure is indicated if certain needs are to be met.
I hope that the Committee will agree that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of your Lordships' Select Committee in this respect. I realises that it is probably too late to come to a decision on this matter tonight, and that what I have said will repay careful study, not only by noble Lords who have spoken but also, I suspect, by myself because it is quite likely that I have got myself into more of a muddle than I intended. At this point I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, will agree that the principal difficulties over research programmes which his recent report identified can, and will, be overcome without need of this amendment.
Lord Sherfield: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I am also glad to hear that the department is studying the report of the Select Committee and in due course will give a full response to it. As regards his reply to the amendment, of course

923
I am aware of the powers under the terms of the 1973 Act. At the same time, the committee discovered some quite serious gaps in the research programme. These gaps have continued during the currency of the 1973 Act, which suggest that perhaps it has not been effective, or perhaps it has not been applied as well as it might have been.
There is a great difference between a duty and the use of a power, or of a direction, or directives, to nationalised industries and parallel bodies. I know, having been in the equivalent position to a head of a nationalised industry, that Ministers are reluctant to give directives, and from the point of view of a nationalised industry that is a happy situation and one to be encouraged. But at the same time there is this reluctance to use powers, so I am not sure that I am satisfied on this point.
However, the Minister gave some clear indications of an intention to move in the direction of what the committee wants. I accept his suggestion that there should be an opportunity to study the statement that he has made this evening with the prospect of returning to the matter on Report. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Sherfield Lord Sherfield moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Water research association.
To assist the execution of their duties under section (Research), the water authorities, as defined in that section, shall be members of a research association approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment in a sense follows its predecessor. It arises from another recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and deals with a particular, rather than a general, point. All water authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, with the exception of the islands councils, belong to the Water Research Centre, which is the industry's principal research arm. They do so voluntarily. Although voluntary membership has some advantages, the committee felt that the Water Research Centre could not operate effectively while it was subject to threats of withdrawal from its major constituents. There have been such threats, more than once. We also felt that research planning could be improved if there was a long-term commitment to membership of the Water Research Centre.
The committee found that insufficient resources were being devoted to research and develpment in the water industry, and in particular to the Water Research Centre. This amendment therefore seeks to ensure that the water authorities are committed to the Water Research Centre and pay their share of the industry's costs. I do not regard this as an undue burden on the water authorities. Since they have a four-to-one majority on the council of the Water Research Centre, they effectively control its policy. To quote the committee's report:
"The control exercised by the water authorities' voting strength is a quite sufficient lever on Water Research Centre policy without it having to be recognised by threats of secession".
The amendment includes the Scottish islands
924
councils. If, however, the position of the islands councils is very different—and it may be—from that of the mainland authorities, I would not object to their exemption from the duty of membership. I beg to move.
The Earl of Shannon: I regret that, unlike the previous amendment, I cannot support this one, as I gave notice on Second Reading, when the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, gave notice of his intention to move it. I outlined my reasons at the time, but I had better repeat them. First, such an amendment would achieve very little. As the noble Lord said, the authorities are already all in voluntary membership of the Water Research Centre.
Secondly, experience has shown that the best co-operative research associations are those with an active, interested and satisfied membership who subscribe voluntarily. We must be careful not to incur the danger of creating a resentful attitude among the authorities through compulsory membership, with the possibility of a very disturbing effect on the other members if the organisation were forced to have in membership one who wished to resign. All research associations have to live with the threat of resignation by their major members. It keeps them on their toes and makes them determined to satisfy the needs of their industries.
Thirdly, my personal experience abroad has shown me the commercially debilitating effect on research organisations where they have a guaranteed income. For the sake of good relations with our many sister nations in the European Community, I think it would be better if I did not delineate some of those organisations now, though I could easily do so. When such an organisation has a guaranteed income, it tends to lose interest in its industry. It starts doing programmes of interesting, but academic work, divorced from the realities of the industry for which it works. I think we must not overlook the very good and valuable intentions of this amendment, but the Water Research Centre wishes to continue to show their value to their industry and to keep the authorities in voluntary membership. I think we ought to applaud their confidence in their own capabilities and not force them to accept captive members whom, I understand, they are not wildly keen on having.
Lord Skelmersdale: Much of what I said on the last amendment is relevant also to this amendment, which as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has just said, moves from the general to the particular. This second new clause would require water authorities in England and Wales and Scotland, and also water companies, to belong to a water research association, such as the Water Research Centre.
Section 24 of the 1973 Water Act which I have quoted explicitly provides powers for water authorities to belong to or contribute to an organisation formed for the purpose of carrying out water research. The question is whether the enabling power we have is sufficient or whether we need a mandatory duty to subscribe and belong. Much of what I was going to say has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, whose support I obviously welcome in this respect; but as to this basic question I must first draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that all the water

925
authorities in England and Wales are members of the WRC and, indeed, wholehearted members. So, too, are the water companies and the Scottish water undertakings: a point slightly queried in his own amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. I am told that on occasion the possibility of staying out or dropping out has been considered. It has never happened.
On occasion the leading lights of the WRC have expressed anxiety at the possiblity of an authority dropping out, with a consequent loss of subscription income. It is true that if that happened, the undertaking would still be able to get considerable and free benefit from the WRC's published work. Nevertheless, it is also healthy that the WRC should have to satisfy its subscribers, and that the subscribers should not be locked by statute into membership; and it is greatly to the WRC's credit that it has been able to retain its members on that basis. This is a slightly different point from that made by the noble Earl. I must tell him and the Committee generally that the chairman of the council of the WRC has recently told my ministerial colleagues that he is not in favour of compulsory membership, and that is laudable. But my principal point is that compulsory membership is not necessary.
That does not mean that anyone could take lightly the desire of a major subscriber to abandon membership of the Water Research Centre. There would be something wrong somewhere if that possibility were seriously contemplated. That is why, in another place, and speaking on this Bill, my honourable friend, the Under-Secretary of State pointed to the power in Section 24 to direct a water authority in respect of its arrangements for research and said that this Government are prepared to use that power should it ever be necessary. But I am bound to add that we believe this to be an entirely theoretical possibility.
This new clause also seems unnecessary because we believe the position of the Water Research Centre to be assured wilthout it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, will agree with that.
Lord Sherfield: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I have also listened with great attention to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who has great experience of the nature and the habits of research associations. The committee, in making this recommendation, took account of certain observations that were made by certain people; but I understand from what the Minister said that the Water Research Centre is not itself now in favour of any such compulsory membership by water authorities. I also took particular note of the Minister's statement that a power does exist—although he thought it was a theoretical possibility—to oblige a water authority to subscribe.
Lord Skelmersdale: May I interrupt the noble Lord one second? Although the power exists, I did not say that it was a theoretical power. I said that its use was probably theoretical because it would not be required.
Lord Sherfield: I think that all I need to say is that
926
I hope there will not be any backsliding by a water authority in this connection. In the belief that if there is the department will be man enough to make it pay up, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think the Committee has made enough progress for one night, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  THE SPECIAL CONSTABULARY
  THE SPECIAL CONSTABULARY
  WAKEFIELD PRISON: CATEGORY A PRISONERS
  WAKEFIELD PRISON: CATEGORY A PRISONERS
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1982: APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1982: APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND
  IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT TRIAL: REPRESENTATIONS
  IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT TRIAL: REPRESENTATIONS
  TURF: REMOVAL AND SALE
  TURF: REMOVAL AND SALE
  WATER AUTHORITIES: OVERSEAS ACTIVITY GUIDELINES
  WATER AUTHORITIES: OVERSEAS ACTIVITY GUIDELINES